BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 74|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 74
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 8/16/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMM. : 9-1, 6/28/11
AYES: Anderson, Calderon, Corbett, De León, Evans,
Hernandez, Strickland, Wyland, Yee
NOES: Wright
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Cannella, Padilla
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/26/11 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Public events: event action plan
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires any state agency holding an
event with expected attendance over 10,000 to conduct a
threat assessment, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law generally authorizes state
agencies, including district agricultural associations, to
allow private individual or corporations to hold events on
state property.
This bill :
CONTINUED
AB 74
Page
2
1. Requires state agencies, including district agricultural
associations and any joint powers authorities that
include a district agricultural association (i.e., the
LA Memorial Coliseum Commission) to conduct a threat
assessment at a regularly scheduled meeting at least 30
days prior to an event that is expected to draw over
10,000 people.
2. Specifies that the threat assessment shall consider,
among others, the following topics:
Prior events held by the promoter.
Prior events held at the facility.
Similar types of events in general.
The potential need for law enforcement and onsite medical
care.
The potential for drug use and distribution.
3. Requires the event promoter to develop an event action
plan if the state agency determines there is a strong
probability that loss of life or harm to participants
could occur.
4. Provides that the promoter shall not hold the event
until the state agency approves the event action plan.
5. Requires the event action plan to consider:
A. Health and safety concerns whether the promoter
should provide free water, prohibit minors from
attending, or provide onsite medical care.
B. Law enforcement concerns if there is a reasonable
ratio of peace officers or security guards to event
attendees, and mechanisms for control of drug use and
trafficking.
C. The potential need to supply educational pamphlets
or other relevant emergency materials, such as first
aid, to help alleviate risk.
6. Specifies that if the event places performers at risk,
such as a rodeo or monster truck rally, the event action
AB 74
Page
3
plan is not required to address that risk.
7. Exempts gun shows from the requirements of this
legislation.
8. Authorizes the state agency to charge the promoter a fee
that does not exceed the reasonable costs to the state
agency to prepare the threat assessment, or to review
the event action plan, and exempts a certain type of
event from these requirements.
Comments
Ecstasy . Among other things, the death of Sasha Rodriguez,
a 15-year old girl who attended the June 2010 Electric
Daisy Carnival at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
prompted the introduction of this bill. The young girl
died of an apparent overdose of Ecstasy, which, according
to the Los Angeles Times "draws attention to connection
between raves and Ecstasy." The Times article contends that
"the connection between drug use and raves - massive dance
parties that feature electronic music and sometimes last 12
hours - is well-documented. Some who attend consider the
use of Ecstasy integral to the experience...."
Although recent national data indicate that Ecstasy use has
been falling or flat since 2001, the Times article suggests
that it is on the rise in Los Angeles County: "In 2005,
4.5 of every 10,000 people entering treatment for substance
abuse in Los Angeles County said Ecstasy was their primary
drug of choice. By 2009, it was 33.6 - more than seven
times as many." The increase in use of Ecstasy among
people entering treatment for drug abuse is an increase of
over 600 percent over five years, but that means use went
from 0.045 percent to 0.336 percent.
A strong argument can be made that this small increase in
the use of Ecstasy does not qualify as an epidemic
mandating that promoters of concerts and music festivals in
public forums prepare formal event plans in order to get an
event permit.
Federal anti-RAVE statute . In 2003, President Bush signed
then-Senator Joe Biden's Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation
AB 74
Page
4
Act, which was a renamed version of the Reducing Americans'
Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act that had failed passage
in Congress the year before.
Among other things, the Act prohibits "knowingly opening,
maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing,
making available for use, or profiting from any place for
the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any
controlled substance." Violators are subject to $250,000
or more in civil penalties, a criminal fine of up to
$500,000, and a prison sentence of up to 20 years. The
existence of this strict federal law raises a question
concerning the need for additional state restrictions on
events in state public forums.
Liability . The author contends that California lacks
statewide public safety standards for high-risk events held
on state property, yet the state remains accountable and
subject to liability claims when incidents occur. The
author states that this bill helps the state address the
issues facing high-risk events held on state property,
while not banning or discriminating against any event.
Enactment of statutory requirements for state officials to
conduct threat assessments and to approve promoter event
action plans would not diminish appreciably the state's
exposure in personal injury litigation in the event of
incidents arising from the events contemplated in the
action plans.
Moreover, the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) recently adopted best practices for use by the
network of California fairs. According to its cover letter
accompanying the guidelines, CDFA compiled them "in an
attempt to minimize risk and unnecessary Ýliability]
exposure to fairs and their respective communities."
The Committee may wish to consider whether the CDFA
guidelines obviate the need for a statutory mandate that
fairs conduct threat assessments prior to concert events.
Special requirements on musical events . Some courts have
looked unfavorably on imposition of special requirements on
specific musical events. For example, in Cinevision Corp.
AB 74
Page
5
v. City of Burbank (9th Cir. 1984) 745 F.2d 560, the court
found among other things that:
"ÝA] general fear that state or local narcotics or other
laws will be broken by people attending the concerts cannot
justify a content-based restriction on expression. See,
e.g., Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975) 420
U.S. 546; Gay Students Organization v. Bonner (1st Cir.
1974) 509 F.2d 652. 'In our system, undifferentiated fear
or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome
the right to freedom of expression.' Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969) 393 U.S. 503.
Normally, law enforcement officers can deal adequately and
effectively with unlawful activity of that nature at the
time it occurs. That is a proper exercise of the police
power; censorship is not. Even if the performers planned
to advocate unlawful, subversive activities, which the City
has not alleged here, that expression could only be
suppressed if it were directed at producing, and were
likely to produce, imminent lawless action. See, e.g.,
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444."
Related legislation :
AB 1941 (Havice), of 2001-02 Session, would have
established requirements for issuing a local permit for a
"rave party," defined as an electronic music dance event at
which 500 or more persons may attend. (Failed passage in
Senate Public Safety Committee)
AB 1714 (Soto), 1999-2000 Session, would have required a
business or person that conducts concerts at a facility
that meets certain criteria to, among other things, have
onsite an emergency medical technician during the entire
concert performance, while any attendees are present, and
have a first aid center that can accommodate up to 10
people at a time for purposes of providing first aid.
(Hearing cancelled by author)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/11)
AB 74
Page
6
California Medical Association
California Peace Officers Association
San Mateo County Police Chiefs' & Sheriff's Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
a growing number of drug-related young adult and teen
deaths, hospitalizations, and arrests have occurred as the
result of late or all-night dance parties (also known as
raves) in California, many held on state-owned property.
The author's office states that, according to the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), many young adults and
teenagers attending raves and all-night dance parties are
using "club drugs" such as Ecstasy, LSD, GHB (gamma
hydroxybutyrate), ketamine, and the like. According to the
author's office the NIDA and other studies demonstrate that
such drugs can pose serious health risks including death,
coma, amnesia, addiction, physical dependency and long term
problems.
The author's office notes that in the last year, there have
been several high profile deaths at raves in California,
including the death of a 15-year-old in Los Angeles. At
two events where deaths occurred, the Cow Palace and the LA
Coliseum, there were also 125 hospitalizations. While both
the Cow Place and the LA Coliseum had placed moratoriums on
raves and rave-like events, the LA Coliseum rescinded its
moratorium last fall.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/26/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Feuer,
Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams,
AB 74
Page
7
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Cedillo, Davis, Gorell, Jones
PQ:do 8/17/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****