BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 238
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 238 (Gomez) - As Amended: March 20, 2013
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDERS
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO BETTER TRACK AND ENFORCE PROTECTIVE
ORDERS, SHOULD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICE THAT SOUGHT AN
EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROTECT A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE BE REQUIRED TO ENTER THAT ORDER INTO THE AUTOMATED
TRACKING SYSTEM WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ITS ISSUANCE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department, seeks to help make emergency protective
orders (EPOs), issued by judicial officers at the request of law
enforcement to protect victims of domestic violence in emergency
situations, work more effectively. Under current law, after the
judge issues an EPO, the law enforcement officer requesting the
EPO is required to serve the EPO on the restrained party, if
that party can reasonably be located; provide a copy to the
protected party; file a copy with the court as soon as
practicable after issuance; and carry a copy of the order while
on duty. However, under this procedure, only the law
enforcement officer who requested the EPO, the protected party
and, perhaps, the abuser have notice of the protective order.
No other law enforcement officials have any information about
the order or the need for protection and, in fact, even the
restrained party may not be aware of the order. The State
Department of Justice maintains a statewide database of all
protective orders in the state, which information is available
to all law enforcement officers as well as the courts. All
protective orders, other than EPOs, must be entered into that
database within a day of issuance. In order to better protect
the victim, this bill requires that all EPOs be entered into the
database within two hours of issuance. This bill is supported
AB 238
Page 2
by law enforcement and there is no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Requires law enforcement to enter emergency protective
orders (EPOs) into the California Restraining and Protective
Order System. Specifically, this bill , for both civil and
criminal EPOs:
1)Requires that the professional staff of the law enforcement
agency employing the law enforcement officer requesting an EPO
enter the order into the California Restraining and Protective
Order System within two hours of its issuance.
2)Deletes the requirement that the officer who requests the EPO
carry copies of the order while on duty.
EXISTING LAW :
1) 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 in immediate and present danger of domestic violence
or abuse, or in imminent danger of abduction by a parent or
relative, or stalking. The EPO may only be issued if the
judicial officer makes specified findings. (Family Code
Sections 6240 et seq .; Penal Code Section 646.91.)
2) Provides that an EPO expires in either five court days
or seven calendar days after issuance, whichever is shorter.
(Family Code Section 6256; Penal Code Section 646.91.)
3) Requires the law enforcement officer who request an EPO
to serve the EPO on the restrained party, if that party can
reasonably be located; provide a copy to the protected party;
file a copy with the court as soon as practicable after
issuance; and carry a copy of the order while on duty.
(Family Code Sections 6271, 6273; Penal Code Section 646.91.)
4) Requires whenever a protective order or restraining
order are issued, as provided, specified information about
the order be entered into the Department of Justice's
Domestic Violence Restraining Order System within one
business day by any law enforcement officer who served the
protective order and by the clerk of the court if someone
other than an officer served the order. (Family Code Section
6380.)
AB 238
Page 3
COMMENTS : EPOs are designed to protect victims of domestic
violence in emergency situations. They may be requested by a
law enforcement officer when the officer has reasonable grounds
to believe that there is immediate danger of abuse, based on a
victim's allegation of abuse or threat of abuse, abduction or
stalking. A judicial officer may issue the requested EPO only
if the judicial officer finds that reasonable grounds have been
asserted by the law enforcement officer that there is an
immediate and present danger of abuse and that the EPO is
necessary to prevent the abuse. After the order is issued, the
requesting officer is required to serve the EPO on the
restrained party, if that party can reasonably be located;
provide a copy to the protected party; file a copy with the
court as soon as practicable after issuance; and carry a copy of
the order while on duty. The order lasts for the lesser of five
court days or seven calendar days, and is issued immediately
without prior notice to the restrained party.
In order to better protect victims of abuse, restraining orders
must be entered into a statewide database of protective orders,
known as the California Restraining and Protective Order System
(CARPOS), so that the orders can more easily be tracked and
enforced. CARPOS, which is part of California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS), is maintained by the
Department of Justice. Current law requires that information
contained in a civil or criminal domestic violence protective
order must be entered into CARPOS (previously known as the
Domestic Violence Restraining Order System). The information
must be added to CARPOS within one business day by any law
enforcement officer who serves a covered protective order. If
the protective order is served by someone other than a police
officer, the information must be added to CARPOS within one
business day by the court clerk that receives proof of service
of the order.
EPOs have not been required to be entered into CARPOS. It is
believed that this is because order information is not always
entered into CARPOS in a timely manner and given the very short
life of an EPO, the order could well be expired before it is
even entered into the system. Instead the police officer who
sought the EPO was required to provide a copy of the order to
the victim, serve the order on the restrained person, assuming
that person could be located, and carry a copy of the order
while on duty. This bill requires that instead of the
AB 238
Page 4
requesting officer carrying around a copy of the order, the
order be entered into CARPOS within two hours of issuance by the
professional staff at the law enforcement agency employing the
requesting officer.
According to the author, this bill is necessary because the
current procedure, where the requesting officer carries around
the order is simply not workable: "This procedure is not
workable because when the officer is off duty, what happens to
those orders?"
Judicial Council Protective Order Registry Designed to Enhances
Existing System and Better Protect Victims . Judicial Council
has been developing its own protective order registry, known as
the California Courts Protective Order Registry (CCPOR), which
has now been deployed to 21 courts. CCPOR is a statewide
repository of restraining orders available to judicial officers
and law enforcement. It provides courts with an easier way to
enter information into CARPOS. It also allows for greater
accessibility of information by providing not just data fields,
but access to the entire protective order. However, this system
is not yet installed in all courts and, in any event, is not
meant as a replacement for CARPOS.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Law enforcement organizations write in
support of the bill:
The requirement that a law enforcement officer who requests
an [EPO] carry a copy of the order while on duty in the
happenstance that he/she encounters the suspect at a later
time is pure folly. A far better process that will serve
the interests of public safety, protect victims, be more
effective and efficient is to have the information entered
into [CARPOS] within two hours of issuance of the order so
that any officer who encounters the suspect can advise the
suspect regarding the order. We believe AB 238 represents
a common sense approach to improving law enforcement
protection to all victims of domestic violence . . . ."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (sponsor)
American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees
AB 238
Page 5
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Fraternal Order of Police
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334