BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1706
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jacqui Irwin, Chair
AB 1706
(Chávez) - As Amended March 8, 2016
SUBJECT: Military fraud
SUMMARY: Adds to the list of misdemeanors punishable under the
California Stolen Valor Act. Specifically, this bill:
1)Updates the California Stolen Valor Act to require a
conviction under the federal Stolen Valor Act of 2013 rather
than the 2005 version, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
unconstitutional.
2)Clarifies the intent requirements for misdemeanors punishable
under the California Stolen Valor Act.
3)Defines "district" as "any agency of the state formed pursuant
to general law or special act, for the local performance of
governmental or proprietary functions within limited
boundaries for purposes of the California Stolen Valor Act."
4)Defines "tangible benefit" as "financial remuneration, an
effect on the outcome of a criminal or civil court proceeding,
or any benefit relating to service in the military that is
provided by a federal, state, or local governmental entity for
purposes of the California Stolen Valor Act."
5)Adds the California National Guard, the State Military
AB 1706
Page 2
Reserve, the Naval Militia, the national guard of any other
state, or any other reserve component of the Armed Forces of
the United States to the list of military service branches
covered by the California Stolen Valor Act.
6)Adds to the list of misdemeanors punishable under the
California Stolen Valor Act as any person who:
a) Forges documentation reflecting the awarding of any
military decoration that he or she has not received for the
purposes of obtaining money, property, or other tangible
benefit;
b) Wears a uniform or military decoration authorized for
use by the members or veterans of those forces for the
purposes of obtaining money, property, or receiving a
tangible benefit;
c) Knowingly utilizes falsified military identification for
the purposes of obtaining money, property, or receiving a
tangible benefit;
d) Knowingly, with the intent to impersonate, for the
purposes of promoting a business, charity, or endeavor,
misrepresents himself or herself as a member or veteran of
the Armed Forces of the United States, the California
National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval
Militia by wearing the uniform or military decoration
authorized for use by the members or veterans of those
forces; and
e) Knowingly, with the intent to gain an advantage for
employment purposes, misrepresents himself or herself as a
member or veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States,
the California National Guard, the State Military Reserve,
AB 1706
Page 3
or the Naval Militia by wearing the uniform or military
decoration authorized for use by the members or veterans of
those forces.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW:
Title 18 United States Code Section 704 States that, "Whoever,
with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible
benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a
decoration or medal described in subsection ? shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
EXISTING STATE LAW:
1)States that it is a misdemeanor for any person to falsely
represent himself or herself as a veteran when soliciting aid
or selling property. (Pen. Code, § 532b, subd. (a).)
2)States that it is a misdemeanor for any person to falsely
represent himself or herself as a veteran in an attempt to
defraud. (Pen. Code, § 532b, subd. (b).)
3)States that it is a misdemeanor for any person to falsely
represent himself or herself as a recipient of any "military
decoration" in an attempt to defraud. If the individual is a
veteran of any U.S. war, the individual is guilty of either an
infraction or a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 532b, subd. (c)(1)
& (2).)
4)States that the California Stolen Valor Act does not apply to
face-to-face solicitations involving less than ten dollars.
(Pen. Code, § 532b, subd. (d).)
5)Defines "military decoration" for the purpose of this
subdivision as" any decoration or medal from the Armed Forces
of the United States, the California National Guard, the State
Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia, or any colorable
imitation of that item." (Pen. Code, § 532b, subd. (c)(3).)
AB 1706
Page 4
6)States that any elected officer of the state or a city,
county, city and county or district in this state forfeits his
or her office upon the conviction of a crime under the
California Stolen Valor Act. (Gov. Code, § 3003, Pen. Code, §
532b.)
7)States that any elected officer of the state or a city,
county, city and county or district in this state forfeits his
or her office upon the conviction of a crime under the federal
Stolen Valor Act of 2005 if the crime involves a false claim
to a "military decoration" or medal described in that Act.
(Gov. Code, § 3003, 18 U.S.C. § 704.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Author's Statement: According to the author, "It is important
to create conformity between state and federal law to ensure
elected officials are held accountable to be honest about their
service or lack thereof."
This bill makes changes to the California Stolen Valor Act to
reflect the United States Supreme Court's ruling on the 2005
federal Stolen Valor Act.
The current, 2013 federal act prohibits fraudulently wearing
medals or other decorations with the intent to obtain money,
property, or other tangible benefit. The underlying policy is
that we value military service and sacrifice, often shown by
military medals and decorations, extremely highly as a Nation.
