BILL ANALYSIS
SB 748
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 748 (Leno) - As Amended: July 13, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Judiciary 10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill provides additional protections for persons
participating in the California Witness Relocation and
Assistance Program (WRAP - formerly known as the CA Witness
Protection Program). Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2,500
and/or up to six months in county jail, for any person or
private entity to post on the Internet personal identifying
information that discloses the location of any witness or
family member participating in the WRAP, with the intent that
another person use that information to commit a crime
involving violence or a threat of violence against a witness
or a witness' family member.
If a violation leads to the bodily injury of the witness, or
the witness' family members, the misdemeanor is punishable by
a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to one year in county jail.
2)Requires, upon admission to WRAP, local or state prosecutors
to provide each participant a written opt-out form for
submission to the relevant Internet search engine entities.
This form shall notify entities of the protected person and
prevent the inclusion of the participant's addresses and
telephone numbers in public Internet search databases.
3)Makes failure of a person, business, or entity to remove the
home address or telephone number of a WRAP participant within
48 hours of receipt of the opt-out form subject to a $5,000
civil penalty for each violation, and requires that a person,
SB 748
Page 2
business or entity not repost this information, as specified.
4)Authorizes a witness whose home address or telephone number
becomes public as a result of a violation of this section to
seek injunctive or declaratory relief.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, likely minor nonreimbursable local incarceration
costs, offset by fine revenue.
2)Unknown state trial court costs to the extent this measure
results in additional court actions.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends current law does not protect
WRAP participants from public disclosure on the Internet.
According to the author. "Across California, witnesses to
violent crime heroically take risks to testify against their
perpetrators and bring justice forward. These witnesses
deserve the fullest protection of the law.
"With the continual expansion and advancement of technology,
gang, drug, and interpersonal violence is no longer limited to
the streets. Increasingly, gang members and violent offenders
are using technology to search for witnesses or victims who
may testify or have testified against them. Gang members have
used internet search engines that specialize in finding people
to locate witnesses who may not be aware their personal
information is available."
2)Current law establishes WRAP, administered by the Department
of Justice (DOJ). WRAP provides that in any criminal
proceeding where credible evidence exists of a substantial
danger that a witness may suffer intimidation or retaliatory
violence, DOJ may reimburse state and local agencies for the
costs of providing witness protection services.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 748
Page 3