BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
5
5
SB 1551 (Vargas) 1
As Amended March 29, 2012
Hearing date: April 17, 2012
Penal Code
AA:dl
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE:
REPORTING OF CRIMES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1422 (Torlakson) - Ch. 477, Stats. 2000
Support: Unknown
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; Child and
Family Protection Association
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A NEW MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY BE ENACTED WHICH REQUIRES ANY
COMPETENT ADULT 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO REPORT CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE WHEN THEY BECOME "AWARE OF INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT WOULD
CAUSE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE," AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to enact a new crime - punishable as
a misdemeanor or a felony depending upon the circumstances - for
any competent adult 18 years of age or older to fail to report
within 72 hours child sexual abuse when they become "aware of
information or evidence that would cause a reasonable suspicion
of child sexual abuse," as specified.
Current law generally requires any person who reasonably
believes that he or she has observed the commission of a murder,
rape or forcible molestation against a child under the age of 14
years to notify a peace officer, as specified. These provisions
do not apply to a person who is related to either the victim or
the offender, including a husband, wife, parent, child, brother,
sister, grandparent, grandchild, or other person related by
consanguinity or affinity; a person who fails to report based on
a reasonable mistake of fact; or a person who fails to report
based on a reasonable fear for his or her own safety or for the
safety of his or her family. Violation of this provision is a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,500, by
imprisonment in jail for not more than six months, or by both
that fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code � 152.3.)
Current law also establishes the Child Abuse and Neglect
Reporting Act ("CANRA"), which generally is intended to protect
children from abuse and neglect. (Penal Code � 11164.)
Current law requires "mandated reporters" to make reports of
suspected child abuse or neglect, as specified. (Penal Code �
11165.9.)
Current law provides that, except as specified, "a mandated
reporter shall make a report . . . whenever the mandated
reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the
scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a
child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects
has been the victim of child abuse or neglect." (Penal Code �
11166(a).)
Current law enumerates 40 categories of persons who are mandated
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageC
child abuse and neglect reporters. <1> (Penal Code � 11165.7
(a).)
This bill would enact a new law requiring a "competent adult who
becomes aware of information
or evidence that would cause a reasonable suspicion of child
sexual abuse . . . to report that information to state or local
law enforcement or to county child protective services within 72
hours."
This bill would provide that in this context "competent adult"
would mean "a person who is 18 years of age or older and who has
no mental or developmental disabilities that would impair his or
her ability to make a reasoned judgment as to whether a child
may have been subjected to sexual abuse"; "reasonable suspicion"
---------------------------
---------------------------
<1> Mandatory child abuse and neglect reporters under Penal
Code Section 11165.7: (1) A teacher. (2) An instructional
aide. (3) A teacher's aide or teacher's assistant employed by
any public or private school. (4) A classified employee of any
public school. (5) An administrative officer or supervisor of
child welfare and attendance, or a certificated pupil personnel
employee of any public or private school. (6) An administrator
of a public or private day camp. (7) An administrator or
employee of a public or private youth center, youth recreation
program, or youth organization. (8) An administrator or
employee of a public or private organization whose duties
require direct contact and supervision of children. (9) Any
employee of a county office of education or the California
Department of Education, whose duties bring the employee into
contact with children on a regular basis. (10) A licensee, an
administrator, or an employee of a licensed community care or
child day care facility. (11) A Head Start program teacher.
(12) A licensing worker or licensing evaluator employed by a
licensing agency as specified. (13) A public assistance worker.
(14) An employee of a child care institution, including, but
not limited to, foster parents, group home personnel, and
personnel of residential care facilities. (15) A social worker,
probation officer, or parole officer. (16) An employee of a
school district police or security department. (17) Any person
who is an administrator or presenter of, or a counselor in, a
child abuse prevention program in any public or private school.
(18) A district attorney investigator, inspector, or local child
support agency caseworker unless the investigator, inspector, or
caseworker is working with an attorney appointed pursuant to
Section 317 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to represent a
minor. (19) A peace officer, as specified. (20) A firefighter,
except for volunteer firefighters. (21) A physician, surgeon,
psychiatrist, psychologist, dentist, resident, intern,
podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist,
optometrist, marriage, family and child counselor, clinical
social worker, or any other person who is currently licensed
under Division 2of the Business and Professions Code. (22) Any
emergency medical technician I or II, paramedic, or other person
certified pursuant to Division 2.5 of the Health and Safety
Code. (23) A psychological assistant, as specified. (24) A
marriage, family, and child therapist trainee, as specified.
