BILL ANALYSIS
AB 978
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 978 (Runner)
As Amended August 15, 2005
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |73-0 |(May 5, 2005) |SENATE: |40-0 |(August 22, |
| | | | | |2005) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
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.
The Senate amendments make technical changes regarding the
underlying protective order.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the court to issue a temporary restraining order or
injunction to prevent civil harassment or workplace violence.
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.
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.
4)Allows a court to issue an ex parte emergency protective order
AB 978
Page 2
where a peace officer asserts reasonable grounds to believe that
the person is in immediate and present danger of stalking or
domestic violence.
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.
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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar to
the current version of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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 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
AB 978
Page 3
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 this bill, arguing that was unnecessary because
existing law already allows courts to prohibit disclosure of an
address. With recent amendments, that organization now supports
this 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, Web
sites like www.secret-info.com and www.Infosearch.com will find
someone's Social Security Number (SSN) for around $40. With a
SSN, it is possible to obtain credit reports, addresses and other
personal information. (J. Krum, "Net Aids Access to Sensitive ID
Data," Washington Post , April 4, 2005, at A01.) A restrained
party could also use the services of a private 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. This 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0011643