BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 978|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 978
Author: Sharon Runner (R), et al
Amended: 8/15/05 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/14/05
AYES: Alquist, Poochigian, Cedillo, Margett, Migden,
Perata, Romero
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/21/05
AYES: Dunn, Morrow, Ackerman, Cedillo, Escutia, Figueroa,
Kuehl
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 5/5/05 (Passed on Consent) - See
last page for vote
SUBJECT : Restraining orders: stalking
SOURCE : Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council
DIGEST : This bill requires a court to prohibit a party
enjoined under a civil or criminal protective order from
taking any action to obtain the address or location of the
protected party, or of the protected party's family
members, caretakers or guardian unless there is good cause
not to make the order.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/15/05 make clarifying
CONTINUED
AB 978
Page
2
grammatical changes.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a court may issue a
temporary restraining order or injunction to prevent civil
harassment or workplace violence.
Existing law provides that a court may issue a domestic
violence protective order to enjoin specific acts of abuse,
to exclude a person from a dwelling or to enjoin other
specified behaviors.
Existing law provides that the court, upon application of a
child, parent, guardian or other caretaker, may prohibit
disclosure of the applicant's address or other identifying
information.
Existing law provides that the court may issue an ex parte
emergency protective order when a peace officer asserts
reasonable grounds to believe that the person is in
immediate danger of stalking or domestic violence.
Existing law provides that a juvenile court may issue an
order protecting dependent children and any parent, legal
guardian or current caretaker of the children.
Existing law provides that the court may issue an order to
protect an elder or dependent adult from abuse.
This bill provides that when a party is enjoined by a civil
or criminal protective order, the court must order the
enjoined party not to take any action to obtain the address
or location of the protected party or of the protected
party's family members, guardian or caretaker unless there
is good cause not to make the order.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/15/05)
Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council (source)
Office of the Attorney General
Crime Victims United of California
California Commission on the Status of Women
AB 978
Page
3
Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence
Family Law Section of the State Bar of California
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office
California District Attorneys Association
San Bernardino County Office of the Sheriff
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/12/05)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "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. AB 978 does just that by
prohibiting the person enjoined by a restraining order from
taking action to locate the individual protected by that
order. 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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : California Attorneys for
Criminal Justice (CACJ) opposes this bill as unnecessary.
CACJ maintains that courts already have the authority to
issue orders enjoining parties from attempting to locate a
protected party and will do so when the situation warrants.
However, to the extent that courts already can and do
issue these orders, the author and supporters contend it is
appropriate to flip the burden. Rather than making
protected parties show good cause why the enjoined party
should not be permitted to attempt to locate them, it is
better policy to start with the presumption that the
enjoined party has no reason to locate the protected party.
If good cause exists, such as shared child custody or
visitation, then the enjoined party can raise the issue,
and the court need not issue the order.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
AB 978
Page
4
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, Shirley Horton,
Houston, Huff, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Klehs, Koretz, La
Malfa, La Suer, Laird, Leno, Lieber, Liu, Matthews,
McCarthy, Montanez, Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nation,
Nava, Negrete McLeod, Niello, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley,
Plescia, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana,
Salinas, Spitzer, Strickland, Torrico, Tran, Umberg,
Vargas, Villines, Walters, Wyland, Yee, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gordon, Jerome Horton, Leslie, Levine,
Maze, Sharon Runner, Wolk
RJG:mel 8/15/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****