BILL ANALYSIS
SB 720
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 7, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
SB 720 (Kuehl) - As Amended: April 12, 2005
SENATE VOTE : 32-2
SUBJECT: Court Orders: Domestic Violence Protective Orders
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THREE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S DOMESTIC VIolence TASK FORCE BE IMPLEMENTED BY:
1)AUTHORiZING the district OR CITY attorney TO pursue contempt
ACTIONS against a person for failing to comply with a domestic
violence protective order;
2)REQUIRING COURTS TO transmit DATA FROM domestic violence
protective orders to law enforcement personnel in the same
manner that criminal court protective orders are transmitted;
AND
3)CLARIFYING THAT CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE orderS CAN PROHIBIT all
contact by the defendaNT?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Attorney General,
seeks to implement three recommendations from the Attorney
General's Task Force on the Criminal Justice Response to
Domestic Violence. The bill would authorize the district
attorney or city attorney to initiate and pursue a court action
for contempt against a person for failing to comply with a
domestic violence protective order issued by a court. The bill
would require, with respect to domestic violence protective
orders, the court or the court's designee to transmit all data
filed with the court to law enforcement personnel, in the same
manner that criminal court protective orders are transmitted.
Finally, the bill would clarify that an order protecting victims
of violent crime applies to all contact by the defendant,
thereby ensuring the court's authority to issue stay-away orders
in addition to criminal protective orders. This bill is
supported by numerous law enforcement and domestic violence
organizations, and has no opposition.
SB 720
Page 2
SUMMARY : Seeks to implement three recommendations of the
Attorney General's Task Force on the Criminal Justice Response
to Domestic Violence. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes a district attorney or city attorney to initiate
and pursue a court action for contempt against a party for
failing to comply with a domestic violence protective order
issued by a court. The penalty for contempt under these
prosecutions would be the same as in existing law. Requires
any attorney's fees or costs ordered by the court in these
cases to be paid to the Office of Emergency Services' account
for funding domestic violence shelters pursuant to Penal Code
Section 13823.15(f).
2)Requires the court or the court's designee to transmit to the
Department of Justice all data filed with the court with
respect to domestic violence protective orders, including
their issuance, modification, extension or termination, using
the same California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(CLETS) system now used for criminal protective orders.
3)Clarifies that a criminal court may issue a protective order
that prohibits all contact by the defendant with the victims
or witnesses or their families ( i.e. , a stay-away orders).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides the procedure for initiating and pursuing contempt
proceedings against a person in violation of an order of the
court. The court may order the person found guilty of
contempt to pay up to a $1,000 fine and/or to be imprisoned
for no more than five days, and to pay reasonable attorney's
fees and costs incurred in connection with the contempt
proceeding. (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1211 and
1218(a).)
2)Provides specified penalties that may be imposed on a person
found in contempt of a court order issued by the family court.
The penalty for a first violation is community service or
imprisonment of up to 120 hours each. For a second violation
the penalty is up to 120 hours of community service in
addition to up to 120 hours of imprisonment. For a third and
subsequent violation the penalty is up to 240 hours of
community service, up to 240 hours of imprisonment and
administrative and supervision fee for the period of community
SB 720
Page 3
service imposed. (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1218(c).)
3)Requires the courts to transmit to the Department of Justice
data relating to criminal protective orders electronically
through CLETS. Requires the Department of Justice to maintain
a database of domestic violence protective orders (referred to
as the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System (DVROS))
that is available to law enforcement connected to the CLETS.
(Family Code Section 6380.)
4)Provides for the issuance of protective orders by a criminal
court to protect victims or witnesses and their families from
contact by a defendant. (Penal Code Section 136.2.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The Attorney General's Task Force on the Criminal
Justice Response to Domestic Violence, of which the author is a
member, met for two years and studied ways to improve the
statutes governing restraining orders to enhance the safety of
domestic violence victims. SB 720 seeks to implement three
recommendations made by that Task Force. First, this bill would
authorize the district attorney or city attorney to initiate and
pursue a court action for contempt against a person for failing
to comply with a domestic violence protective order. Second,
the bill would require, with respect to domestic violence
protective orders, the court or the court's designee to transmit
all data filed with the court to law enforcement personnel in
the same manner that criminal court protective orders are
transmitted. Finally, the bill would clarify that a criminal
order protecting victims of violent crime applies to all contact
by the defendant, thereby ensuring the court's authority to
issue stay-away orders as part of criminal protective orders.
According to the author, this non-controversial bill is
necessary to enhance the safety of victims of intimate partner
violence.
