BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                     SB 352  


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  July 8, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          SB 352  
          (Block) - As Amended June 17, 2015


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Public Safety                  |Vote:|7 - 0        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          No


          SUMMARY:


          This bill requires the court to consider issuing a restraining  
          order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted for an  
          offense involving abuse of an elder or a dependent adult,  








                                                                     SB 352  


                                                                    Page  2





          regardless of the sentence imposed.


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          Unknown, likely minor state and local costs to the extent this  
          bill results in longer restraining orders, which could result in  
          additional probation and parole violations and/or contempt  
          proceedings.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose.  According to the author, "With 4.2 million  
            individuals over the age of 65 years, California has the  
            highest number of aging adults in the nation.  Currently,  
            loopholes in the law restrict a prosecutor's ability to  
            protect victims of elder abuse through the use of  
            post-conviction criminal protective orders.  This loophole  
            leaves our most vulnerable crime victims with an unnecessary  
            level of exposure to revictimization. Elders are also among  
            the least equipped victims able to pursue protection through  
            civil remedies such as temporary restraining orders since they  
            are often complicated, costly and time consuming to obtain."


            "Although great progress was made with the recent passage of  
            SB 910 (Pavley), which provided protection to victims whose  
            perpetrator is related within two degrees of consanguinity,  
            more could be done to protect elders. SB 352 expands the  
            protection of elders in the following cases where current law  
            falls short:

               "Where the victim is unrelated to a defendant which is most  
               prevalent in cases involving caretakers who are abusive  
               physically, financially, or through neglect;









                                                                     SB 352  


                                                                    Page  3





               "Where the defendant is a relative of the victim but not  
               within two degrees of consanguinity, leaving elders exposed  
               to perpetrators who may be cousins, aunts/uncles,  
               great-grandchildren, nieces/nephews; step-children; etc.

               "Where the defendant gets sentenced to probation and the  
               defendant and victim are not related within two degrees of  
               consanguinity.  This scenario is most common when there is  
               elder abuse committed by caretakers."

            "SB 352 will close this dangerous loophole in the law that  
            makes our elder victims vulnerable to further abuse and  
            anxiety."

          2)Background.  Current law authorizes the trial court in a  
            criminal case to issue protective orders when there is a good  
            cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of a  
            victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to  
            occur.  Current law also provides that a person violating a  
            protective order may be punished for any substantive offense  
            described in provisions of law related to intimidation of  
            witnesses or victims, or for contempt of court.


            In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted  
            of a crime of domestic violence, as defined in relevant  
            sections of the Family Code, or any crime that requires the  
            defendant to register as a sex offender, the court, at the  
            time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order  
            restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim.   
            The order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by  
            the court.


            This bill extends the court's authority to issue no-contact  
            orders lasting up to 10 years in cases involving the abuse of  
            an elder or dependent adult.










                                                                     SB 352  


                                                                    Page  4





          3)Argument in Support:  According to the San Diego County  
            District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, "Senate Bill 352  
            ? closes a loophole that restricts a prosecutor's use of a  
            post-conviction criminal protective order in certain  
            situations.  Current law allows for post-conviction use of  
            protective orders in cases where the suspect and victim are  
            related within two degrees of consanguinity.  However, in  
            cases where suspect and victim are not related within those  
            two degrees, the protective order is not enforceable."      


          4)Related Legislation: SB 307 (Pavley), enrolled June 25, 2015,  
            authorizes restraining orders to be issued by a court for  
            specified crimes when a defendant's sentence includes a period  
            of mandatory supervision.  

          5)Prior Legislation:  

              a)    AB 307 (Campos), Chapter 291, Statutes of 2013, allows  
                a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years  
                when a defendant is convicted of specified sex crimes,  
                regardless of the sentence imposed.  

              b)    SB 723 (Pavley), Chapter 155, Statutes of 2011, allows  
                a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years  
                when a defendant is convicted for an offense involving  
                domestic violence, regardless of the sentence imposed.

              c)    SB 834 (Florez), Chapter 627, Statutes of 2010, allows  
                a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years in  
                sex cases involving a minor victim.




          Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081










                                                                     SB 352  


                                                                    Page  5