BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 346 Hearing Date: June 9, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Wilk |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 13, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Vehicle Infractions and Misdemeanors: Arrests
HISTORY
Source: Simi Valley Police Officers Association
Prior Legislation:None
Support: The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs;
California Peace Officers' Association; California
State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police; California
Statewide Law Enforcement Association; Long Beach
Police Officers Association; Los Angeles County
Professional Peace Officers Association; The Los
Angeles Police Protective League; The Riverside
Sheriffs Association; Sacramento County Professional
Peace Officers Association; Santa Ana Police Officers
Association
Opposition:Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 1
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow the arrest of a person who
AB 346 (Wilk ) Page
2 of ?
fails to present both his or her driver's license or other
satisfactory evidence of his or her identity and an unobstructed
view of his or her full face for examination when a person is
stopped for a Vehicle Code infraction or misdemeanor.
Existing law requires a person that is under a non-custodial
arrest for a vehicle-related infraction or misdemeanor to be
taken immediately before a court magistrate if they fail to
present their driver's license or other satisfactory evidence to
a law enforcement officer. (Vehicle Code § 40302)
This bill would also require that a person that is under
non-custodial arrest for a vehicle-related infraction or
misdemeanor to be taken immediately before a court magistrate if
they fail to present their driver's license and an unobstructed
view of his or her full face for examination.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
AB 346 (Wilk ) Page
3 of ?
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for The Bill
According to the author:
In the State of California, one must carry a valid
driver's license in order to operate a vehicle. In the
event that one is pulled over in a traffic stop, he or
she must present law enforcement with identification.
AB 346 (Wilk ) Page
4 of ?
Once pulled over, one is considered to be under arrest
for a particular offense, such as speeding. For many
infractions and misdemeanors in the Vehicle Code, once
a notice to appear in court is signed, one will be
released from arrest.
This arrest is considered non-custodial, as a person is
never taken into custody and booked. At the time of
the arrest it is procedurally important to establish
the identity of the driver. Should the case arise that
a motorist has forgotten his or her identification at
home, he or she may still satisfy confirmation of
identity by other means, to ensure the possession of a
driver's license. The law states that a motorist must
give "satisfactory evidence of his identity for
examination." Recently, an instance occurred during a
traffic stop regarding a motorcyclist refusing to
remove his helmet. This prevented law enforcement from
successfully confirming that the photo on the driver's
license was indeed the motorcyclist. The act of
obstructing one's face from law enforcement is a public
safety concern. Furthermore, establishing the identity
of the motorist is a necessary part of the arrest
procedure, such as checking against outstanding
warrants. Another example in which it could be
necessary to confirm a motorist's identity would be in
the instance of an Amber Alert.
In regards to driver's licenses, the Department of
Motor Vehicle's has a strict policy for photographing
persons obtaining identification. Each person must
present his or her full face including eyes, nose and
mouth for the photo. It makes no exceptions for
religion or personal preferences. Additionally, a 2005
Appellate Court Case Valov vs Department of Motor
Vehicles, upheld the requirement that a full face
photograph is a condition of obtaining a driver's
license, and does not infringe on religious liberties
under either the California or US Constitution.
Current law, authored by Assemblyman Cooley with AB
334, addresses the widespread concern of profiling
motorcycle riders. Its creation noted that motorcycle
communities have a diverse group of members, and that
AB 346 (Wilk ) Page
5 of ?
law enforcement must establish a written policy that
prevents this from happening. With the current events
that have taken place in Waco, Texas, this legislation
and AB 346 become even more essential for law
enforcement.
2. Full View of The Face
This bill would allow for a person to be taken into custody if
he or she refuses to present "an unobstructed view of his or her
full face for examination" along with his or her driver's
license during a stop for a Vehicle Code infraction or
misdemeanor. According to the author and the sponsor this would
close a loophole that may keep law enforcement from confirming
that the identity of the person matches the identity on the
driver's license.
The incident that gave rise to this bill involved a motorcyclist
that refused to remove his helmet. Failure to remove a helmet
with a face shield is a clear obstruction of person's face. Are
there situations that may be more subjective? What about a tall
man who does not bend down to show his full face in the window
as he hands his license to the police officer. What about a
person who refuses to remove his or her baseball cap, sun hat or
hoody? If the officer feels that he or she can't see the FULL
face would this allow the officer to go beyond a simple traffic
stop?
3. Support
The California Peace Officers' Association supports this bill
stating:
AB 346 is a good bill, and one would that prove
extremely beneficial to the practices of law
enforcement officers who often encounter suspects whose
driver's license and or identity is not sufficient to
prove that the suspect and the person on the
identification are one and the same.
4. Opposition
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children opposes this bill
stating:
AB 346 (Wilk ) Page
6 of ?
A 2013 ACLU study showed persistent trends of racial
bias in the policing and stopping of vehicles for
traffic infractions and crimes. Across the state of
Illinois, the rate of black drivers in stops (46%) was
far higher than the rate of black residents in the
surveyed city (32%). Furthermore, black and Hispanic
drivers were nearly twice as likely as white drivers to
be asked during a routine traffic stop to consent to a
search of their car. We are concerned that this bill
will be applied in a way that targets racial or
cultural minorities in the same way that legal searches
after stops have been shown to be applied in a
discriminatory manner.
We understand the need for officers to be able to
verify the identity of a driver during a routine stop.
Existing law already accounts for this, requiring that
a motorist give "satisfactory evidence of his identity
for examination." Hooded sweatshirts, baseball caps or
hijab may all create some obstruction over the face
that does not prevent a police officer from confirming
a person's identity, yet under this bill could be used
as a pretext for threatening or harassing communities.
-- END -