Bill would authorize the district attorney or city attorney to
prosecute for contempt . Current law allows a court to impose a
fine up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for no more than five days
per violation upon individuals found guilty of contempt of an
existing court order. It also allows the court to order payment
of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection
with the contempt proceeding. In addition, specified community
SB 720
Page 4
service and/or jail time penalties may be imposed by the court
on individuals found guilty of violating domestic violence
protective orders.
Current law is not clear whether or not an individual victim may
institute proceedings or whether the district attorney or city
attorney may prosecute the violation. Because the penalties
include imprisonment as well as fines and community service, it
is questionable whether a private individual could take
advantage of this contempt proceeding at all. This bill would
provide that the district attorney or city attorney may initiate
and pursue these contempt actions against persons who violate
domestic violence protection orders issued under the Family
Code. It would also provide that any attorney's fees or costs
ordered by the court be paid to the Office of Emergency
Services' account for funding domestic violence shelters
pursuant to Penal Code Section 13823.15(f).
Domestic Violence Restraining Order System . Family Code Section
6380 requires that when a criminal court or family court issues
a domestic violence restraining order, the order must be entered
into the DVROS, which is accessible to all law enforcement
through CLETS. This statute was enacted to provide law
enforcement responding to a domestic violence call with the
means of determining if the perpetrator of domestic violence is
subject to an active order and has violated it.
However, Family Code Section 6380 treats orders issued by the
criminal court differently than those issued by the family
court. Under Section 6380(a), the criminal protective order
must be entered by the court, or by a law enforcement agency the
court designates to do so, into DVROS through CLETS. Protective
orders issued by a family court, on the other hand, are not
subject to the same directive as those issued by criminal
courts. While they are required to be on Judicial
Council-generated forms for easy entry into DVROS, there is no
urgency to the entry of the data into DVROS. Nor is it clear
who is responsible for ensuring the data is entered into DVROS.
The result, according to the Task Force, is the large and
increasing gap between the information that is available from
DVROS and the information that could be available and accessible
if all data were entered timely and properly. The Attorney
General's Office contends that thousands of domestic violence
protective orders remain outside the DVROS database, making
those orders useless when a protected person calls for law
SB 720
Page 5
enforcement to arrest the subject of the order at the scene of a
violation.
The Task Force recommends treating criminal and family law
protective orders identically, which in all respects could be
the same except for the court issuing them. Thus, under this
bill, all family courts would be required to enter domestic
violence restraining orders they issue directly into DVROS or
designate a law enforcement agency to do so.
According to the Attorney General's Office, there are 19
counties that already treat family court-issued restraining
orders as if they were issued by a criminal court: courts of
four of the counties (Sonoma, Riverside, Orange and San
Bernardino) enter the information directly into DVROS through
CLETS, while the rest send the orders to a designated law
enforcement agency for entry into DVROS, also through CLETS.
This bill would make this practice uniform across the state.
Protective order against contact to include stay-away orders .
This bill would include, among the orders that a criminal court
may issue upon a good cause belief that harm or intimidation of
a victim or witness has occurred or may reasonably occur, an
order prohibiting all contact by the defendant with the victim,
witness or their families. This type of court order is
generally known as a "stay away order" because it is not limited
to contact intended to harass, intimidate, annoy or threaten a
victim or witness, but includes all contact.
The Attorney General's Task Force recommends this clarifying
language to ensure that criminal courts are empowered to issue
stay away orders, which are normally issued by a family court
under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (Family Code Section
6200 et seq .).
Prior Legislation : Prior bills revised and recast the statutes
dealing with domestic violence protective orders, enacting the
Domestic Violence Protection Act and related provisions: AB
1358 (Shelley), Chapter 808 of the Statutes of 2000; SB 1944
(Solis), Chapter 1001 of the Statutes of 2000; AB 825 (Keeley),
Chapter 661 of the Statutes of 1999; AB 1671 (Judiciary
Committee), Chapter 980 of the Statutes of 1999; and SB 218
(Solis), Chapter 662 of the Statutes of 1999.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
SB 720
Page 6
Support
Office of the Attorney General (sponsor)
Alameda County District Attorney's Office
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence
California Commission on the Status of Women
California District Attorneys Association
Catalyst Domestic Violence Services
City and County of San Francisco, Adult Probation Department
City of San Mateo Police Department
City of Santa Barbara Police Department
For Our Future (California Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault Prevention Coalition)
Gray Panthers
Haven House, Inc.
Kene Me-Wu Family Healing Center, Inc.
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation
Statewide California Coalition for Battered Women
Women's Center of San Joaquin County
One individual
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334