(25) An unlicensed marriage, family, and child therapist intern,
as specified. (26) A state or county public health employee who
treats a minor for venereal disease or any other condition.
(27) A coroner. (28) A medical examiner, or any other person
who performs autopsies. (29) A commercial film and photographic
print processor, as specified. As used in this article,
"commercial film and photographic print processor" means any
person who develops exposed photographic film into negatives,
slides, or prints, or who makes prints from negatives or slides,
for compensation. The term includes any employee of such a
person; it does not include a person who develops film or makes
prints for a public agency. (30) A child visitation monitor, as
specified. (31) An animal control officer or humane society
officer, as specified. (32) A clergy member, as specified.
(33) Any custodian of records of a clergy member, as specified.
(34) Any employee of any police department, county sheriff's
department, county probation department, or county welfare
department. (35) An employee or volunteer of a Court Appointed
Special Advocate program, as specified. (36) A custodial
officer, as specified. (37) Any person providing services to a
minor child under Section 12300 or 12300.1 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code. (38) An alcohol and drug counselor, as
specified. (39) A clinical counselor trainee, as specified.
(40) A clinical counselor intern, as specified.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageE
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageF
would "have the same meaning as in Section 11166";<2> and
"sexual abuse" would "have the same meaning as in Section
11165.1.<3>
This bill would impose the following penalties for a competent
adult to fail to make a report as required by this bill:
---------------------------
<2> Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of section 11166 of the
Penal Code states: For purposes of this article, "reasonable
suspicion" means that it is objectively reasonable for a person
to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a
reasonable person in a like position, drawing, when appropriate,
on his or her training and
experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. "Reasonable
suspicion" does not require certainty that child abuse or
neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical
indication of child abuse or neglect; any "reasonable suspicion"
is sufficient. For the purpose of this article, the pregnancy of
a minor does not, in and of itself,
constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse."
<3> Penal Code section 11165.1 defines "sexual abuse" to mean
both "sexual abuse" and "sexual exploitation," as more
delineated in that section. "Sexual assault" generally is
defined to mean conduct in violation of specified criminal
statutes, and conduct described by this section. "Sexual
exploitation" refers to "(c)onduct involving matter depicting a
minor engaged in obscene acts," and to persons who knowingly
promote or in other specified ways advance child prostitution,
live obscene conduct or obscene depictions, as specified.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageG
A person who fails to report "when the unreported
information or evidence would cause a reasonable suspicion
of child sexual abuse, for instance receipt of multiple
sources of third-hand information, is guilty of negligent
failure to report, a misdemeanor" punishable by up to six
months in county jail, a fine of $1,000, or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
A person who fails to report "when the unreported
information or evidence would cause a strong reasonable
suspicion of child sexual abuse, for instance receipt of
multiple sources of secondhand information, is guilty of
failure to report," a misdemeanor punishable by up to one
year in county jail, a fine of $2,500, or by both that fine
and imprisonment.
A person who fails to report "when the unreported
information or evidence would cause a reinforced reasonable
suspicion of child sexual abuse, for instance receipt of
multiple sources of firsthand information, is guilty of
gross failure to report, a felony punishable by three years
confinement in county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of
Section 1170," a fine of $5,000, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
A person who "engages in intentional conduct, who acts
to hinder the discovery of information or evidence, who
conceals, alters, or destroys information or evidence, or
who tampers with, coerces, influences, or intimidates a
witness, relating to child sexual abuse is guilty of
aggravated failure to report," a felony punishable by 10
years in state prison, a fine of $10,000, or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
This bill would provide that a complaint may be filed for
violation of this new crime within
five years of the occurrence.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageH
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageI
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
The author's office has been informed that this bill appears to
aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above under
ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Abuse and negligence inflicted upon children is
something that our state has many laws and provisions
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageJ
against. According to the California Department of
Social Services, the first child abuse reporting law
in California was enacted in 1963. The early laws
mandated only physicians to report physical abuse.
Over the years, numerous amendments have expanded the
definition of child abuse and the persons required to
report. Procedures for reporting categories of child
abuse have also been clarified through legislation
over the last fifty years. This bill proposes a
requirement of all competent adults to report
reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse. The bill
would also make failure to report punishable by a
range of fines and imprisonment based on the level of
the failure.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "A
child is abused every 7 minutes in California." It is
because of this fact that this bill is necessary.
