BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 176
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 176 (Campos)
As Amended August 14, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(May 9, 2013) |SENATE: |39-0 |(August 26, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Provides enforcement priority when there are multiple
restraining orders involving the same parties. Specifically,
this bill
1)Requires, effective July 1, 2014, when there are multiple
protective or restraining orders regarding the same parties
and one of those orders is a no-contact order, law enforcement
to enforce the no-contact order, unless there is an emergency
protective order that has enforcement precedence, as provided.
If neither an emergency protective order nor a no-contact
protective order has been issued, requires the police officer
to enforce the last issued criminal order.
2)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2014, to modify
civil and criminal court forms, consistent with 1) and 2),
above.
The Senate amendments re-establish the enforcement priority of
emergency protective orders (EPO).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a court to issue a civil or criminal protective
order to protect victims of domestic violence. Permits a
court to issue a no-contact order for the protected party,
and, in the discretion of the court on a showing of good
cause, of other named family or household members.
2)Permits a juvenile court to issue a protective order on behalf
of a dependent child or a ward.
3)Allows a law enforcement officer to seek an EPO from a court,
24 hours a day, seven days a week, if any person or child is
AB 176
Page 2
in immediate and present danger of domestic violence, abuse,
or stalking, or in imminent danger of abduction by a parent or
relative. An EPO is effective for up to seven days.
4)Provides that if there are multiple civil protective or
restraining orders regarding the same parties, the order last
entered shall be enforced. If there are both criminal and
civil orders, the last criminal order shall be enforced.
5)Gives EPOs issued pursuant to either the Family Code or the
Penal Code precedence in enforcement over any other
restraining or protective order provided the EPO involves the
same individuals, but only to the extent the provisions of the
EPO are more restrictive as to the restrained party than the
other orders.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The same parties may be subject to multiple
protective orders. If a defendant is charged with a crime of
domestic violence, a criminal court may issue a criminal
protective order. A family court may issue a protective order
under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Additionally, law
enforcement may seek an EPO when a police officer determines
that an individual is in immediate and present danger of
domestic violence. An EPO can be issued as either a civil or a
criminal protective order.
Current law provides that if multiple orders protect the same
individual from the same restrained party and one of the orders
is an EPO, the EPO is to be given precedence in enforcement over
any other restraining or protective order, but only to the
extent that the provisions of the EPO are more restrictive on
the restrained person. If there are multiple civil orders, but
no EPO, the most recent order is to be enforced. If there are
both criminal and civil protective orders, the criminal order is
given precedence over the civil order. However, there is no
requirement that the criminal order provide greater protection
to the protected party. Thus, under current law, a criminal
protective order that offers less protection to a domestic
violence victim will be given enforcement priority over a civil
no-contact order. This bill seeks to change that by requiring
that, where multiple orders exist and one is a no-contact order,
the no-contact order be enforced by law enforcement. However,
AB 176
Page 3
if there is an EPO, that retains the enforcement priority it has
under existing law.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Domestic violence victims are often protected from
their abusers by multiple restraining orders issued by
different courts. Depending on the circumstances,
timing, and other information presented to the
different courts, the multiple restraining orders
provide varying levels of protection. It is crucial
that victims receive the maximum, court approved,
security when multiple orders exist.
Current law specifies that the last issued criminal
restraining order be enforced in place of any issued
civil restraining order. This rigidity is a problem
as it does not fully protect domestic violence victims
against further abuse and signals to the restrained
person that they may continue to violate the civil
protective order because he or she knows that the
police will not enforce the civil protective order
even if it is more restrictive.
For example, there is a criminal protective order that
allows for peaceful contact. Subsequently, a family
court receives sufficient information to issue a no
contact restraining order. Under current law, law
enforcement will take no action to enforce the family
court order until the victim goes to criminal court to
request a more protective criminal order. Therefore
in this situation, the retrained person could keep
contacting the victim until the victim is able to
complete a new process within criminal court to
receive a more restrictive no contact "full on"
restraining order against the restrained person.
This bill seeks to provide the greatest protection to the victim
by requiring that, in cases where there are multiple and
conflicting protective orders regarding the same parties and one
of those orders is a no-contact order, a law enforcement officer
must enforce the no-contact order. The no-contact order
provides more protection to a victim than an order that permits
peaceable contact. It is also very easy for law enforcement to
determine which order to enforce. There is no judgment call to
AB 176
Page 4
make. If one order forbids contact, that is the order to
enforce.
If none of the orders forbid contact, then enforcement priority
continues as under current law. Criminal protective orders have
priority over civil orders. If there are multiple civil orders
issued against the same restrained party, the most recent order
is given enforcement priority. This should help ensure that
victims of domestic violence, who are protected by multiple
protective orders, receive the protections ordered by the court.
However, if one of the orders is an EPO and it provides greater
protection, the EPO has the highest enforcement priority.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0001714