BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2498 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bonta |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 21, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Human Trafficking
HISTORY
Source: Alameda County District Attorney
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs';
California Catholic Conference; California Catholic
Conference; California State Sheriffs' Association;
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association;
Crime Victims United of California; Fraternal Order of
Police; California Immigrant Policy Center; Junior
Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee;
League of California Cities; Long Beach Police
Officers Association; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of
California; Peace Officers Research Association of
California; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs'
Association; WestCoast Children's Clinic
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
2 of ?
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit law enforcement agencies
from disclosing the names, addresses, and images of human
trafficking victims and their immediate family, except under
specified circumstance; to expand the list of criminal actions
that take precedence over all other criminal actions in the
order of trial to include human trafficking, as defined; and to
exempt the names, addresses, and images of victims of human
trafficking and their immediate family, as specified, from
disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
Existing law, the California Constitution, declares the people's
right to transparency in government. ("The people have the right
of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's
business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the
writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to
public scrutiny....") (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3.)
Existing law, the California Public Records Act (CPRA), governs
the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public
agencies. (Government Code §. 6250 et seq.)
Existing law provides that generally, all public records are
accessible to the public upon request, unless the record
requested is exempt from public disclosure. There are 30 general
categories of documents or information that are exempt from
disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information,
and unless it is shown that the public's interest in disclosure
outweighs the public's interest in nondisclosure of the
information, the exempt information may be withheld by the
public agency with custody of the information. (Government Code
§ 6254.)
Existing law makes certain criminal record information,
including records of complaints to, or investigations conducted
by, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other
state or local police agency confidential, but requires state
and local law enforcement agencies to make public specified
information, including the full name, physical description, date
and time of arrest, time and date of booking, and factual
circumstances surrounding an arrest, except to the extent that
disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger
the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would
endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
3 of ?
related investigation. (Government Code §6254(f).)
Existing law provides, notwithstanding any disclosure required
under the investigatory exemption under the CPRA, that the name
of a victim of certain sexual crimes, including a victim of
human trafficking, may be withheld from disclosure at the
victim's request, or at the request of the victim's parent or
guardian if the victim is a minor. (Government Code Sec.
6254(f)(2).)
Existing law requires state and local law enforcement agencies
to disclose, subject to certain restrictions, the current
address of every individual arrested by the agency and the
current address of the victim of a crime, if the requester
declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a
scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or
that the request is made for investigation purposes by a
licensed private investigator, as defined. However,
notwithstanding this general disclosure requirement, the address
of the victim of certain sexual crimes, including human
trafficking, must remain confidential. (Government Code § 6254
(f)(3).)
This bill would provide that the names, addresses, and images of
a victim of human trafficking, and of the victim's immediate
family, other than a family member who is charged with a
criminal offense arising from the same incident, shall be
withheld from a public records request and remain confidential.
This bill would provide that if the victim's native language is
not English any information on his or her rights should be
provided in his or her native language.
Existing law requires an employee of a law enforcement agency
who personally received a report from a person alleging that he
or she has been the victim of a sex offense, to inform the
person making the report that his or her name will become a
matter of public record unless he or she requests that it not
become a matter of public record, and additionally provides that
if the victim makes this request then the law enforcement agency
shall not disclose the name of a victim. (Penal Code § 293
(a)-(d).)
Existing law provides that any victim of a sexual crime who has
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
4 of ?
not elected to exercise his or her right to keep her name
confidential may request to be identified in all court records
and proceedings as either Jane Doe or John Doe, if the court
finds that such an order is reasonably necessary to protect the
privacy of the person and will not unduly prejudice the
prosecution or the defense. (Penal Code Sec. 293.5.)
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from
disclosing the names, addresses, or images of a person who
alleges to be a victim of human trafficking, or of that alleged
victim's immediate family, other than a family member who is
charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident,
unless the disclosure is made to a prosecutor, parole officer of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, hearing
officers of the parole authority, probation officers of county
probation departments, or other persons or public agencies where
authorized or required by law.
This bill would define "sex offense," for purposes of the Penal
Code sections amended by this bill, to include human
trafficking, and makes conforming changes to clarify that a
person who was forced to commit acts of prostitution because he
or she is a victim of human trafficking is the victim of a
sexual offense.
Existing law provides that certain criminal actions, especially
those involving sexual offenses, take precedence over other
criminal actions in the order of the trail calendar. (Penal Code
§ 1048.)
This bill would add criminal actions alleging human trafficking
to the list of criminal cases that take precedence over all
other criminal actions in the trial calendar.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several 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
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
5 of ?
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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 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).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 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 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;
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
6 of ?
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:
AB 2498 will help the security and safety of human
trafficking victims by ensuring that victims have the
right to mask their names and images, as well as the
name, images and addresses of their immediate family
members, from a public records request.
The bill also provides guidance to country courts to
hear time-sensitive cases quickly, thus sending a clear
message to traffickers that justice for these victims
is a top priority.
2. Privacy Protections for Human Trafficking Victims
Under existing law enforcement shall not disclose the name of a
victim of a sex offense except to the prosecutor, parole
officers, parole hearing officers, probation officers or others
who are authorized or required by law to have this information.
This bill would provide that law enforcement shall also not
disclose information about an alleged victim of human
trafficking or information about the victim's immediate family
members, unless the family member is charged with the offense.
3. Court Calendaring
The law sets forth the order in which the court shall calendar
cases unless the court finds good cause to set cases out of
order. In general the order is:
In-custody felonies;
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
7 of ?
In-custody misdemeanors;
Out of custody felonies;
Out of custody misdemeanors.
There is an exception to the usual order for when a minor or
senior is a material witness to a specified sex offense. The
law states that these cases shall be given precedence.
This bill would add human trafficking cases, when the victim is
a minor or a senior to the cases that have priority in
scheduling.
4. CPRA
This bill was heard and passed in Senate Judiciary on June 14 on
a vote of 7-0. That committee looked more closely at the
changes to the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
Generally the CPRA makes all public records subject to public
inspection unless a specific provision of the CPRA or another
statute exempts the record from disclosure. For example, records
relating to a criminal investigation, where disclosure might
endanger the success of the investigation, are specifically
exempted from the disclosure requirements of the CPRA. However,
this exemption expressly states that certain information about
both the person arrested for the crime and the victim must be
disclosed to victims and their representatives, other law
enforcement agencies for specified purposes, and to persons
requesting the information for scholarly, journalistic,
political, or governmental uses. The names of victims of sexual
crimes are usually only exempt from disclosure under the CPRA if
the victim has affirmatively requested that his or her name be
kept confidential, but the home addresses of victims of sexual
crimes are kept confidential as a matter of course.
This bill creates stronger confidentiality protections for
victims of human trafficking than those afforded to other sexual
crime victims by protecting specified family members and
protecting the images of the victims, but also by offering these
protections automatically instead of requiring the victim to
"opt in."
-- END -
AB 2498 (Bonta ) Page
8 of ?