BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 112|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 112
Author: Cohn (D), et al
Amended: 6/21/05 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/14/05
AYES: Alquist, Poochigian, Cedillo, Margett, Migden,
Perata, Romero
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 5/16/05 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Protective orders: precedence of emergency
protective
orders
SOURCE : Judge Margaret S. Johnson, Santa Clara County
Superior
Court
DIGEST : This bill provides that emergency protective
orders take precedence in enforcement over any other
restraining or protective order, as specified and limited.
ANALYSIS : Current law authorizes a court to issue a
civil or criminal protective order to protect victims of
domestic violence.
Current law authorizes a law enforcement officer to seek an
emergency protective order (EPO) from a court 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, if any person or child is in
CONTINUED
AB 112
Page
2
immediate and present danger of domestic violence or abuse,
or in imminent danger of abduction by a parent or relative.
An EPO is effective for up to seven days. The EPO must be
entered into the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS).
Current law further authorizes a law enforcement officer to
seek an EPO from a court if the officer has reasonable
grounds to believe that an individual is in immediate and
present danger of stalking.
Current law provides that criminal protective orders take
precedence over civil orders involving the same defendant.
This bill revises this provision to provide for its
application unless a court issues an EPO, as specified, in
which case the EPO shall have precedence in enforcement
over any other restraining or protective order, provided
the EPO meets the following requirements:
1. The emergency protective order is issued to protect one
or more individuals who are already protected persons
under another restraining or protective order.
2. The emergency protective order restrains the individual
who is the restrained person in the other restraining or
protective order specified in subparagraph (A).
3. The provisions of the emergency protective order are
more restrictive in relation to the restrained person
than are the provisions of the other restraining or
protective order specified in subparagraph (A).
This bill also clarifies that an EPO issued, as specified,
shall have precedence in enforcement over any other
restraining or protective order, provided the emergency
protective order meets the following requirements:
1. The emergency protective order is issued to protect one
or more individuals who are already protected persons
under another restraining or protective order.
2. The emergency protective order restrains the individual
who is the restrained person in the other restraining or
AB 112
Page
3
protective order specified in subparagraph (A).
3. The provisions of the emergency protective order are
more restrictive in relation to the restrained person
than are the provisions of the other restraining or
protective order specified in subparagraph (A).
This bill further provides that EPOs meet the requirements
described above "shall have precedence in enforcement over
the provisions of any other restraining or protective order
only with respect to those provisions of the emergency
protective order that are more restrictive in relation to
the restrained person."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/05)
Judge Margaret S. Johnson, Santa Clara County Superior
Court (source)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Peace Officers Research Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:
"Currently, Penal Code Section 136.2 requires that
criminal court orders take precedence over civil court
orders. Generally this is not a problem, but in some
cases the criminal court allows there to be peaceful
contact between the defendant and victim.
"An Emergency Protective Order (EPO) is civil in nature
and is always issued as a result of some police
intervention which necessitates as stay away/no contact
order. The problem comes in where there is a prior
criminal order allowing contact, it would, under
current law, take precedence over the EPO and
jeopardize the victim's safety.
AB 112
Page
4
"This bill is a solution to this problem for it allows
for the EPO to have precedence in enforcement over all
other protective orders for the short 5 court calendar
days that it is valid."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
Bermudez, Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan,
Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre,
DeVore, Dymally, Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Garcia,
Goldberg, Hancock, Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Huff, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Klehs,
Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird, Leno, Leslie, Levine,
Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Montanez, Mountjoy, Mullin,
Nakanishi, Nation, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Niello, Parra,
Pavley, Plescia, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Sharon Runner,
Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Spitzer, Strickland, Torrico,
Tran, Umberg, Vargas, Villines, Walters, Wolk, Wyland,
Yee, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gordon, Lieber, Liu, Oropeza
RJG:mel 6/28/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****