BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                             Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
                              2011-2012 Regular Session


          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          As Introduced 
          Hearing Date: June 19, 2012
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          NR
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                    Victims of Stalking: Address Confidentiality

                                      DESCRIPTION
                                           
          Existing law establishes an address confidentiality program, 
          operated by the Secretary of State, to which victims of domestic 
          violence, sexual assault, or stalking may apply.  

          This bill would remove the requirement that victims alleging 
          stalking as the basis of their eligibility for the address 
          confidentiality program provide specific attached evidence to 
          the application.  This bill would make the inclusion of specific 
          evidence in these applications permissive.

                                      BACKGROUND  

          With the passage of SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), the 
          California State Legislature established the Safe at Home 
          Program within the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) to 
          allow victims of domestic violence to apply for a substitute 
          address to be used in public records in order to prevent their 
          assailants, or potential assailants, from finding their work or 
          home address.  Through subsequent legislation, the program has 
          been expanded to include victims of sexual assault, stalking, 
          and reproductive health care service providers, employees, 
          volunteers and patients.  (See SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 
          2000), AB 205 (Leach, Ch. 33, Stats. of 2000), and AB 797 
          (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002).)

          Upon successful application, a program participant is certified 
          to remain in the program for four years, subject to early 
                                                                (more)



          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          Page 2 of ?



          termination or withdrawal, and must re-certify pursuant to the 
          SOS's renewal process if he or she wishes to continue in the 
          program beyond the four-year enrollment period.  For victims not 
          yet of the age of majority or incapacitated persons, a parent or 
          guardian may apply to enroll the victim into the program.  

          Under existing law, victims alleging domestic violence or sexual 
          assault as the basis of their eligibility for the program must 
          include, in their application, a sworn statement that he or she 
          has good reason to believe that he or she is a victim of 
          domestic violence or sexual assault, and fears for his or her 
          safety, as specified. 

          Applicants alleging stalking as the basis of eligibility for the 
          program are held to a different standard.  Applicants alleging 
          stalking must include, in addition to the sworn statement, 
          specific evidence such as police, court, or other government 
          agency records or files; documentation from legal, clerical, 
          medical, or other professionals from whom the applicant sought 
          assistance in dealing with the alleged stalking; or any other 
          evidence that supports the sworn statement alleging that the 
          applicant is a victim of stalking.  Stalking, however, can take 
          many different forms, and therefore may be difficult to prove.

          The National Institute of Justice describes stalking as: 

             a crime of power and control. Stalking is conservatively 
             defined as a course of conduct directed at a specific person 
             that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or 
             physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, 
             written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that 
             would cause a reasonable person fear. Stalking behaviors also 
             may include persistent patterns of leaving or sending the 
             victim unwanted items or presents that may range from 
             seemingly romantic to bizarre, following or laying in wait 
             for the victim, damaging or threatening to damage the 
             victim's property, defaming the victim's character, or 
             harassing the victim via the Internet by posting personal 
             information or spreading rumors about the victim. National 
             Institute of Justice, Stalking,  Visited may 30, 2012.)

          Thus, because of the nature of the crime, stalking may be nearly 
          impossible to document.  Taken individually, many instances of 
          stalking are not illegal or may not seem threatening to 
          outsiders.  Therefore, victims who reasonably fear for their 
                                                                      



          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          Page 3 of ?



          safety may not feel justified in reporting incidents to law 
          enforcement, law enforcement may not fully understand the 
          situation, or the evidence of a threat may disappear by the time 
          help arrives.

          This bill seeks to remedy this problem by making the inclusion 
          of specific evidence in an application alleging stalking as the 
          basis of enrollment in the Safe at Home Program optional.  
          Accordingly this bill would conform the application requirements 
          for applicants alleging stalking to those for applicants 
          alleging domestic violence as the basis of their eligibility. 

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  establishes an address confidentiality program, 
          operated by the Secretary of State, to which victims of domestic 
          violence, sexual assault, or stalking may apply.  The program 
          enables state and local agencies to respond to requests for 
          public records without disclosing a program participant's 
          residential address contained in any public record and otherwise 
          to provide for confidentiality of that person's identity.  (Gov. 
          Code Sec. 6205 et seq.)  

           Existing law  provides that upon proper application and 
          certification, applicants will be certified in the program for 
          four years, unless certification is withdrawn or invalidated.  
          (Gov. Code Sec. 6205(c).)

           Existing law  provides that any records or documents pertaining 
          to a program participant shall be retained and held confidential 
          for a period of three years after termination of certification 
          of participation in the program, and then destroyed, as 
          specified.  (Gov. Code Sec. 6206.5.)

           Existing law  requires that an applicant to the address 
          confidentiality program based on domestic violence, sexual 
          assault or stalking complete an application in person at a 
          community-based victims' assistance program.  Applicants are 
          required to meet with a victims' assistance counselor and 
          receive orientation information about the program.  Requires the 
          application to include a sworn statement that the applicant has 
          good reason to believe that he or she is a victim of domestic 
          violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and fears for his or her 
          safety.  (Gov. Code Sec. 6206(a).)

           Existing law  provides that a domestic violence or sexual assault 
                                                                      



          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          Page 4 of ?



          applicant may provide specified evidence with the application to 
          the address confidentiality program.  (Gov. Code Sec. 
          6206(a)(2).)

           Existing law  requires a stalking applicant to provide evidence 
          with the application, including, but not limited to:  police, 
          court, or other government agency records or files; 
          documentation from legal, clerical, medical, or other 
          professionals from whom the applicant sought assistance in 
          dealing with the alleged stalking; or any other evidence that 
          supports the sworn statement alleging that the applicant is a 
          victim of stalking.  (Gov. Code Sec. 6206(a)(3).)

