BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 238|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 238
Author: Gomez (D), et al.
Amended: 5/29/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/14/13
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/24/13
AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/18/13 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Protective and restraining orders: computer
database system
SOURCE : Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
DIGEST : This bill deletes requirements of law enforcement
officers to carry copies of emergency protective orders (EPO's)
while on duty and instead requires law enforcement officers to
have EPO's entered into the computer database system maintained
by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Allows a law enforcement officer to seek an EPO from a court,
CONTINUED
AB 238
Page
2
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.
2.Provides that an EPO expires in either five court days or
seven calendar days after issuance, whichever is shorter.
3.Requires the law enforcement officer who requests 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.
4.Requires whenever a protective order or restraining order are
issued, as provided, specified information about the order be
entered into DOJ'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.
This bill:
1.Deletes the requirement that a law enforcement officer or a
peace officer, as specified, who requests an emergency
protective order, carry copies of the order while on duty.
2.Requires the law enforcement agency to have that order entered
into the computer database system for protective and
restraining orders maintained by DOJ.
Comments
The EPOs are intended 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
CONTINUED
AB 238
Page
3
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.
Restraining orders are required to be entered into a statewide
database of protective orders, known as the California
Restraining and Protective Orders System (CARPOS), so that the
orders can more easily be tracked and enforced. CARPOS, which
is part of California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System,
is maintained by DOJ. Existing law requires that information
contained in a civil or criminal domestic violence protective
order must be entered into CARPOS. 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.
The 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
requesting officer carrying around a copy of the order, the
order be entered into the computer database system maintained by
DOJ.
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?"
The 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.
CONTINUED
AB 238
Page
4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, annual
state-reimbursable costs, likely less than $50,000 (General
Fund). Los Angeles County issued approximately 5,500 EPOs in
2012. Assuming three to five minutes per EPO entry, estimated
statewide costs to enter 16,500 EPOs would be in the range of
$22,000 to $37,000 (General Fund).
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/25/13)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (source)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Communities United Institute
California Fraternal Order of Police
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Crime Victims United of California
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/25/13)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:
In many cases, officers who request an EPO on behalf of a
victim are unable to serve the suspect with the EPO because
the suspect has left the scene prior to the arrival of the
officer. Existing law requires the officer to carry around
a copy of the EPO to serve the suspect if the officer
CONTINUED
AB 238
Page
5
encounters the suspect at a later time. This procedure is
not workable because when the officer is off, what happens
to those orders?
A better process that will serve the interests of public
safety and protect victims is to have the information
entered into the CARPOS. This will make the information
available to all officers with access to the automated
system. In this case, if any officer encounters the
suspect, that officer can advise/serve the suspect
regarding the order verbally.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance states
that they are "opposed to this bill unless it is amended because
this measure could result in a state-reimbursable mandate."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/18/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway,
Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Lowenthal, Mitchell, Vacancy
JG:ej 6/25/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 238
Page
6
CONTINUED