BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 606
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 606 (De Leon) - As Amended: August 19, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-0
Judiciary
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill (a) clarifies that misdemeanor harassment of a child
because of the employment of the child's parent or guardian may
include attempting to record the child's image or voice if done
in a harassing manner; (b) increases criminal penalties; and (c)
subjects a person who commits misdemeanor harassment to civil
liability. Specifically, this bill:
1)Expands the definition of harass, from knowing and willful
conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously
alarms, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward and that
serves no legitimate purpose, to include conduct occurring
during the course of actual or attempted recording of the
child's image or voice without express consent of the child's
parent or legal guardian, by following the child's activities
or by lying in wait. Pursuant to current law, the conduct must
be such that would cause a reasonable child to suffer
substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim
to suffer substantial emotional distress.
2)Increases the penalty for harassing a child because of the
employment of the child's parent or guardian from up to six
months in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000, to up to
one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. A
second conviction is punishable by five days to one year in
jail and a fine of up to $20,000, and a third or subsequent
conviction would require 30 days to one year in jail and a
fine of up to $30,000.
3)Permits the parent/guardian to bring a civil action against a
SB 606
Page 2
person who violates this child harassment statute. Limits
remedies to actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, and disgorgement of compensation
received by the individual who recorded the child's image or
voice from the sale, license or dissemination of such
recording.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, likely minor state trial court costs as a result of
creating a new cause of action.
2)Unknown, likely minor, if any, nonreimbursable local
incarceration costs, offset to a degree by increased fine
revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. This bill, supported by groups concerned with
aggressive paparazzi, clarifies that misdemeanor child
harassment may include conduct occurring during an attempt to
record the child's image or voice without consent of the
child's parent or guardian. Because existing law already
makes it a crime to harass a child because of the occupation
of the parent or guardian, without identifying any specific
forms of conduct, the conduct targeted by this bill is likely
covered by existing law.
According to the author, by "increasing fines and providing
for civil liability, SB 606 will have a deterrent effect upon
those who would consider tormenting the most vulnerable and
defenseless members of our society in a manner that would
cause them to suffer substantial emotional distress."
2)Support includes groups such as the CA Medical Association,
the CA Police Chiefs Association, and the CA State Sheriffs
Association. According to the Screen Actors Guild/American
Federation of TV and Radio Artists, this bill will protect its
members "and any members of the public who may be affected by
the dangerous actions of out of control members of the
paparazzi."
3)Opposition . According to the CA Newspaper Publishers
Association, the increased penalties and liability "abridge
First Amendment protected newsgathering activity that occurs
SB 606
Page 3
in public places where a person normally has no reasonable
expectation of privacy." CNPA states "the bill as it pertains
to photography and recording is overly broad, vague, and
infringes upon legitimate and protected forms of speech and
expression." According to CNPA, to its knowledge, no plaintiff
has successfully sued under the existing law, and it fears
that this measure "will do nothing more than sanction nuisance
lawsuits by disgruntled subjects of news photographs."
4)First Amendment issues are discussed at length in the Assembly
Judiciary Committee analysis, which concludes, whether or not
this bill infringes upon the First Amendment will be decided
by a court, assuming it is ever challenged. While opponents
are correct that any statute that singles out journalistic
activity is suspect, the language added to the existing
definition of harass does not single out journalistic activity
as an offense, or subject it to increased punishment; it
merely lists a form of journalistic activity as an example of
the kinds of conduct that could constitute harassment. Whether
the language in the bill is unconstitutionally vague or overly
broad as applied to journalistic activity is uncertain, though
it should be noted that the language the opponents object to
is current law.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081