BILL ANALYSIS
AB 978
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 978 (Runner) - As Introduced: February 18, 2005
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SUBJECT : RESTRAINING ORDERS: ADDRESS INFORMATION
KEY ISSUE :SHOULD COURTS PROHIBIT ENJOINED PARTIES UNDER CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION TO OBTAIN
THE ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF THE PROTECTED PARTY OR THE PROTECTED
PARTY'S FAMILY, UNLESS THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO DO OTHERWISE?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Antelope Valley
Domestic Violence Council, would require courts to prohibit
enjoined parties under civil and criminal protective orders from
obtaining the address or location of the party protected under
the order. Under the bill, certain protective orders would
include a prohibition against any action by the enjoined party
to obtain the address or location of the protected party or that
person's family members, unless there is good cause not to
include such a prohibition. According to the author, this bill
is necessary to protect victims of abuse or stalking from
further contact or harm at the hands of their abusers. A
violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor. Although
opposed to a previous version of the bill, the Family Law
Section of the State Bar of California now supports the bill.
SUMMARY : Prohibits a party enjoined under a protective order
from any act meant to obtain the address of the protected party.
Specifically, this bill prohibits parties enjoined under civil
harassment orders, workplace protective orders, juvenile
protective orders, domestic violence protective orders, stalking
protective orders, criminal protective orders and elder or
dependent adult protective orders from taking any action to
obtain the address or location of a protected party or a
protected party's family members, caretaker or guardian, unless
there is good cause for the court not to make such an order.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 978
Page 2
1)Authorizes the court to issue a temporary restraining order or
injunction to prevent civil harassment or workplace violence.
(Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6 and 527.8.)
2)Allows the court to issue a domestic violence protective
order, either ex parte or after notice and hearing, to enjoin
specific acts of abuse, to exclude a person from a dwelling or
to enjoin other specified behavior. (Family Code sections
6250, 6320, and 6340.)
3)Permits the court, upon application of a child, parent,
guardian, or other caretaker of a child or party, signed under
penalty of perjury and setting forth facts that demonstrate
that the health, safety, freedom of movement, or physical or
emotional well-being of the applicant or the applicant's child
are at risk, to prohibit disclosure of the applicant's address
or other identifying information. Such order may be issued ex
parte. (Family Code sections 4926, 4977 and 6322.5.)
4)Allows a court to issue an ex parte emergency protective order
where a peace officer asserts reasonable grounds to believe
that the person is in immediate and present danger of stalking
or domestic violence. (Penal Code sections 136.2, 646.91 and
Family Code section 6250 et seq .)
5)Authorizes the juvenile court to issue an order, either ex
parte or after notice and hearing, protecting dependent
children and any parent, legal guardian or current caretaker
of those children. (Welfare & Institutions Code section
213.5.)
6)Permits the court to issue protective orders, either ex parte,
after notice and hearing, or in a judgment, to protect an
elder or dependent adult from abuse. (Welfare & Institutions
Code section 15657.03.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill would require the court to prohibit any
party restrained under civil or criminal protective orders from
taking any action to obtain the address or location of the
protected party or his or her family members or other
information that would enable the enjoined party to obtain that
address or location. According to the author, this bill is
AB 978
Page 3
necessary because:
On January 18, 2003, Patrick Kennedy shot and killed
Margaret "Peggy" Klinke and then committed suicide. Due to
threats against her, Klinke had obtained a restraining
order against Kennedy, an ex-boyfriend. The summer prior
to this tragic incident, Klinke changed residences in an
attempt to evade Kennedy's stalking. Unfortunately,
despite Klinke's efforts to defend herself, Kennedy tracked
her down with the help of a private investigator. While it
is too late for us to save Peggy from her stalking
predator, the California Legislature should seize this
opportunity and better protect stalking victims in the
future.
Someone who has been legally restrained from contacting
another individual has no legitimate reason to discover
that individual's whereabouts. Therefore, it is
commonsense to legally disallow such action.
This simple addition to current law will provide one more
barrier for stalkers to overcome in their hunt for their
victims. Furthermore, this bill will create one more tool
that law enforcement can use to protect victims of stalkers
from the same fate that Peggy Klinke suffered.
The Family Law Section of the State Bar had opposed a previous
version of AB 978, arguing that was unnecessary because existing
law already allows courts to prohibit disclosure of an address.
With recent amendments, that organization now supports the bill.
Existing law only prevents disclosure of a protected party's
address. It does not prevent the restrained party from
affirmatively seeking that address or other location
information. With emerging technology and internet access,
there are now a myriad of ways in which someone's address or
location can be obtained.
According to an April 4, 2005 article in the Washington Post,
websites like www.secret-info.com and www.Infosearch.com will
find someone's social security number for around $40. With a
social security number, it is possible to obtain credit reports,
addresses and other personal information. (J. Krum, Net Aids
Access to Sensitive ID Data, Wash. Post, April 4, 2005, at A01.)
A restrained party could also use the services of a private
AB 978
Page 4
investigator or even conduct a public records search on
Lexis-Nexis or at the county recorder's office.
By providing for an automatic prohibition against seeking
address information, the restrained party will be immediately
aware of the consequences of such actions. The bill also allows
the court, in its discretion, to determine when such an order is
not needed, such as when the enjoined party has visitation with
children living with the protected party. Short of 24 hour
surveillance, there is no way to guarantee that all protected
parties will be safe from their abusers. This bill, however,
attempts to preempt future violence and makes all parties aware
of their responsibilities under a protection order.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council (sponsor)
California District Attorneys Association
Family Law Section, State Bar of California
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon and Meredith Nixon /
JUD. / (916) 319-2334