BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1256
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1256 (Bloom) - As Amended: January 15, 2014
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill makes it unlawful, and authorizes a civil action, for
a person to physically obstruct, intimidate, or otherwise
interfere with any person who is attempting to enter or exit a
school, health facility, or lodging and revises existing law
relating to the constructive invasion of privacy. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Makes it unlawful for any person, except a parent or guardian
acting toward his or her minor child, to:
a) By force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that
is a crime of violence, to intentionally injure,
intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with, any person attempting to
enter or exit a "facility"-a school, health facility, or
lodging, including a private residence.
b) By nonviolent physical obstruction, to intentionally
injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with, any person attempting to
enter or exit a facility.
2)Permits any person aggrieved by a violation of the above to
bring a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. A plaintiff
may elect to recover specified statutory damages.
3)Permits the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city
attorney to bring an action to enjoin a violation, for
compensatory damages on behalf of an aggrieved person, or for
the imposition of specified civil penalties.
AB 1256
Page 2
4)Revises and recasts an existing statute to clarify that a
person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy for
attempting to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sounding
recording, or other physical impression of another person
engaging in a private, personal, and familial activity, as
defined.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown likely minor state trial court costs, to the extent
this bill results in additional civil proceedings.
2)Nonreimbursable local costs to district attorneys, offset to
a degree by penalty revenues, to the extent additional civil
actions are pursued.
3)Should the AG elect to bring civil actions, costs will likely
be absorbable and partially offset by penalty revenues.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill, sponsored by the Paparazzi Reform
Initiative, seeks to curtail the sometimes aggressive conduct
of the paparazzi. The bill makes two changes to existing law.
First, existing law makes a person who attempts capture a
visual image or sound recording of another person with the use
of an enhanced visual or audio device liable for
"constructive" invasion of privacy, so long as the person did
so in a manner that was offensive to a reasonable person, the
image or recording could not have obtained without a trespass
in the absence of the enhanced device, and the plaintiff was
engaged in a "personal and familial activity," as defined.
This bill amends this statute by changing "personal and
familial activity" to "private, personal and familial
activity," and then provides examples of what constitutes
private, personal, and familial activity.
Second, the bill prohibits, and subjects to civil liability,
attempts to obstruct, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with
another person attempting to enter or exit a school, medical
facility, or lodging, as defined. This provision draws almost
word-for-word from an existing statute making it unlawful to
obstruct, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with a person
AB 1256
Page 3
attempting to exit or enter a reproductive health facility.
The author and sponsor contend that this bill is needed to
protect not only celebrities, but members of the public more
generally, when paparazzi block access points to vital
facilities.
2)Opposition . The California Newspaper Publishers Association
(CNPA's) asserts that this bill is yet another attempt to
expand upon the anti-paparazzi law that was passed 13 years
ago in an effort to subject photographers to liability for
"constructive" trespass if they infringed upon someone's
reasonable expectations of privacy in an offensive manner.
CNPA opposed the original legislation as a violation of the
First Amendment, and thus continues to oppose efforts to
expand it.
The National Newspaper Photographers Association (NNPA), like
CNPA, argues that the bill, however well-intended in its
effort to stop the worst paparazzi conduct, will have a
chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of legitimate
newsgatherers. NNPA believes that existing law already
provides sufficient remedies for invasion of privacy,
trespass, and other kinds of objectionable conduct, but NNPA
contends that this bill, by focusing as it does on attempts to
take photographs, fails to distinguish between valid
newsgathering and the objectionable acts of the paparazzi.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081