BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
VETO
.
Bill No: SB 187
Author: Hayden (D), et al
Amended: 9/6/95
Vote: 21
.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/21/95
AYES: Campbell, Lockyer, Marks, Petris, Solis
NOT VOTING: O'Connell, Wright, Leslie, Calderon
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 8-2, 5/8/95
AYES: Johnston, Alquist, Dills, Greene, Killea, Leonard,
Mello, Polanco
NOES: Kelley, Leslie
NOT VOTING: Calderon, Lewis, Mountjoy
SENATE FLOOR: 23-12, 5/23/95 (Third Reading)
AYES: Alquist, Campbell, Costa, Dills, Greene, Hayden,
Hughes, Johnson, Johnston, Killea, Kopp, Lockyer, Maddy,
Marks, Mello, O'Connell, Peace, Petris, Polanco,
Rosenthal, Solis, Thompson, Watson
NOES: Ayala, Beverly, Haynes, Hurtt, Kelley, Leonard,
Leslie, Lewis, Monteith, Mountjoy, Russell, Wright
NOT VOTING: Boatwright, Calderon, Craven, Johannessen,
Rogers
SENATE FLOOR: 23-7, 9/11/95 (Unfinished Business)
AYES: Alquist, Boatwright, Campbell, Costa, Dills, Greene,
Hayden, Haynes, Killea, Kopp, Leonard, Lockyer, Maddy,
Marks, Mello, O'Connell, Peace, Petris, Rosenthal, Solis,
Thompson, Watson, Wright
NOES: Beverly, Johannessen, Kelley, Leslie, Monteith,
Mountjoy, Rogers
NOT VOTING: Ayala, Calderon, Craven, Hughes, Hurtt,
Johnson, Johnston, Lewis, Polanco, Russell
CONTINUED
SB
187
Page 2
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-12, 9/7/95 - See last page for vote
.
SUBJECT: Domestic violence: protective orders
SOURCE: Author
.
DIGEST: This bill provides that the fee for service of
domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) by law
enforcement agencies be eliminated.
This bill gives a court be the discretion to make DVROs
with permanent duration, as specified.
This bill allows law enforcement agencies to enforce a
residence exclusion order contained in a DVRO at the time
of service of the order.
This bill requires law enforcement agencies serving DVROs
to make a first attempt at service at least within 3 days
from a request to service.
Assembly Amendments added double-joining language.
ANALYSIS: Current law provides for a waiver of various
fees, including the fee for service of process by law
enforcement agencies, upon a showing of financial need
(Government Code Section 68511.3). Current law also
provides that a law enforcement agency may not charge a fee
for serving DVROs on respondents who are in custody
(Government Code Section 26721). This bill provides that
no law enforcement agency may charge a fee for service of
DRVOs, regardless of the financial status of the
petitioner.
Current law provides that most DVROs have a duration of
three years but may be renewed thereafter, upon a showing
of continued need. However, DVROs that are part of a
Dissolution action may have a permanent duration if the
parties so stipulate. This bill provides that in the
discretion of the court, the personal conduct, stay-away
CONTINUED
SB
187
Page 3
and residence exclusion orders contained in a court order
issued after notice and a hearing may have a duration of
not more than 3 years, subject to termination or
modification by the court.
The bill provides that these orders may be renewed either
for 3 years or permanently, without a showing of any
further abuse, as specified.
There is no specific statutory rule regarding the time a
party must leave a dwelling under a residence exclusion
order. In most family law cases, particularly where the
parties are represented by counsel (who will be
knowledgeable enough to request such an order), the order
itself will state whether the excluded party must leave
immediately or at some designated future date.
Current law does not provide a time by which an order must
be served, but holds that the party to be served cannot be
held responsible for actions contrary to the court order
unless the party has either been served, or had notice of
the contents of the order because of his or her physical
presence in court at the time the order was made.
Further, when a DVRO petitioner has sought enforcement of
an order that has not yet been served, the responding law
enforcement officer is required to serve the order on the
respondent at the time the officer responds to the call for
assistance.
This bill requires law enforcement agencies ensure that a
first attempt at service of a DVRO be made as soon as
reasonably possible and no later than 3 days, excluding
weekends and holidays, from receipt of the request.
The bill provides that any law enforcement officer serving
an order may also enforce any residence exclusion order
that was issued after notice and a hearing. The officer
would also be authorized to make certain that the party
being excluded from their residence is able to pick
sufficient personal belongings and must remain present
until the excluded party has packed and left the residence.
CONTINUED
SB
187
Page 4
The above provision would become operative only upon the
availability of federal funds.
This bill is double joined with AB 965 (Kuehl).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/7/95)
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence (CAADV)
California Commission on the Status of Women
California NOW
LIFE AIDS Lobby
American College of Emergency Physicians
Los Angeles County District Attorney
County of San Mateo
City of San Diego
The Junior League of San Diego
Citizens Advisory Support Team
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/7/95
San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department
California State Sheriffs Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Los Angeles County Sheriff
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: CAADV states that ocurrently the
victim of battering is responsible for serving the
restraining order. Consequently, she must pay to hire a
process server or law enforcement officer to serve the
order in person upon the batterer. Part of battering
usually entails the battereros control of the coupleos
finances--a fact which often renders payment for service of
the order a non-option.
oIn cases where indigency or lack of access to funds
renders payment for service impossible, and because a
petitioner may not serve her own order, currently law
forces battered women to put family members or friends at
risk by asking them to serve the batterer with the order.