           This bill  would remove the requirement that victims alleging 
          stalking as the basis for eligibility in the Safe at Home 
          Program provide evidence supporting allegations of stalking in 
          their application.
          
                                        COMMENT
           
           1.Stated need for the bill
           
          In support of this bill the author writes:

             Current law treats stalking victim participants of the Safe 
             at Home Program differently than other program participants 
             (those who have been victims of domestic violence, sexual 
             assault, or were clinicians at abortion clinics).  Stalking 
             is one of the most difficult crimes to document.  For 
             consistency of the law and to ensure that stalking victims 
             have access to the program without having to provide medical 
             or police records, we should change statute to remove this 
             requirement.   

           2.Victims of stalking face challenges in producing evidence of 
            stalking

           This bill would remove the requirement that applicants to the 
          Safe at Home Program, who allege stalking as the basis for 
          eligibility, include supporting evidence in their applications 
          to the program.  In effect, the proposed change would make the 
          application process and evidentiary standard the same for 
          victims of stalking as for victims of domestic violence or 
          sexual assault. 

          As background, SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. of 2000) 
                                                                      



          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          Page 5 of ?



          extended the protections of the Secretary of State's address 
          confidentiality program to victims of stalking.  Simultaneously, 
          SB 1318 also eliminated the requirement that victims of domestic 
          violence and sexual assault must attach specific evidence to 
          their applications documenting the violence.  In support of that 
          change in application requirements, the Secretary of State 
          contended, "that such documentary proof should not be required, 
          because the sworn statement and acknowledgment that providing 
          false and misleading information is publishable as a misdemeanor 
          should be sufficient to deter those who would use Ýthe Safe at 
          Home Program] for purposes other than intended.  Removing the 
          proof requirement would encourage more participants to the 
          program." (Sen. Com. on Judiciary analysis of Sen. Bill 1318 
          (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 20, 2000, p. 6.)  The 
          application requirements for victims of stalking, however, were 
          unaltered. 

          Concerning the different application requirements for victims of 
          stalking, this Committee's analysis noted that "there is a need 
          for even stronger documentation of stalking. ? Because stalking 
          can be alleged without the victim having actually Ýbeen] seen, 
          been in contact with, or be acquainted with the victim, some 
          documentation of this activity, other than the victim's 
          statement, should be required.  Otherwise, someone who is simply 
          afraid of the dark, or his shadow, as an extreme but not 
          impossible example, could successfully enroll in the ÝSafe at 
          Home] program?"  (Id. at 7-8.)

          In response, the author contends that "to enroll in the program, 
          a participant has to enroll via an enrolling agency which must 
          be a registered 501(c)3 California non-profit agency with a 
          focus on victim services or be in a county victim/witness 
          assistance program."  Arguably, the victim assistance counselors 
          at these enrolling agencies who provide one-on-one assistance 
          may help redirect individuals who would be better served by a 
          different program or service.  

          Furthermore, as a matter of policy, the law should not exclude 
          actual victims of stalking by creating additional hurdles 
          because individuals with insufficient evidence may be eligible 
          to the program.  Maintaining an evidentiary requirement, for the 
          purpose of excluding those who believe they are in danger, but 
          are not actually being stalked, arguably creates barriers for 
          actual victims of stalking seeking protection.  In support of 
          this bill, the Domestic Abuse Center argues that 
          "Ýunfortunately, victims of stalking are still required by 
                                                                      



          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          Page 6 of ?



          statute to document the crime - a task that, oftentimes, is 
          close to impossible.  Stalking is one of the most difficult 
          crimes to document.  This oversight puts stalking victims in 
          needless danger."  The Police Chiefs Association, also in 
          support, adds that "Ýt]he unintended consequence of this current 
          requirement is to chill the willingness of stalking victims to 
          come forward." The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office 
          contends that their "office does not believe there is any 
          legitimate reason why stalking victims should have a higher 
          burden of proof to avail themselves of a law that will keep 
          their whereabouts unknown to their stalkers." 

          Understandably, the Legislature proceeded with caution in 
          expanding the protections of the address confidentiality program 
          to applicants alleging stalking as the basis for their 
          eligibility.  However, after more than a decade, there is ample 
          evidence and experience to reevaluate the application 
          requirements for victims of stalking. Arguably, the requirement 
          that victims of stalking attach specified evidence to their 
          applications creates a significant hurdle to their enrollment in 
          the Safe at Home Program. 


           Support  :  California Coalition Against Sexual Assault; 
          California District Attorneys Association; California 
          Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California Police Chiefs 
          Association; California Probation, Parole and Correctional 
          Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; Chief 
          Probation Officers of California; Domestic Abuse Center; Los 
          Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Peace Officers 
          Research Association of California

           Opposition  :  None Known

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Author

           Related Pending Legislation  :  AB 906 (Galgiani) would authorize 
          witnesses who have testified in murder trials to participate in 
          the Safe at Home program.  This bill is held in the Senate 
          Appropriations Suspense file.  

           Prior Legislation  :

          SB 489 (Alpert, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 1998) See Background.
                                                                      



          AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
          Page 7 of ?




          SB 1318 (Alpert, Chapter 562, Statutes of 2000) See Background.

          AB 205 (Leach, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2000) See Background.

          AB 792 (Shelley, Chapter 380, Statutes of 2002) See Background. 

          SB 1062 (Bowen, Chapter 639, Statutes of 2006) added victims of 
          sexual assault to the list of eligible Safe at Home program 
          participants.
           
          Prior Vote  :

          Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 0)
          Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

                                   **************