Existing California law requires that any person who
reasonably believes that he or she has observed the
commission of either a murder or rape where the victim
is a child under the age of 14 years, to notify a
peace officer. Passage of this bill require that all
competent adults, 18 and over, report reasonable
suspicion of child sexual abuse. This new bill would
build upon AB 1422 (Torlakson), and would mandate a
competent adult to report whether or not he/she
witnessed the child sexual abuse firsthand.
2. What This Bill Would Do; Existing Law; Potential Unintended
Consequences
As explained above, this bill would enact a new crime -
punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony depending upon the
circumstances - for any competent adult to fail to report child
sexual abuse when they become "aware of information or evidence
that would cause a reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse"
within 72 hours. As discussed below, California law currently
mandates witnesses of child abuse or neglect to report under
certain circumstances.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageK
First, as explained above, the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting
Act enumerates forty categories of "mandated reporters" who are
required to make a report "whenever the mandated reporter, in
his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or
her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the
mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the
victim of child abuse or neglect." Mandated reporters are
subject to criminal penalties if they fail to make a mandated
report. (Penal Code �� 11166; 11166.01.)
Second, current law also provides that any person who reasonably
believes that he or she has observed the commission of a murder,
rape or forcible molestation against a child under the age of 14
years to notify a peace officer, as specified. (Penal Code �
152.3.) This bill would appear to duplicate some of what
already is covered in existing law - for example, the rape or
forcible molestation of a minor under the age of 14. In other
respects, this bill would appear to apply more broadly than
existing law - for example, the minor victim could be 14 or
older, and could be a victim of a significantly wider range of
sex and exploitation crimes, and the witness is not a mandated
reporter.<4>
This existing law - Penal Code section 152.3 -- also excludes
from its application the following categories of persons:
(1) A person who is related to either the victim or the
offender, including a husband, wife, parent, child, brother,
sister, grandparent, grandchild, or other person related by
consanguinity or affinity.
(2) A person who fails to report based on a reasonable mistake
of fact.
(3) A person who fails to report based on a reasonable fear
for his or her own safety or for the safety of his or her
family.<5>
These exceptions were developed in part to address concerns
---------------------------
<4> See footnote (3), supra.
<5> Penal Code � 152.3(e).
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageL
about the unintentional consequence of discouraging witnesses
from coming forward in these cases, or being effective witnesses
in subsequent prosecutions, because they themselves commit a
crime if they fail to come forward in a timely manner. As
explained in the Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of
AB 1422 in 2000:
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
includes a privilege against self-incrimination.
Under the Miranda rules, law enforcement officers
must inform an in custody criminal "suspect" of his or
her right to remain silent and to have an attorney. (
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) A
"suspect" is a person upon whom investigating officers
have focused their attention as the likely perpetrator
of a crime. ( People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th
1017, 1050-1054.) "Custody" generally means
detention by the police such that the person is not
free to leave. (Id. at 1053-1054; ( People v.
Esqueda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1450.)
A person who is talking to a peace officer to report a
crime under this statute becomes a "suspect"-- a
likely perpetrator of a crime. Thus, once a person
becomes a suspect he or she cannot disclose what it
was he or she witnessed and when without incriminating
his or herself.<6>
The Committee analysis asked the following questions pertaining
to AB 1422 in 2000 which are equally relevant to the bill before
the Committee today:
BY MAKING POTENTIAL WITNESSES WHO DID NOT REPORT
SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL PENALTY WON'T THIS BILL HAMPER
POLICE INVESTIGATIONS?
WHEN THE POLICE REALIZE A PERSON MAY BE SUBJECT TO A
CRIMINAL PENALTY THEY WILL NEED TO INFORM THE PERSON ?
----------------------
<6> Analysis of AB 1422 (Torlakson), June 13, 2000, Senate
Committee on Public Safety.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageM
OF HIS OR HER FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS - WILL THIS CAUSE
CONCERN IN OTHERWISE WILLING WITNESSES?<7>
The Committee analysis of AB 1422 also raised this additional
question concerning the impact of criminalizing the failure to
report a crime on prosecuting these cases:
If a District Attorney uses a witness who did not
report one of these crimes, the District Attorney will
have to give the witness immunity, or charge them with
a crime. The District Attorney will be required to
inform defense counsel of any immunity deal
and the witness will then be subject to impeachment on
cross-examination.<8>
Members may wish to discuss the potential unintended impacts of
this bill on prosecuting the child abuse cases it seeks to bring
to light. Members also may wish to discuss whether this bill
should be amended to include exceptions similar to those
contained in Penal Code section 152.3.