Perhaps most egregiously, because of the isolation hat
CONTINUED
SB
187
Page 5
often accompanies battering relationships, many battered
women no longer have the network of friends or family from
which to find a server.
oSB 187os provisions for free service by law enforcement
clearly address compelling and real needs in two ways: (1)
by rendering services accessible to all those who require
them via the no-fee-for-service provision; and (2) by
transferring the responsibility for service of domestic
violence restraining orders from battered women themselves
to law enforcement officers who represent those most safely
able to serve the orders.
oSB 187os provisions for renewable or permanent restraining
orders without evidence of new abuse rectify a current
oversight in our laws. As many of the women served by
domestic violence prevention and intervention groups have
found, batterers often note the expiration date of the
restraining orders and contact the petitioners as soon as
the order expires. Consequently the threat of violence is
renewed and the women are understandable afraid. Yet,
under the current code requirements for obtaining
restraining orders, women whose orders have expired cannot
obtain a new order without evidence of new abuse. (Family
Code Sec. 6211). These requirements endanger womenos lives
and undermine the intent behind granting domestic violence
restraining orders. SB 187 will protect women from having
to subject themselves to new violence in order to gain
further protection from law enforcement via a domestic
violence restraining order.
oSB 187 allows for renewable orders as well as permanent
orders, without new evidence of abuse. Renewal or
permanent orders will be available in cases where the court
originally found sufficient physical abuse or serious
threat of abuse to issue the initial restraining order.
The notice and hearing requirement of due process would be
met because the petitioner will have to have the respondent
served again and a hearing will be held.o
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: CSAC states that, ounder
current law, a petitioner for a domestic violence
protective order may request that the filing fees and the
CONTINUED
SB
187
Page 6
fee for service of the order be waived by the court, based
on a demonstration of financial need. These fee waivers
are frequently granted and cost of the service of the
orders by law enforcement agencies is borne by the
counties.o
oSB 187 would require that no fee could be charged by a law
enforcement agency for the service of a domestic violence
protective order. Not only would petitioners without the
financial means to pay benefit but also those who have the
ability to pay would receive this service for free. This
would mean a revenue loss for counties because the
sheriffos department would have to continue to provide a
service with no possible reimbursement for its cost.
oCSAC opposes the mandate in SB 187 for counties to
continue to provide a service with no reimbursement for the
cost. While we are sympathetic to the needs of victims of
domestic violence, we feel that the fee waiver in current
law already protects those who do not have the financial
means to pay for the service. In addition, we feel that
this bill may prove even more costly because individuals
who now use other means of serving orders could take
advantage of the ofreeo service by the sheriff.
oAt a time when county budgets are shrinking, counties
simply cannot absorb any new unfunded mandates, regardless
of their merit. For these reasons, CSAC opposes SB 187.o
ASSEMBLY FLOOR:
AYES: Alpert, Archie-Hudson, Baca, Bates, Bowen, Bowler,
Brewer, V. Brown, W. Brown, Bustamante, Caldera,
Campbell, Cannella, Cortese, Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny,
Escutia, Figueroa, Friedman, Frusetta, Gallegos,
Goldsmith, Hannigan, Hauser, Isenberg, Katz, Knox, Kuehl,
Kuykendall, Lee, Machado, Martinez, Mazzoni, McDonald,
McPherson, Morrow, K. Murray, W. Murray, Napolitano,
Rainey, Rogan, Setencich, Sher, Speier, Sweeney, Tucker,
Vasconcellos, Villaraigosa, Woods, Allen
NOES: Baldwin, Conroy, Granlund, Harvey, Hawkins, Hoge,
Margett, Miller, Olberg, Pringle, Richter, Thompson
NOT VOTING: Aguiar, Alby, Battin, Boland, Bordonaro,
Brulte, Burton, Firestone, House, Kaloogian, Knight,
CONTINUED
SB
187
Page 7
Knowles, Morrissey, Poochigian, Takasugi, Weggeland
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
"This bill would, among other things, eliminate the
discretionary fee that local law enforcement agencies
are authorized to charge for service of civil domestic
violence restraining orders (DVROs) contingent on
federal funding.
"Currently, law enforcement agencies may charge a fee
for serving domestic violence restraining orders.
This fee may be waived in cases of financial need. SB
187 would provide that law enforcement agencies may
not charge a service fee for serving domestic violence
restraining orders, contingent upon federal funding to
directly reimburse local entities for these costs.
"I have two concerns. First, the need to eliminate a
service fee for parties that can afford it has not
been demonstrated. Second, specifying that revenue
loss to local entities would be reimbursed via federal
funding is misleading. The Federal Violence Against
Women Act does not allocate funds for specific
functions. A grant of approximately $430,000 was made
available to California in the first year for law
enforcement programs. It is probable that none of
these funds would be used to reimburse locals for
serving domestic violence restraining orders. In
addition, no guarantee exists that federal funding
would be available on an ongoing basis for this Act."
RJG:jk 1/24/96 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED