BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1772
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1772 (Beth Gaines) - As Amended April 13, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|3 - 4 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Public Safety | |6 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Public Safety | |4 - 3 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill increases the penalties for various forms of "peeping"
secret videotaping or secretly photographing a person in which
that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from a
AB 1772
Page 2
misdemeanor to an alternate felony/misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Likely significant fiscal impact to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). If every year, four
individuals served two years in state prison for the new
felony offense the annual cost to CDCR would be approximately
$116,000 the first year and $232,000 the second year year, and
every year thereafter.
2)Significant nonreimbursable costs for incarceration, offset to
a degree by increased fine revenue, to the extent felonies are
served in county jails.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose/Background. According to the author, "Existing law
provides for persons, who are convicted of 'peeping tom'
offenses, to be punished as a misdemeanor offense. These
offenses include the video recording of a person in a state of
full or partial undress, loitering/looking through a window
that isn't theirs for purposes of invading someone's privacy,
and intentionally distributing images of intimate body parts.
"Because the punishment of a misdemeanor is currently limited
to a maximum of six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine, these
offenders often escape proper and necessary punishment for
violating someone's right to privacy, as District Attorneys
are often pleading defendants down to lesser punishments in
order to not further clog the court system.
"AB 1772 will give a District Attorney the discretion of
AB 1772
Page 3
seeking harsher penalties for peeping activities. The maximum
penalties would be doubled from existing law and also provide
for a felony option if the District Attorney feels it's
necessary to seek it."
2)Support/Opposition. AB 1772 is supported by California
District Attorneys Association and opposed by the California
Public Defenders Association. The opposition is concerned
that this bill change what has always been non-violent
misdemeanor "disorderly conduct" into a felony crime and
imposes severe penalties on non-violent behavior.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081