WOULD THIS BILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO PROSECUTE SOME CHILD
ABUSE CASES?
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PERSONS FROM THIS
BILL?
3. No Common Law Duty To Aid Others
Historically, in common law there is no general legal duty to
aid others. This Committee's 2000 analysis of AB 1422,
discussed above, provides background with respect to the duty to
aid others:
Citing LaFave and Scott, a Dayton Law Journal article
notes that generally speaking:
-----------------
<7> Id.
<8> Id.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageN
One has no legal duty to aid another person
in peril, even when that aid can be rendered
without danger or inconvenience to himself.
He need not shout a warning to a blind man
headed for a precipice or to an
absent-minded one walking into a gunpowder
room with a lighted candle in hand. He need
not pull a neighbor's baby out of a pool of
water . . . though the baby is drowning . .
. A moral duty to take affirmative actions
is not enough to impose a legal duty to do
so. (fn.)
However, the law review article goes on to say that
while LaFave and Scott are technically correct
"�c]riminal law is filled with obligations ascribing
legal duties to all of us based upon the consensus of
our elected officials as to what they believe is
morally appropriate." (fn.) Seven major areas where a
duty to aid are discussed. They are: A duty to act
based upon a relationship of the parties; a duty to
act based upon contract; a duty based upon a voluntary
assumption of care; a duty may arise from the fact
that the person created the risk from which the need
for protection arose.; a duty can arise from a special
relationship that makes a non-acting partner
criminally responsible for the actor's criminal
action; a duty can arise from the fact that one owns
the real property upon which the victim is injured;
and the duty to act and the resulting criminal
liability for failing to act, based upon statute.
(fn.)<9>
The Sherrice Iverson Act (AB 1422) was described by the author
as "needed to help avoid future scenarios such as the 1997
tragedy where the young girl . . . was assaulted and killed by a
---------------------------
<9> Id, (footnotes omitted).
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageO
young man whose companion did not feel the responsibility to
report the crime." Current California law requires any person
(except as specified) who reasonably believes that he or she has
observed the commission of a murder, rape or forcible
molestation against a child under the age of 14 years to notify
a peace officer.
SHOULD EXISTING LAW BE EXPANDED, AS PROPOSED BY THIS BILL?
4. Definitions; Statute of Limitations
This bill would establish a tiered penalty scheme which appears
to be based on how much of a reasonable suspicion the offender
had of the crime:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Level of Suspicion | Penalty for Failure to Report |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|"reasonable suspicion," "for |6-month misdemeanor/$1000 fine |
|instance receipt of multiple | |
|sources of third-hand | |
|information" | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|"strong reasonable suspicion," |12-month misdemeanor/$2500 fine |
|"for instance receipt of | |
|multiple sources of secondhand | |
|information" | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|"reinforced reasonable |3-year jail felony<10>/$5,000 |
|suspicion," "for instance |fine |
|receipt of multiple sources of | |
|firsthand information" | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|Intentional conduct to hinder |10-year prison felony/$10,000 |
|or conceal evidence of child |fine |
---------------------------
<10> The language cites Penal Code section 1170(h), enacted in
realignment, under which certain felons are ineligible to serve
their felony in jail because of their criminal offense history.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageP
|sexual abuse, as specified | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Members may wish to discuss the meaning and effect of these
levels of suspicion, and whether they sufficiently clear to not
be construed as constitutionally vague. In addition, existing
laws proscribe destroying and concealing evidence (See e.g.,
Penal Code � 135) and influencing witnesses (See e.g., Penal
Code �� 133, 136.1, 138 et seq.) These provisions all contain
penalties different than the penalty proposed by this bill.
Members may wish to discuss whether existing law covers this
provision of this bill.
In addition, as noted above, the proposed felony provisions of
this measure are subject to the Committee's ROCA policy.
