BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 606|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 606
Author: De León (D)
Amended: 8/19/13
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/30/13
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 35-0, 5/24/13
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Block, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett,
Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines,
Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Knight, Lara, Lieu, Monning, Nielsen, Padilla, Pavley, Price,
Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Evans, Leno, Liu, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 9/3/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Harassment: child or ward
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill clarifies that misdemeanor harassment of a
child because of the employment of the childs parent or guardian
may include attempting to record the child's image or voice if
done in a harassing manner; increases criminal penalties; and
subjects a person who commits misdemeanor harassment to civil
liability.
CONTINUED
SB 606
Page
2
Assembly Amendments make technical and clarifying changes to the
bill and increase the penalty of a conviction and subsequent
conviction, as specified.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides that a person who has "suffered harassment" may seek
a temporary restraining order and an injunction to prevent
such harassment. "Harassment" is defined thus: "[U]nlawful
violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and
willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that
seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that
serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be
such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial
emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial
emotional distress to the plaintiff."
2. Provides that an employer may seek a temporary restraining
order and injunction on behalf of an employee who has been
harassed at work through unlawful violence or a credible
threat of violence. In the discretion of the court, the
order and injunction can be applied to additional employees
and workplaces of the employer.
3. Provides that it is a misdemeanor for any person to
intentionally harass a child because of the employment status
of the child's parent or parents. The offense is punishable
by a six month jail term, a $1000 fine, or both. A defendant
must serve a jail term of at least five days for a second
conviction, and at least 30 days for a third or subsequent
conviction.
4. Includes the following definitions:
A. "Harasses" means "knowing and willful conduct
directed at a specific child that seriously alarms,
annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which
serves no legitimate purpose. The conduct must be such
as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial
emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to
suffer that distress."
CONTINUED
SB 606
Page
3
B. A child, for purposes of this crime, is a person
under the age of 16 years.
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. 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 requires 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
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.
Background
AB 3592 (Umberg, 1994) was adopted to protect children who would
be susceptible to retaliatory attacks because of their parents'
employment. The bill made the intentional harassment of a child
because of their parents' employment a misdemeanor. AB 3592 was
meant to specifically address the increased harassment faced by
the children of health care facility employees where abortion
procedures were performed.
CONTINUED
SB 606
Page
4
The beneficiaries of the law, however, were not solely
healthcare workers. Clearly, there are many other categories of
workers whose children are subject to retaliatory attacks
because of the nature of their work. For example, the children
of public figures are susceptible to fanatical attention and
harassment because of their parents' occupation.
Indeed, those charged with enforcing our criminal laws-police,
sheriffs, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and jail/prison
guards-confront individuals who harbor vendettas against them on
a daily basis. The most tragic, recent example of the lengths
to which some will go is the February killing spree of former
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer Christopher Dorner.
In his "manifesto," Dorner identified over 50 potential targets
and their families, including that of LAPD Captain Phil
Tingirides, who served on the board of rights that recommended
Dorner's termination from the Department. Once that threat
surfaced, Tingirides' six foster children (the youngest of whom
was only 10 years old) were guarded by round-the-clock
protection details during the ensuing manhunt. This horrific
case highlights the vulnerability of the children of our law
enforcers and the need to provide a strong impediment against
such terrorism.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/3/13)
California Medical Association
California National Organization for Women
California Police Chiefs Association
California Psychological Association
California State Sheriffs Association
Crime Victims United
Los Angeles District Attorneys Association
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists
State Coalition of Probation Organizations
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/3/13)
CONTINUED
SB 606
Page
5
California Broadcasters Association
California Newspapers Publishers Association
National Press Photographers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : On behalf of the California State
Sheriffs' Association, "we are pleased to support SB 606, which
would make it a crime for any person who intentionally harasses
the child or ward of any other person because of that person's
employment, or attempts to record a child's image or voice, or
both, without the written consent of the child's parent or legal
guardian, by following the child's activities or lying in wait.
Unfortunately, children of law enforcement officers have been
targeted for harassment and threats of violence due to the
employment of their parents. We are pleased to support this
measure that increases the protection of those children."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Newspaper Publishers
Association (CNPA) opposes this bill because, they believe, "the
increased penalties and liabilities?.improperly abridge First
Amendment protected newsgathering activity that occurs in public
places where a person normally has no reasonable expectation of
privacy." CNPA also fears that "the bill as it pertains to
photography and recording is overly broad, vague, and infringes
upon legitimate and protected forms of speech expression." CNPA
notes that existing law - which it says it also staunchly
opposed - created liability for photographers who committed a
"constructive" invasion of privacy in the process of attempting
to take a photograph or capture a voice recording. According to
CNPA, to its knowledge, no plaintiff has successfully sued under
the existing law, and it fears that this bill "will do nothing
more than sanction nuisance lawsuits by disgruntled subjects of
news photographs."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 9/3/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier, Beth Gaines,
Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove,
Hagman, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer,
Levine, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina,
Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
CONTINUED
SB 606
Page
6
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Wagner, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Fox, Hall, Linder, Waldron, Vacancy,
Vacancy
JG:d 9/3/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED