BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2634 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Bob Wieckowski, Chair AB 2634 (Bradford) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014 As Proposed to be Amended SUBJECT : CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF KEY ISSUE : SHOULD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND AGENTS BE SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL INJUNCTIONS ELIMINATING MISCONDUCT WHEN A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HAS BEEN PROVED? SYNOPSIS This bill would clarify that courts have the authority to issue injunctions to eliminate a pattern or practice of civil rights violations committed under color of law. This principle is consistent with the general and inherent authority of courts to order equitable relief appropriate to the nature of the violation; it is also consistent with the explicit statutory authority of the courts to do so in pattern or practice cases prosecuted by the Attorney General. Supporters believe it would be beneficial to clarify this authority in private-party cases as well. The problem typically arises with respect to alleged violations by law enforcement officers. When a pattern or practice of civil rights violations is found, the question arises whether the court can order the violator to refrain from further misconduct not only toward the person who sued but to others as well. Because the defendant is before the court, it appears appropriate, efficient and economical to deter bad acts against others if there is evidence warranting such an order. The bill has no known opposition. SUMMARY : Clarifies court authority to make appropriate equitable relief when a pattern or practice of civil rights violations has been established. Specifically, this bill provides that any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section AB 2634 Page 2 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct in violation of specified law. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated. (Civil Code section 52.1(a).) 2)Also provides that any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in section 52.1 (a) may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. (Civil Code section 52.1 (b).) 3)Provides that no governmental authority, or agent of a governmental authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or AB 2634 Page 3 protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of California. (Civil Code section 52.3(a).) 4)Further provides that the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice of conduct specified in section 52.3 (a), whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of section 52.3 (a) has occurred. (Civil Code section 52.3(b).) FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is intended to provide more effective remedies when a court finds certain egregious civil rights violations: The use of excessive force by law enforcement officers is a serious and ongoing concern in California, but asking a court to prohibit an unsafe pattern and practice against other nonparties is difficult. Current law allows the AG to sue law enforcement for pattern and practice violations, but it is rarely used as a result of civil rights violations. AB 2634 will allow an individual, at the court's discretion, to seek injunctive relief for all other nonparties when the use of excessive force is a result of pattern and practice. The private party must meet an extremely high burden of providing injury based on a pattern and practice. By granting an individual the legal right to ask a court to order law enforcement to discontinue such acts, future civil rights violations can be prevented against both the individual and other nonparties as a result of law enforcement's pattern and practice. The sponsor of the measure, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) further explains: This measure will strengthen legal remedies available when a person is the victim of police abuse. Specifically, AB 2634 will allow a court to order a law enforcement entity AB 2634 Page 4 to cease unlawful practices whenever there is evidence of a pattern or practice of civil rights violations. Excessive force and civil rights violations by police officers causes significant damage to communities. Individuals often suffer physical harm or death; families must try to rebuild their lives and distrust of police officers permeates neighborhoods. As a result, community members who are victims of crime become cautious about reaching out to the police due to concerns that they may be victimized by the police as well. Unfortunately, police abuse scandals tend to occur in lower-income communities and neighborhoods with a high population of people of color. Many community groups organize in response to police abuse incidents with little success. Departments are averse to altering their policies even when there are repeated occurrences of police abuse. Often times pursuing a lawsuit is the only option. However, current California law fails to explicitly provide array of legal options. Although an individual can sue for monetary damages, current law does not expressly give a court the ability to issue an order requiring a police department to change its policies and practices, even if there is a pattern and practice of civil rights violations. AB 2634 addresses this deficiency in the law. Specifically, this bill will amend Civil Code section 52.1 to explicitly state that an individual who successfully sues for violation of civil rights and demonstrates that these violations are part of a pattern and practice of the law enforcement entity, may ask a court to issue an injunction to require a change in departmental policy and action. This additional legal remedy is designed to reduce the incidents of police abuse in California. This Bill Appears To Be Clarifying And Consistent With Existing Law. Under this bill, judges would have the explicit authority to order appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to end a pattern or practice of civil rights violations. No court has reportedly held that judges lack this authority now. Indeed, the inherent equitable powers of the courts to fashion remedies designed to ensure proper obedience to the law may already be clear. (See, e.g., U.S. v. Building Inspector of America, Inc., AB 2634 Page 5 (D.Mass. 1995) 894 F. Supp. 507, 520-521)(In issuing injunctive relief, a court has broad power to restrain acts which are of the same type or class as unlawful acts which the court has found to have been committed or whose commission in the future, unless enjoined, may fairly be anticipated from the defendant's conduct in the past.) Nevertheless, supporters argue, this bill would provide helpful clarification by making the court's authority explicit. This approach is consistent with existing Civil Code section 52.3, which provides that no governmental authority, agent, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of California. (Civil Code section 52.3(a).) Existing law also provides that the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice of conduct specified in section 52.3 (a), whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of section 52.3 (a) has occurred. (Civil Code section 52.3(b).) By expressly incorporating the same language in section 52.1 as currently operates in section 52.3 - i.e., appropriate relief to eliminate the pattern or practice - supporters argue that the court's authority will be clarified for the benefit of all parties. Author's Technical Amendment. To clarify the intent of the measure to be consistent with existing injunctive relief provisions where a pattern or practice is found, the author appropriately proposes the following clarification: (b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct in violation of subdivision (a).If a civil action is brought under AB 2634Page 6 this subdivision in response to an act under color of law, and it is established that the act under color of law is the result of a pattern or practice of activity, injunctive relief may include injunctive relief against nonparties to prohibit the underlying act. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (sponsor) ACLU All of Us or None Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Center for Young Women's Development Fathers and Families of San Joaquin Homies Unidos MILPA East Salinas National Coalition of Barrios Unidos San Joaquin Regional Green Jobs Coalition Street Level Health Project Valley Latino Environmental Advancement Project Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334