This bill would establish a 5-year statute of limitations for
the new crimes it proposes. The statute of limitations requires
commencement of a prosecution within a certain period of time
after the commission of a crime. Most misdemeanor prosecutions
must be commenced within one year after commission of the
offense. (Penal Code � 802.) Prosecution for crimes
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison generally must be
commenced within three years after commission of the offense.
(Penal Code � 801.) Sex crimes are subject to differing
limitations periods. (Penal Code �� 80, 801.2.) This bill
would impose a 5 year limitations period on any of the crimes
enumerated above, misdemeanor or felony. The author and the
Committee may wish to consider how this limitation period fits
into existing statutes of limitations, including an assessment
against the following three principles behind limitations
periods:
Staleness : The statute of limitations protects persons
accused of crime: (i) from having to face charges based on
evidence that may be unreliable and (ii) from losing access
to the evidentiary means to defend against the accusation.
With the passage of time, memory fades, witnesses die or
otherwise become unavailable, and physical evidence becomes
unobtainable or contaminated.
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageQ
Prompt Investigation : The statute of limitations
imposes a priority among crimes for investigation and
prosecution. The deadline serves to motivate the police
and to ensure against bureaucratic delays in investigating
crimes.
Repose : The statute of limitations reflect society's
lack of desire to prosecute for crimes committed in the
distant past. The interest in repose represents a societal
evaluation of the time after which it is neither profitable
nor desirable to commence a prosecution.
HOW WOULD A 5-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FAILURE TO REPORT
AS PROPOSED BY THIS BILL IMPACT THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE OF
THESE CRIMES?
(More)
5. Several Bills in this Area
Several bills have been introduced this session which propose to
expand the obligation to report suspected child abuse or
neglect. Members may wish to consider how these bills relate to
one another and how they could be reconciled to the extent they
may be redundant or inconsistent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill | What the Bill Does | Status |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|SB 1551 (Vargas) |Requires a "competent adult |Before this |
|(this bill) |who becomes aware of |Committee |
| |information or evidence | |
| |that would cause a | |
| |reasonable suspicion of | |
| |child sexual | |
| |abuse is required to report | |
| |that information to state | |
| |or local law enforcement or | |
| |to county child protective | |
| |services within 72 hours," | |
| |with specified criminal | |
| |penalties. | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill | What the Bill Does | Status |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|SB 1264 (Vargas) |Makes any "athletic coach, |Before this |
| |including, but not limited |Committee |
| |to, an assistant coach or a | |
| |graduate assistant involved | |
| |in coaching, at public or | |
| |private postsecondary | |
| |institutions," a mandated | |
| |reporter, and increases | |
(More)
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageS
| |specified related | |
| |penalties. | |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|AB 1434 (Feuer) | Makes an "employee of a |Assembly Floor |
| |public or private | |
| |institution of higher | |
| |education, as to child | |
| |abuse or neglect occurring | |
| |on that institution's | |
| |premises or at an official | |
| |activity of, or program | |
| |conducted by, the | |
| |institution," a mandated | |
| |reporter. | |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|AB 1435 |Makes an "athletic coach, |Assembly |
|(Dickinson) |athletic administrator, or |Appropriations |
| |athletic director employed |(suspense) |
| |by a public or private | |
| |organization, including, | |
| |but not limited to, schools | |
| |and institutions of higher | |
| |education," a mandated | |
| |reporter; and requires | |
| |training, as specified. | |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|AB 1438 |Expands the existing crime |Assembly |
|(Bradford) |for failing to notify a |Floor |
| |peace officer of a | |
| |specified violent crime | |
| |against a child under 14 to | |
| |include non-forcible child | |
| |molestation (PC 152.3) | |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|AB 1564 (Lara) |Makes "volunteers of public |Assembly Public |
| |or private organizations, |Safety |
| |including nonprofit | |
| |organizations, whose duties | |
| |require direct contact with | |
| |and supervision of | |
SB 1551 (Vargas)
PageT
| |children," mandated | |
| |reporters. | |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|AB 1713 (Campos) |Expands existing definition |Assembly |
| |of commercial film and |Appropriations |
| |photographic print | |
| |processers who are mandated | |
| |reporters to include | |
| |several enumerated types of | |
| |computer-related data and | |
| |imagery. | |
|------------------+----------------------------+-----------------|
|AB 1817 (Atkins) |Makes "commercial computer |Assembly Public |
| |technicians," as specified, |Safety |
| |mandated reporters | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
***************