BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 2634 (Bradford)
As Amended April 9, 2014
Hearing Date: June 10, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Civil Rights
DESCRIPTION
This bill would expressly authorize individuals to seek
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a
pattern or practice of interference, or attempted interference,
with the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the laws or
Constitution of the United States or of the State of California.
BACKGROUND
In 1987, California enacted the Bane Civil Rights Act (AB 63
(Bane, Ch. 1277, Stats. 1987); (the Bane Act)), to authorize the
Attorney General (AG), district attorney, or city attorney to
bring an action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the
right or rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States or this state, against any person who interferes,
or attempts to interfere with any individual's exercise or
enjoyment of those rights. Additionally, the Bane Act
authorizes individuals to bring a civil action for damages,
including, but not limited to, damages under other specified
civil rights legislation (Civil Code Section 52, the Unruh Civil
Rights Act), injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable
relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the
right or rights secured.
This bill seeks to expressly authorize individuals who may
otherwise bring actions under the Bane Act to also seek, as part
(more)
AB 2634 (Bradford)
Page 2 of ?
of that action, appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to
eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct that interferes with,
or attempts to interfere with, the exercise or enjoyment of
rights secured under the constitution or laws of the U.S. or of
this state. The proposed authorization is similar to the
current authority of the AG to bring a civil action in the name
of the people for appropriate equitable and declaratory relief
to eliminate any 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 of this state.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law 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 protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution
or laws of California. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.3(a).)
Existing law permits the Attorney General (AG) to 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 subdivision (a) above, whenever the AG has
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of that provision
has occurred. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.3(b).)
Existing law , the Bane Civil Rights Act, prohibits violence or
the threat of violence based on grounds such as race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex,
sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in a labor
dispute. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.1.)
Existing law authorizes the AG, or any district attorney or city
attorney, to bring an action seeking injunctive and equitable
relief in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment
by an individual or individuals of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States or this state,
whenever a person interferes by threats, intimidation, or
coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or
coercion, with those rights. Existing law permits the AG,
district attorney or city attorney seeking injunctive or
equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise of a person's
constitutional rights to also seek a civil penalty of $25,000,
AB 2634 (Bradford)
Page 3 of ?
to be awarded to the person whose rights were violated, and to
be assessed against each person who violated those rights.
(Civ. Code Sec. 52.1(a).)
Existing law permits any individual whose exercise or enjoyment
of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States or this state has been interfered with, or attempted to
be interfered with, as described above, to institute and
prosecute in his or her own behalf a civil action for damages,
including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52 (the
Unruh Civil Rights Act), injunctive relief, and other
appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise
or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. (Civ. Code Sec.
52.1(b).)
This bill would specify, with respect to those remedies, that
"other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable
exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured" includes
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a
pattern or practice of conduct.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
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 Attorney
General to sue law enforcement for pattern and practice
violations, but it is rarely used as a result of civil rights
violations. Allowing a private right of action is necessary to
prevent future civil right violations based on law
enforcement's pattern and practice.
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
AB 2634 (Bradford)
Page 4 of ?
practice.
The sponsor, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, writes:
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
[an] array of legal options. Although an individual can sue
for monetary damages, current law does not 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.
In support of the bill, the American Civil Liberties Union of
California adds that extending the existing law right to seek
injunctive relief to individuals "can be particularly important
in cases resulting from police abuse, because while an
individual can sue for monetary damages, the statute does not
specifically 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. . . ."
2. The remedy sought by this bill is arguably consistent with
existing law
This bill seeks to expressly authorize individuals who may
otherwise bring actions under the Bane Civil Rights Act (Bane
Act) to also seek, as part of that action, appropriate equitable
and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of
AB 2634 (Bradford)
Page 5 of ?
conduct that interferes with, or attempts to interfere with, the
exercise or enjoyment of rights secured under the constitution
or laws of the United States or of this state.
In order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the
right or rights secured by the federal or state constitutions or
laws, California law, the Bane Act, authorizes the Attorney
General (AG) to bring an action seeking injunctive relief and
other appropriate equitable relief any time an individual's
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
or this state have been interfered with or attempted to be
interfered with, by the threats, intimidation or coercion of
another person, whether or not that person was acting under
color of law. Relatedly, a separate provision of law authorizes
the AG to bring a civil action in the name of the people to
obtain equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate such
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
of this state, whenever the AG has reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of these civil rights acts have occurred. (See
Civ. Code Sec. 52.3.)
With respect to remedies specifically available to individuals,
the Bane Act provides that an individual whose exercise or
enjoyment of those rights has been interfered with or attempted
to be interfered with, may institute and prosecute a civil
action for damages, including other appropriate equitable relief
to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or
rights secured. In general, the rights and remedies afforded
under these provisions not only vindicate individual rights, but
also provide a mechanism to redress the harms hate-based
violence causes to the larger community.
Nonetheless, the author asserts there is a problem with existing
law insofar as "[a] person alleging excessive use of force by
law enforcement can seek monetary damages, but injunctive relief
is limited only to the individual who was harmed - that is, a
court can order law enforcement to discontinue a practice
against an individual but cannot order a stop to the overall
practice against others."
Staff notes that insofar as an individual may already bring a
civil action for appropriate equitable relief against the person
or persons who interfere with or attempt to interfere with their
secured constitutional or statutory rights for specified
AB 2634 (Bradford)
Page 6 of ?
damages, it is arguably possible that an individual could seek
an order that would preclude the defendant from engaging in such
acts against similarly situated persons. The Consumer Attorneys
of California, in support, comments that:
Two recent incidents highlight the need for AB 2634. In City
of Los Angeles v. Lyons. Lyons was put into a chokehold
during a routine traffic stop, a practice permitted by the Los
Angeles Police Department (LAPD). 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983). The
court awarded Lyons financial damages after the incident but
denied him injunctive relief. Thus, the LAPD was allowed to
continue using chokeholds despite the serious injuries that
could result from the practice.
Similarly, in 2011, University of California Davis campus
police used pepper spray on students who were participating in
a peaceful protest. These students were able to ask the court
for monetary relief stemming from the incident, but were
unable to prevent the action from reoccurring. AB 2634 will
allow for injunctive relief in these situations, where a court
finds it appropriate.
As a matter of public policy, if a person can demonstrate that
he or she is not the only victim or possible victim (i.e. can
demonstrate there is a pattern or practice of conduct), the
court should be permitted to fashion an order providing
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a
pattern or practice of conduct that interferes with, or attempts
to interfere with, the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured
under the constitution or laws of the United States or of this
state.
3. Chaptering-out issues
Staff notes that AB 2617 (Weber), relating to the Bane Civil
Rights Act, would amend the same section as this bill and
double-jointing language must be added to the bill before it
leaves the Senate to avoid any chaptering-out of this bill's
provisions.
Support : All of Us or None/Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children; American Civil Liberties Union of California; American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),
AFL-CIO; California State Conference of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Center for Young
AB 2634 (Bradford)
Page 7 of ?
Women's Development; Communities United for Restorative Youth
Justice; Consumer Attorneys of California; Fathers and Families
of San Joaquin; Homies Unidos; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children; MILPA East Salinas; National Coalition of Barrios
Unidos; San Joaquin Regional Green Jobs Coalition; Street Level
Health Project; Valley Latino Environmental Advancement Project
(Valley LEAP)
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 63 (Bane, Ch. 1277, Stats. 1987) See Background.
AB 2484 (Romero, Aroner and Keeley, Ch. 622, Stats. 2000) See
Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 65, Noes 2)
Assembly Judiciary (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************