BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 157
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 157 (Campos) - As Introduced: January 22, 2013
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : PROTECTIVE ORDERS: FALSE IMPERSONATION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A COURT BE PERMITTED TO ISSUE A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER TO PREVENT A BATTERER FROM FURTHER
ABUSING THEIR VICTIM THROUGH FALSE IMPERSONATING?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
The growth of social media and online communications has had
tremendous benefits for our society, but has also provided a new
venue for domestic abuse. Batterers can, with relative ease,
impersonate their victims in an effort to further abuse them.
To combat this, AB 157 adds false impersonation to the list of
activities that may be enjoined under a protective order issued
under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In support of the
bill, the author writes that "false impersonation and online
identity theft is becoming an increasingly common tactic of
abuse for domestic violence victims" and that this bill is
needed to help judges better protect victims from this abuse.
The author has agreed to amend the bill, as requested by family
law practitioners, who now support the bill, to better define
what is meant by false impersonation. This bill is also
supported by, among others, the California Partnership to End
Domestic Violence and the California Police Chiefs Association.
There is no reported opposition.
SUMMARY : Adds false impersonation to the list of activities
that may be enjoined under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.
Specifically, this bill includes false impersonation in the
list of activities for which a protective order may be issued
under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 157
Page 2
1)Allows a court to issue a domestic violence protective order
enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking,
stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering,
harassing, telephoning, destroying personal property, and
other specified behaviors. (Family Code Section 6200 et seq.)
2)Allows protective orders to be issued ex parte, after notice
and a hearing, or by a judicial officer after assertions by a
law enforcement officer that the person is in immediate and
present danger of domestic violence. (Family Code Sections
6250, 6320, 6340.)
COMMENTS : The growth of social media and online communications
has had tremendous benefits for our society, but has also
provided a new venue for domestic abuse. Batterers can, with
relative ease, impersonate their victims in an effort to further
abuse them. To combat this, AB 157 adds false impersonation to
the list of activities that may be enjoined under a protective
order issued under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
False impersonation and online identity theft is becoming
an increasingly common tactic of abuse for domestic
violence victims. The popularity of Facebook, Twitter and
other online technologies and the ease with which someone
can create, assume and/or misuse another person's online
presence have provided a new and devastating tool for
abusers. As such, it is important that protective orders
should evolve to reflect the new technological realities.
Judges are seeing more and more instances of allegations
and evidence that an abuser has used a domestic violence
victim's name and created a false Facebook page or Twitter
account. Typically the abuser will post inflammatory
statements designed to alienate the victim from friends and
family, disrupt the victim's online presence, or damage the
victim's reputation and cause embarrassment.
AB 157 would help judges reviewing domestic violence
protective orders to know that "high- tech abuse" is
clearly considered abuse in the Family Code. Not all law
enforcement jurisdictions will respond with criminal
investigations in these cases and victims have limited
AB 157
Page 3
remedies. As such, these types of abuse should be clearly
enumerated and not force judges to try and fit this conduct
under existing prohibitions such as disturbing the peace or
harassment when deciding whether to grant or deny orders.
Devastating Effects of Domestic Violence on Children and
Families : Domestic violence is a serious criminal justice and
public health problem most often perpetrated against women.
(Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence:
Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey, U.S.
Department of Justice (2001).) Prevalence of domestic violence
at the national level ranges from 960,000 to three million women
each year who are physically abused by their husbands or
boyfriends. While the numbers are staggering, they only include
those cases of reported domestic violence. In fact, according
to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health, nearly 31
percent of American women report being physically or sexually
abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
(Health Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of
Women's Health, The Commonwealth Fund (May 1999).)
Domestic violence continues to be a significant problem in
California. In 2005, the Attorney General's Task Force on
Domestic Violence reported that:
The health consequences of physical and psychological
domestic violence can be significant and long lasting, for
both victims and their children. . . . A study by the
California Department of Health Services of women's health
issues found that nearly six percent of women, or about
620,000 women per year, experienced violence or physical
abuse by their intimate partners. Women living in
households where children are present experienced domestic
violence at much higher rates than women living in
households without children: domestic violence occurred in
more than 436,000 households per year in which children
were present, potentially exposing approximately 916,000
children to violence in their homes every year.
(Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force
on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence, Keeping
the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability (June
2005) (footnotes omitted).)
Domestic Violence Can Occur in Cyberspace : The first case
AB 157
Page 4
prosecuted under California cyberstalking law provides a
chilling example of the harm that can be done through false
impersonation and the need for protection against this type of
abuse. According the U.S. Attorney General's account of the
crime, the batterer impersonated a woman who had rejected his
romantic advances and posted on Internet bulletin boards and
chat rooms that she fantasized about being raped. He also
posted her address and phone number. According to the account,
men knocked on the woman's door at least six times saying they
wanted to rape her. While this batterer was convicted of his
crime, more should be done to better protect victims by
preventing this type of domestic abuse before it occurs. This
bill makes clear that judges can issue protective orders to
restrain batterers from abusing and harassing their victims
through false impersonation.
Proposed Amendments : The Family Law Section of the State Bar
and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists support
the bill if it is amended to better clarify what behavior can be
enjoined. Penal Code Section 528.5 makes it a crime to credibly
impersonate another person through electronic means for purposes
of "harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding someone."
Likewise, Penal Code Section 529 prohibits a person from falsely
personating another in his or her "private or official
capacity." These groups suggest changing "falsely
impersonating" to the language used in those Penal Code sections
and then referencing those provisions to make clear exactly what
may be restrained by a domestic violence protective order. The
author rightly agrees to accept these amendments by making the
following change to the bill:
On page 2, line 5, delete "falsely impersonating" and insert:
credibly impersonating as described in Section 528.5 of the
Penal Code, falsely personating as described in Section 529 of
the Penal Code
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence writes:
Some abusers will use their knowledge of the victim's
passwords to lock them out of their internet accounts,
including email, social media, and other accounts. In
today's reality, where so much information is transmitted
online, losing access to those accounts can have a dramatic
AB 157
Page 5
impact on a survivor's daily life. Further, abusers will
often use their access to the victim's social networking
sites and email accounts to post private, intimate
photographs, which can shame and intimidate a survivor.
The misuse of technology to abuse and stalk victims is a
growing reality, and AB 157 will help to address this
harmful tactic.
The California Police Chiefs Association adds that protective
orders "are an essential tool in protecting victims of domestic
violence, stalking, and related crimes," and that this bill
appropriately expands their "scope and effectiveness."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (if amended)
California Communities United Institute
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Police Chiefs Association
Family Law Section of the State Bar (if amended)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334