BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 333
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 11, 2013
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 333 (Lieu) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
SUMMARY : Makes a person convicted of filing a false emergency
report liable for the costs of the emergency response.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that any person convicted of filing a false
emergency report is liable to a public agency for the
reasonable costs of the emergency response by that agency.
2)Specifies that nothing in these provisions precludes
punishment under any other provision of law which provides for
greater punishment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly report a false
emergency, but that this conduct is a felony if the offense
results in great bodily injury or death. (Penal Code Section
148.3.)
2)Makes it a misdemeanor to telephone the 911 emergency line
with the intent to annoy or harass another person. Punishment
is by a fine of not more than $1,000; by imprisonment in a
county jail for not more than six months; or by both the fine
and imprisonment. Specifies that intent to annoy or harass is
established by proof of repeated calls over a period of time,
however short, that are unreasonable under the circumstances.
(Penal Code Section 653x.)
3)Imposes liability for all reasonable costs incurred by any
unnecessary emergency response when a person is convicted of
use of the 911 emergency line with intent to harass. [Penal
Code Section 653x(c).]
4)States any person who knowingly allows the use or who uses the
911 telephone system for any reason other than because of an
SB 333
Page 2
emergency, as specified, is guilty of an infraction. [Penal
Code Section 653y(a).]
5)Expresses the unequivocal intent of the People of the State of
California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of
criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the
persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.
Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted persons in
every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed,
in which a crime victim suffers a loss, unless compelling and
extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary. [Cal. Const.,
Art. I, sec. 28(b).]
6)Requires full victim restitution for economic losses
determined by the court. [Penal Code Section 1202.4.]
7)Defines a "victim" for purposes of restitution, as including
any corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership,
association, joint venture, government, governmental
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or
commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a
crime. [Penal Code Section 1202.4(k).]
8)Requires the sentencing court to consider in probation cases
whether the defendant shall make restitution to a public
agency for the costs of an emergency response as a condition
of probation. [Penal Code Section 1203.1(e).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "False emergency
911 calls have become increasingly common in the past few
months as they involve entertainers, celebrities and other
public officials. Celebrities get the public's attention but
they are not the only ones who have been targeted; the U.S.
Coast Guard, many private individuals, and local law
enforcement officials have also fallen victim to the swatting
hoax.
"Swatting not only stretches our local emergency response
capacity but also endangers victims by placing them in
potential confrontation with police. Several officers have
already been injured responding to swatting incidents.
SB 333
Page 3
"Swatting also is a costly waste of precious law enforcement
resources. Law enforcement takes every emergency reported and
uses its resources to maximize public safety. But at the time
a false report is given, law enforcement is unaware that it is
a hoax -- until they get to the scene of the alleged crime.
"Given recent tragedies involving gun violence nationwide,
pranks that divert public safety resources are far from
harmless and, in fact, are the last thing needed; they must be
deterred.
"This bill seeks to create a greater deterrent and provide law
enforcement with the ability to help recoup expenses within
the criminal case, which reportedly can run as high as $10,000
per incident."
2)Celebrity "Swatting" : According to a recent CNN report,
"swatting" is essentially a prank call which "earned the
nickname 'swatting' because law enforcement agencies sometimes
would send SWAT teams to respond to the false emergencies."
These "pranks have sent police rushing with guns drawn to a
growing A-list [sic] of celebrity homes in recent weeks."
(.)
3)Recoupment of Costs by Government Agencies : A government
agency may qualify as a direct victim of the defendant's crime
for purposes of victim restitution. [Penal Code Section
1202.4(k)(2).] But case law has attributed a precise meaning
to the phrase "direct victim," for purposes of the restitution
statutes. These statutes limit restitution to "'entities
against which the [defendant's] crimes had been committed'
-that is, entities that are the 'immediate objects of the
[defendant's] offenses.'" [People v. Runyan (2012) 54 Cal.4th
849, quoting People v. Martinez (2005) 36 Cal.4th 384, at p.
393.]
Thus, for example, a defrauded government agency is a direct
victim entitled to restitution for its losses. [People v Crow
(1993) 6 Cal.4th 952, 957 (welfare fraud); People v Akins
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1385-1389, (same).]
However, governmental units are often found to be indirect
victims not entitled to restitution. The courts have
SB 333
Page 4
recognized that public agencies are not directly victimized
for purposes of restitution simply because they spend money to
investigate crimes or apprehend criminals. [People v.
Martinez, supra, 36 Cal.4th 384, 393-394; People v. Ozkan
(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1077.] For example, in Martinez,
the Supreme Court held that the Department of Toxic Substance
Control was not the "immediate object" of the defendant's
conviction of the attempted manufacture of methamphetamine
and, therefore, was not a direct victim entitled to
restitution for its mandatory costs of cleaning up the
defendant's illegal drug lab. (Martinez, supra, 36 Cal.4th
384, 393-394.)
Arguably, the police or fire department responding to a prank
swatting call is not the direct victim of the crime. Rather,
the individual who is the subject of the hoax may be seen as
the direct victim. If so, then the responding governmental
agency would not be eligible to recoup its costs under victim
restitution statutes.
Nevertheless, other statutes often provide governmental agencies
separate remedies to obtain reimbursement for expenditures
attributable to a defendant's conduct. For example, Health
and Safety Code Section 13009 imposes liability for
fire-fighting expenses when a person negligently or
intentionally sets a fire. Similarly, Health and Safety Code
Section 11470.2 allows a government agency to recoup clean-up
costs when a person is convicted of manufacturing or
cultivating a controlled substance.
In relation to swatting, Penal Code Section 653x(c) already
imposes liability for the reasonable costs incurred by any
unnecessary emergency response. This bill imposes the same
liability in cases that are prosecuted under Penal Code
Section 148.3 (filing a false emergency report), rather than
Penal Code Section 653x (use of 911 with intent to harass).
4)Argument in Support : The California State Sheriff's
Association states, "SB 333 would help reduce incidents of
swatting by allowing law enforcement the ability to recoup
expenses for responding to prank reports."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice , "SB 333 would add subsection (d) to
Section 148.3 providing for restitution for the reasonable
SB 333
Page 5
cost of the response to a false report of an emergency.
Please note that Section 653x(c), which can also be charged
alternatively in almost any case involving the false report of
an emergency, currently provides for full restitution if there
is an actual emergency response. Be that as it may, this type
of restitution provision is totally unnecessary in any Penal
Code section. Ample case law exists that states persons who
commit crimes are financially liable for all of the reasonable
and natural damages suffered by any victim as the result of
that criminal conduct. Subsection (d) adds nothing to current
law."
6)Related Legislation : AB 47 (Gatto) increases the fines and
penalties for making a prank 911 phone call resulting in the
dispatch of service personnel. AB 47 is pending referral by
the Senate Rules Committee.
7)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2741 (Cannella), Chapter 262, Statutes of 1994, made
it a misdemeanor to telephone the 911 emergency system with
the intent to annoy or harass another person.
b) AB 911 (Longville), Chapter 295, Statutes of 2004,
created a new infraction for using the 911 telephone system
for purposes other than an emergency, as defined.
c) AB 1976 (Benoit), Chapter 89, Statutes of 2008,
increased the penalties for knowingly using the 911 system
for any reason other than an emergency.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Sponsor)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriff's Association
City of Beverly Hills
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
SB 333
Page 6
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744