BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 110|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 110
Author: Fuller (R), et al.
Amended: 4/23/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, McGuire, Monning, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Threats: schools
SOURCE: Bakersfield Police Department
DIGEST: This bill enacts a new crime for a threat of unlawful
violence, made by any means, upon the grounds of a school to be
punishable as a misdemeanor.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Provides that willfully threatening to commit a crime that
results in death or great bodily injury shall be punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison. (Penal Code § 422)
2) Provides that every student or employee who, after a hearing,
has been suspended or dismissed from a school and who
willfully and knowingly enters upon the campus or facility to
SB 110
Page 2
which he or she has been denied access is guilty of a
misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 626.2)
This bill:
1)Enacts a new crime to provide that anyone who threatens
unlawful violence by any means, and that threat would
reasonably be understood as true and the person making the
threat knows or should know that the threat would be
understood as true, including through an electronic act, to
occur upon school grounds creating a disruption at the school,
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a term
of no more than one year, a fine of $1,000, or both
imprisonment and a fine.
2)Defines "disruption" to mean an act likely to interfere with
peaceful activities of the campus or facility.
3)Does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law.
4)Provides that a person, or someone adjudged a ward of the
juvenile court, convicted for violating this provision is
liable to the public agency that responded to the threat for
any reasonable costs incurred in that emergency response.
Background
Recent media reports have described numerous incidents involving
school threats. For example, in San Diego:
?there were 5 percent more suspensions and expulsions
in San Diego County related to making terrorist
threats in the 2013-14 school year than in the
previous school year, and 35 percent more than in the
2011-12 school year. Threats typically surface on
social media or are made via phone or email. Once
school officials learn of it, police are called in to
investigate, and a school might get locked down, with
everyone on campus kept behind locked doors until the
coast is clear. That could take hours.
Students from high school campuses in Oceanside, San
Diego, El Cajon and San Marcos, have been arrested on
SB 110
Page 3
suspicion of using the app to threaten schools.
The CEO, Jonathan Lucas, said recent changes to the
app make it "very clear" that threats of violence and
bullying won't be tolerated. He said users are asked
to carefully consider the contents of their posts and
are even shown their IP addresses. He said the
company has been cooperating with all law enforcement
investigations and has a quick process in place to
help investigators locate users who commit crimes.
(Winkley, Lyndsay, and Pat Maio. "Online Schools
Threats Up; Officials Crack down." U-T San Diego.
N.p., 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
Similarly, in Los Angeles, an 11th grade student was arrested
for making threats through the social media app, Burnbook,
against a Los Angeles County high school. Investigators were
informed that the student had published the threat online and
was taken into custody the following day. He was charged with
making criminal threats after he confessed to threatening to
bring a weapon to school. The student told deputies that he was
making jokes. ("Student Arrested after Social Media Threats
against School." Student Arrested following Threats on Social
Media against Los Angeles County School. The Associated Press,
12 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified5/11/15)
Bakersfield Police Department (source)
California State Sheriffs' Association
City of Bakersfield Office of the Chief of Police
Kern County District Attorney's Office
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/11/15)
SB 110
Page 4
American Civil Liberties Union
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Center for Youth Law
Youth Law Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:
The threat of violence in California schools and colleges
through social media or other electronic communication is a
problem. These threats not only instill fear and force the
cancellation of classes and building closures, but they can
cost school districts considerable funds. This includes
the cost to investigate and prosecute perpetrators, to hire
additional safety personnel to observe student activities
and websites, and to purchase surveillance equipment to
monitor non-classroom areas. The impact expands beyond the
incidence, and hinders the learning environment.
Roughly 30% of violent threats made against schools
were delivered through social media, email, text
messaging and other electronic means from August 2013
to January 2014. It is believed this percentage has
increased and will continue to rise. These electronic
threats include school bomb threats, shooting threats,
hoaxes, and acts of violence.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents argue generally that
minors should be disciplined through community-based services as
an alternative to incarceration. Youth exposure to the criminal
justice system heightens the likelihood that youth offenders
will recidivate in adulthood. Additionally Penal Code Sections
422 and 635m address threat crimes which include those made
through electronic means.
Prepared by:Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /
5/13/15 16:45:37
**** END ****
SB 110
Page 5