BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 456|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 456
Author: Block (D)
Amended: 7/16/15
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
SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/18/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León,
Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill,
Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire,
Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen,
Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Hall, Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Criminal threats: discharge of a firearm
SOURCE: San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis
DIGEST: This bill enacts a new misdemeanor prohibiting persons
from threatening to discharge a firearm at a school or at a
location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking
place, as specified.
SB 456
Page 2
Assembly Amendments specify that no person shall be convicted
for the same threat under both Sections 422 and 422.3 of the
Penal Code and that a threat made at a school-sponsored event
must be related to both the school-sponsored event and to the
time period in which the school-sponsored event will occur.
ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that "any person who willfully
threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great
bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that
the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an
electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat,
even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which,
on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is
so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby
causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or
her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety,
shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to
exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison."
(Penal Code § 422).
This bill:
1)Provides that a person who willfully threatens to discharge a
firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury to
another person, on the campus of a school, or location where a
school-sponsored event is or will be taking place and the
threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to
the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be
taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is
to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of
carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under
the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal,
unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity
of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the
threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for
a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment, as
specified.
SB 456
Page 3
2)Provides that a threat to discharge a firearm [as specified]
includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by
means of an electronic communication device, including, but
not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer,
video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media,
and by any other means.
3)Defines "school" to mean a state preschool, private or public
elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior
high school, high school, community college, or public or
private university.
4)Does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law,
except that a person shall not be convicted for the same
threat under both this section, [422.3] and Section 422 [of
the Penal Code].
Background
Recent media reports have described numerous incidents involving
school threats. For example, in San Diego:
?[T]here 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
suspicion of using the app to threaten schools.
The CEO, Jonathan Lucas, said recent changes to the
SB 456
Page 4
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.)
This bill has been narrowed through the process to address 1st
Amendment concerns. Constitutional principles required to impose
crime penalties for a threat, are that it must be with "specific
intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if
there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on
its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so
unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey
a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of
the threat."
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/20/15)
San Diego District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
SB 456
Page 5
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/20/15)
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Youth Law Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The author writes:
SB 456 criminalizes the making of a threat to commit a
school shooting, whether directed to a specific
individual, or whether posted on social media for an
invited or general viewing population.
A recent study of threats from August-December of 2014
by the President of National School Safety and
Security Services shows some alarming trends. The
number of threats in that time period was up 158% from
last year, with 37% of those threats sent
electronically via social media, e-mail, text
messaging and other online resources. Nearly 30% of
the threats analyzed resulted in a school evacuation,
and 10% resulted in school closures for at least a
portion of the day. In the San Diego Unified School
District, alone, there have been 138 reported threats
in the past year.
There are significant costs associated with threats
that target schools-both in the initial response
required to insure that the community is safe by
shutting down the targeted schools, but also in the
SB 456
Page 6
subsequent investigation that may require substantial
time, resources, and opportunity costs.
SB 456 applies specifically to school-shooting threats, and
does not require proof of a specifically targeted
individual, or a demonstration of sustained fear by any one
particular person, thus filling the gap left by statutes
that proscribe bomb threats and criminal threats, SB 456
holds offenders accountable, deters future conduct, and
shifts the burden of costs by authorizing the court to
order restitution.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents generally argue 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, further aggravating prison
overcrowding. Additionally, Penal Code Section 422 addresses
criminal threats including those made through electronic means.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu
Prepared by:Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /
8/21/15 13:19:10
SB 456
Page 7
**** END ****