BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 499 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 499 (Ting) As Amended June 18, 2013 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |76-0 |(April 18, |SENATE: |33-0 |(July 8, 2013) | | | |2013) | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: JUD. SUMMARY : Extends, as of July 1, 2014, the maximum duration period for injunctions against harassment from three to five years, as specified. Specifically, this bill provides that an injunction prohibiting harassment may remain in effect for a duration of up to five years and that, upon request of a party, may be renewed for a duration of not more than five additional years, without a showing of any further harassment since the issuance of the original order, subject to termination or modification by further order of the court either by written stipulation or by motion of a party. The Senate amendments restore the existing default duration period of three years if the injunction order does not state an expiration date and delay implementation of the bill's provisions until July 1, 2014. EXISTING LAW : 1)Permits a person who has suffered harassment to seek a temporary restraining order or an injunction prohibiting harassment. 2)Defines "harassment" as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. 3)Provides that upon filing for a petition, a person who has suffered harassment may obtain a temporary restraining order AB 499 Page 2 (TRO) for a period not to exceed 21 days of the filing of the petition (or a period of 25 days if the court at its discretion extends the time for hearing). Within 21 or 25 days, accordingly, from the date that the TRO was issued, a hearing shall be held for an injunction. If issued, the injunction shall be in effect for a period of not more than three years and may be renewed for another period of not more than three years. Failure to state an expiration date on the face of the form creates an order effective for three years from the date of issuance. FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill will afford greater protection to victims of harassment, which includes stalking and threats of violence, by simplifying "a victim's ability to obtain an injunction that is commensurate in duration with the unique dynamic of stalking behavior." Under existing law a victim of harassment may seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) or an injunction prohibiting the harassment. Upon filing a petition for an injunction, the petitioner may obtain a TRO until the injunction hearing, which usually must be held within 21 days of the filing of the petition - although the court at its discretion may extend the hearing to 25 days. If issued, an injunction order may be in effect for a period not to exceed three years, and it may be renewed for an additional period of not more than three years. If the injunction order does not expressly state an expiration date, the statutory default rule creates an order with a three-year duration period. This bill would increase the maximum duration of an injunction against harassment to a period of not more than five years, instead of three years. According to the author and sponsor, this extension is necessary because the process of renewal requires that the harasser be served and requires both the victim and harasser to attend an injunction hearing. Groups that work with victims of stalking and domestic violence report that three years is often not a sufficient period of time in these cases, and that the renewal process often ignites old hostilities and is akin to "waking the sleeping giant." By extending the duration of the original injunction, this bill will reduce the need to seek renewals that require the victim to serve notice upon the harasser and the two parties appear together at a hearing. AB 499 Page 3 This bill as introduced provided for a duration of up to 10 years and obviated the need for renewal. In order to address concerns raised by the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) that a 10 year period was too long, the author agreed to amend the bill to extend existing timeframes from three to five years. The bill is supported by groups that work with victims of stalking and domestic violence, law enforcement groups, and women's groups. CPDA remains opposed to the bill unless it is amended to provide that an order cannot be removed if the protected party has invited or otherwise consented to contact with the party restrained by the order. Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001265 0001115