BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1256
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1256 (Bloom)
As Amended January 15, 2014
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 8-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, | |Bradford, |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| |Stone | |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner |Nays:|Bigelow, Allen, Linder, |
| | | |Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes it unlawful for a person to physically obstruct,
intimidate, or otherwise interfere with any person who is
attempting to enter or exit a "facility," as defined, and
revises existing law provisions 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 commit any of the
following acts:
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.
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. Permits
AB 1256
Page 2
plaintiff to elect specified statutory damages. Permits the
state 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.
3)Defines "facility" to mean any public or private school
grounds, as described, any health facility, as described, or
any lodging, including a private residence, hotel, temporary
lodging facility, inn, motel, bed and breakfast, or any other
location that provides permanent or temporary lodging to
persons.
4)Specifies that nothing in the provisions above shall be
construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity,
including, but not limited to, speech, protest, or assembly.
5)Revises and recasts an existing statute so as 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
specified. Defines "private, personal, and familial activity"
for these purposes to include the following:
a) Intimate details of the plaintiff's personal life under
circumstances in which the plaintiff has a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
b) Interaction with the plaintiff's family or significant
others under circumstances in which the plaintiff has a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
c) Where minors are present at a private or public school
and the defendant has been convicted of disrupting school
activities, as specified.
d) Any activity that occurs on a residential property under
circumstances in which the plaintiff has a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
e) Other aspects of the plaintiff's private affairs or
concerns under circumstances in which the plaintiff has a
AB 1256
Page 3
reasonable expectation of privacy.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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 (Attorney General) AG elect to bring civil actions,
costs will likely be absorbable and partially offset by
penalty revenues.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the Paparazzi Reform
Initiative, seeks to curtail the sometimes aggressive conduct of
the paparazzi. Several similar bills have come before the
Assembly Judiciary Committee in recent years. These bills
usually pit the privacy rights of celebrities against the
interests of news organizations in reporting upon, and the
public's interest in reading about, the goings-on of the rich,
the famous, the infamous, and others who are simply more
interesting than the rest of us. Recent legislation on this
issue has typically attempted to shoehorn the conduct of the
paparazzi - attempting to capture a person's image without that
person's consent and in a highly aggressive manner - into
existing laws that prohibit harassment, stalking, or physical
and constructive invasions of privacy.
This bill would make 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 would amend this
statute by changing "personal and familial activity" to
"private, personal and familial activity," and then providing
examples of what constitutes private, personal, and familial
activity. Second, and more substantively, this bill would
AB 1256
Page 4
prohibit, and subject to civil liability, attempts to obstruct,
intimidate, or otherwise interfere with another person who is
attempting to enter or exit a school, medical facility, or
lodging, as defined. This latter provision in the bill draws
almost word-for-word from an existing statute that makes it
unlawful for a person to obstruct, intimidate, or otherwise
interfere with a person 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.
The California Newspaper Publishers Association and other
newsgathering groups oppose this bill because, however
well-intended in its effort to stop the worst paparazzi conduct,
it will have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of
legitimate newsgatherers. Opponents believe that existing law
already provides sufficient remedies for invasion of privacy,
trespass, and other kinds of objectionable conduct, and they
contend that this bill, 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 : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002977