BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
1
9
AB 1195 (Eggman) 5
As Amended: April 9, 2013
Hearing date: June 4, 2013
Government Code
MK:jr
PUBLIC RECORDS: CRIME VICTIMS
HISTORY
Source: El Concilio
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Partnership to End Domestic Violence;
California Labor Federation; North Valley Federation;
United Farm Workers; National Council of La Raza;
Women's Center-Youth and Family Services; American
Civil Liberties Union; Asian Americans for Civil Rights
and Equality; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; California Immigrant Policy Center; California
Labor Federation; California Partnership; Coalition to
Abolish Slavery and Trafficking; Community Legal
Services in East Palo Alto; Crime Victims Action
Alliance; Crime Victims United of California; The
Greenlining Institute; Haven Women's Center of
Stanislaus; Hunger Action Los Angeles; Immigration
Center for Women and Children; Long Beach Immigration
Rights Coalition; Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund; Mujeres Unidas y Activas; National
Council of Jewish Women; Council for the Spanish
Speaking; Women's Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres;
(More)
AB 1195 (Eggman)
Page 2
Improving Dreams, Equity, Access and Success-IDEAS at
SF State; East Bay Sanctuary Convenant; Pangea Legal
Services
Opposition: None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73- Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT A VICTIM OF CRIME NOT BE REQUIRED TO
SHOW PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
INFORMATION RELATING TO THAT CRIME?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow victims of crime to access
to information about the crime without having to show proof of
legal presence in the United States.
Existing law , the California Public Records Act, requires public
records to be open to inspection by the public except as
specifically exempted from disclosure. (Government Code
§6253(a).)
Existing law requires each state or local agency, upon a request
for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable
record or records (except for those exempt from disclosure), to
make the records promptly available to any person upon payment
of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee
if applicable. (Government Code § 6253(b).)
Existing law exempts from disclosure, among many other things,
investigatory and security files compiled by any state or local
law enforcement agency. However, certain items of information
contained in such records (as specified below) are permitted to
(More)
AB 1195 (Eggman)
Page 3
be disclosed unless disclosure would endanger the successful
completion of the investigation or endanger the safety of a
witness or the victim or other persons involved in the
investigation. (Government Code § 6254(f).)
Existing law , subject to the above "endangerment" limitation,
permits the disclosure of information about (a) persons arrested
by the agency (e.g. physical description, date and time of
arrest, name and occupation, all charges filed); (b) facts about
complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency
(including information about the crimes alleged and factual
circumstances about the crime or incident and the injuries
sustained by victims); and (c) pursuant to a request for
information for scholarly, journalistic, political, or
governmental purpose, the current address of every individual
arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of
a crime. (Government Code § 6254(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3).)
Existing law provides that when a person is the victim of more
than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a
victim of a crime may be deleted at the request of the victim,
or the victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in
making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident
accompanying the crime, available to the public. (Government
Code § 6254(f)(2).)
This bill provides that a state or local law enforcement agency
shall not require a victim of an incident, or an authorized
representative thereof, to show proof of the victim's legal
presence in the United States in order to obtain the information
required to be disclosed by that law enforcement agency pursuant
to this subdivision.
This bill provides however, if, for identification purposes, a
state or local law enforcement agency requires identification in
order for a victim of an incident, or an authorized
representative thereof, to obtain that information, the agency
shall, at a minimum, accept a current driver's license or
(More)
AB 1195 (Eggman)
Page 4
identification card issued by any state in the United States, a
current passport issued by the United States or a foreign
government with which the United States has a diplomatic
relationship, or a current Matricula Consular card.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
(More)
AB 1195 (Eggman)
Page 5
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
(More)
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
This bill ensures that crime victims have access to
their crime report as required by the California Public
Records Act (CPRA). There are reports of some victims
of crime being denied their crime report due to their
residency status. Current law does not require proof
(More)
AB 1195 (Eggman)
Page 7
of identification or spell out what forms of
identification are acceptable if a victim wishes to
access their crime report. In practice, most law
enforcement agencies require proof of identification to
support a request for a crime report. Some
jurisdictions, however, are denying specific categories
of identification, such as the Matricula Consular card
or foreign passports without supporting documentation
proving the holder's legal presence within the United
States.
This bill will remedy the problem by prescribing what
acceptable forms of identification are without actually
mandating that a law enforcement agency require
identification in order to access a crime report.
2. Reported Problems with Crime Victims' Access to Crime Reports
Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), information
associated with a particular crime (hereafter "crime report")
includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) the time,
substance, and location of all complaints or requests for
assistance received by the agency; (2) the time and nature of
the response thereto; (3) the time, date, and location of the
occurrence; (4) the time and date of the report; (5) the name
and age of the victim; (6) the factual circumstances surrounding
the crime or incident; and (7) a general description of any
injuries, property, or weapons involved. (Government Code §
6254(f).)
According to the California Immigrant Policy Center there are
many legitimate reasons why a crime victim would seek a copy of
the crime report that he or she is entitled to access under the
PRA. For example, victims of human trafficking or other crimes
who apply for a U-visa or T-visa under the Violence Against
Women's Act (VAWA) would largely benefit from accessing their
AB 1195 (Eggman)
Page 8
crime records to support their applications. A crime report can
help a victim of domestic violence obtain a restraining order or
initiate divorce proceedings in an expedient matter. In
addition, a victim of identity theft needs to obtain a crime
report in order to create an Identity Theft Report with the
Federal Trade Commission.
Many of the supporters to this bill state that there are reports
that some victims of crime are being denied copies of their
crime reports because of their residency status even though the
CPRA does not require specific forms of identification. This
bill would clarify that proof of legal status in the US is not
required to get a crime report and that if law enforcement does
require an identification, licenses from other states, passports
from a foreign government or a Matricular Consular card shall be
acceptable.
***************