While we also value freedom of speech highly as a country,
indeed as a fundamental principle of the Nation; with the
federal Stolen Valor Act we choose to restrict and criminalize
speech that uses military medals and decorations as currency,
influence or leverage to obtain a tangible benefit.
Existing California law and policy are grounded in the same
AB 1706
Page 5
general idea that it should be a crime to misrepresent military
service for the purpose of obtaining a benefit. California law,
however, already calls out more instances of prohibited speech
than the federal code and this bill makes additions to the
existing list of prohibited conduct.
The additional acts are set forth below; each section either
arguably describes a situation in which a tangible benefit is
inherent or the section includes language (omitted below) which
is intended to explicitly add a requirement that the act be done
to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit in
conformity with United States Supreme Court rulings.
Paraphrasing, the prohibited acts in California should this bill
become law are:
a) Misrepresenting oneself as a member or veteran of the
Armed Forces by wearing a uniform or military decoration.
b) Forging documentation reflecting the award of any
military decoration a person has not received.
c) Misrepresenting oneself as a member or veteran by
wearing a uniform or military decoration.
d) Using falsified military identification.
e) Promoting a business, charity, or endeavor by
impersonating a member or veteran of the Armed Forces by
wearing a uniform or military decoration.
This bill was previously heard by the Assembly Committee on
Public Safety. It is important to note the constitutional
context and litigation which motivated most of the changes this
bill would make in California law. According to the Committee
on Public Safety:
Currently, California requires that an elected officer
forfeit their office upon conviction of a crime
pursuant to either the federal Stolen Valor Act of
2005 or the California Stolen Valor Act. The federal
Stolen Valor Act was updated in 2013 after the Supreme
Court ruled it was unconstitutional. (See United
States v. Alvarez (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2537, 2556 [183
AB 1706
Page 6
L.Ed.2d 574].) This bill updates the California Stolen
Valor Act by requiring a conviction pursuant to the
federal Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
This bill also adds new misdemeanors to the California
Stolen Valor Act and changes the intent requirement
for a conviction under the Act to also mirror federal
law.
? The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution protects the people's right to free
speech from Congressional action. (U.S. Const., 1st
Amend.) ? Not all speech is protected, but
categories of unprotected speech are strictly limited.
? If speech does not fall into one of these strictly
defined categories, then that speech enjoys at least
some level of First Amendment protection. ?
The Supreme Court has ruled on the speech implicated
in this bill when it examined the federal Stolen Valor
Act in the case of United States v. Alvarez, supra,
132 S.Ct. 2537. The Supreme Court's ruling on the
federal Stolen Valor Act centers on the language used
in the statute. The relevant provision of the federal
Stolen Valor Act of 2005 reads:
"Whoever falsely represents himself or herself,
verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any
decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the
Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service
medals or badges awarded to the members of such
forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such
badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable
imitation of such item shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
[F]our Justices- held ? that the government's interest
is compelling, but that other means exist to achieve
their ends without restricting protected speech? the
AB 1706
Page 7
Court held the statutory provision unconstitutional.
(Alvarez, supra, at pp. 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2550-2551.)
?[T]wo Justices? [concurred and] held the statutory
provision unconstitutional because of its potential to
chill protected speech. Critical to the concurring
Justices was the lack of an intent to cause some
legally cognizable harm, such as obtaining unearned
benefits from the VA or unearned employment
preferences. (Id. at pp. 2555-2556.) ?
The language of the federal Stolen Valor Act has since
been amended to reflect the Court's interpretation.
An intent to cause some legally cognizable harm has
been added. ? This bill's language largely mirrors
the language of the federal Act.
Prior Legislation:
a) AB 167 (Cook), Chapter 69, Statutes of 2011, requires
that elected officers forfeit their office upon conviction
of any of the crimes specified in the California Stolen
Valor Act in addition to the federal Stolen Valor Act.
b) AB 265 (Cook), Chapter 93, Statutes of 2009, expands the
provision requiring local elected officers to forfeit
office upon conviction of a crime pursuant to the federal
Stolen Valor Act to include elected state officers.
c) SB 1482 (Correa), Chapter 118, Statutes of 2008,
provides that an elected officer of a city, county, city
and county, or district in this state forfeits his or her
office upon the conviction of a crime pursuant to the
federal Stolen Valor Act, that involves a false claim of
receipt of a military decoration or medal described in that
Act.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1706
Page 8
Support
American G.I. Forum of California (Sponsor)
AMVETS-Department of California (Sponsor)
American Legion - Department of California
California Association of County Veterans Service Officers
California State Commanders Veterans Council
Military Officers Association of America, California Council of
Chapters
VFW-Department of California
Vietnam Veterans of America-California Council
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:John Spangler / V.A. / (916) 319-3550