BILL ANALYSIS
SB 720
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2005
Counsel: Steven Meinrath
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
SB 720 (Kuehl) - As Amended: June 14, 2005
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to procedures regarding domestic
violence protective orders. 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.
2)Provides that any attorney's fees and costs ordered by the
court for contempt under this bill's provisions shall be paid
to the Office of Emergency Services' account established for
the purpose of funding domestic violence shelter service
providers, as specified.
3)Requires the court or the court's designee to transmit to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) all data filed with the court with
respect to protective orders issued under the Family Code
(domestic violence protective orders), including their
issuance, modification, extension, or termination, using the
same California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(CLETS) now used for criminal protective orders, as specified.
4)Clarifies that the protective orders the court may issue under
this provision may include a protective order prohibiting all
contact by the defendant , as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a judicial officer may issue an ex parte
emergency protective order where a law enforcement officer
asserts reasonable grounds to believe:
a) That a person is in immediate and present danger of
domestic violence based on the person's allegation of a
SB 720
Page 2
recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse by the person
against whom the order is sought.
b) That a child is in immediate and present danger of abuse
by a family or household member based on an allegation of a
recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse by the family
or household member.
c) That a child is in immediate and present danger of being
abducted by a parent or relative based on a reasonable
belief that a person has an intent to abduct the child or
flee with the child from the jurisdiction or based on an
allegation of a recent threat to abduct the child or flee
with the child from the jurisdiction.
d) That an elder or dependent adult is in immediate and
present danger of abuse as defined in Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 15610.07 based on an allegation
of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse by the
person against whom the order is sought except that no
emergency protective order shall be issued based solely on
an allegation of financial abuse. (Family Code Section
6250.)
2)Provides that an intentional and knowing violation of a
domestic violence protective order, as specified, is a
misdemeanor, punishable by one year in the county jail; a fine
of $1,000; or both. (Penal Code Section 273.6, Family Code
Section 6388.)
3)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 for each count of contempt.
The penalty for a second violation is up to 120 hours of
community service in addition to up to 120 hours of
imprisonment for each count of contempt. For a third or any
subsequent violation, the penalty is up to 240 hours of
community service and up to 240 hours of imprisonment, plus an
administrative fee for the period of community service
imposed, as specified. [Code of Civil Procedure Section
1218(c).]
4)Provides the procedure for initiating and pursuing contempt
proceedings against a person in violation of an order of the
SB 720
Page 3
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).]
5)Requires the courts to transmit to DOJ specified data relating
to criminal protective orders electronically through the CLETS
and requires DOJ to maintain a database of domestic violence
protective orders [referred to as the Domestic Violence
Restraining Order System (DVROS)] available to law enforcement
connected to the CLETS. (Family Code Section 6380.)
6)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 : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's statement: According to the author, "This bill makes
several changes to California's domestic violence restraining
order statutes to enhance the safety of victims of intimate
partner violence. These changes reflect the recommendations
of the Attorney General's Task Force on the Criminal Justice
Response to Domestic Violence. This bill:
a) "Makes the courts responsible for entering family court
domestic violence restraining orders into DVROS, just as
they are responsible for entering criminal protective
orders into DVROS.
b) "Authorizes the district attorney or city attorney to
bring criminal contempt actions for violations of family
court restraining orders.
c) "Clarifies that criminal courts have authority to issue
stay-away orders."
2)Criminal Contempt Citations : This bill incorporates
recommendations of the Attorney General's Task Force on the
Criminal Justice System's Response to Domestic Violence. The
Task Force met for two years and studied ways to improve the
SB 720
Page 4
statutes governing restraining orders to enhance the safety of
domestic violence victims. One finding of the Task Force was
that some district attorney offices are reluctant to bring
criminal charges against those who violate a domestic violence
restraining order. The reasons given by the district attorney
offices varied, but the Task Force concluded that such
violations need to be dealt with more aggressively. To that
end, one of the Task Force's recommendations, which this bill
proposes, is to amend the Family Code to specifically
authorize district attorneys and city attorneys to bring an
action in family court seeking to hold a party in criminal
contempt for violation of a domestic violence restraining
order. Hopefully, by giving prosecutors an additional method
by which to sanction violation of domestic violence
restraining orders, enforcement of these orders will be
improved.
3)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, has violated it, and
should be arrested.
According to the Attorney General's Office, studies confirm that
batterers who are the subject of domestic violence protective
orders are generally more dangerous than other defendants
against whom criminal protective orders are issued. Thus, any
information gleaned from the DVROS on a batterer who is
already the subject of a restraining order also assists the
officer in being prepared when entering the scene of reported
domestic violence and in handling a potentially dangerous
situation.
With respect to domestic violence restraining orders issued by
criminal courts, current law requires the court, or its
designee, to notify law enforcement of the issuance or
modification of such an order within one business day.
Additionally, once the order has been served on the restrained
party, the clerk of the court is required to enter that data
directly into the DVROS within one business day of receiving
notice of that service. [Family Code Section 6380.] However,
SB 720
Page 5
under current law these same requirements do not apply to
protective orders issued by the family court. Thus, while
family court protective orders are required to be on Judicial
Council-generated forms for ease of entry into DVROS, it is
not clear who is responsible for ensuring the data is entered
into the DVROS. As a result, according to the Attorney
General's Office, thousands of domestic violence protective
orders remain outside the DVROS database, making those orders
useless when protected persons call for law enforcement to
arrest subjects of the orders at the scenes of violations.
The Task Force recommendation is to treat the two types of
orders, which in all respects could be the same except for the
court issuing them, identically. 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 California.
4)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" as it is not limited
to contact intended to harass, intimidate, annoy or threaten a
victim or witness.
The Attorney General's Task Force recommended this clarifying
language to ensure that criminal courts are empowered to issue
this type of order, which is normally issued by a family court
under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (Family Code
Sections 6200 et seq.).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
SB 720
Page 6
Support
Alameda County District Attorney
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence
California Commission on the Status of Women
California District Attorneys Association
Casey Gwinn, Chair, Attorney General's Task Force
on Domestic Violence
Catalyst Domestic Violence Services
For Our Future, A California Tribal Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault Prevention Coalition
Gray Panthers
Haven House
Judge Pamela L. Iles, Orange County Superior Court
Kene Me-Wu Family Healing Center, Inc.
Office of the Attorney General
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
San Francisco Adult Probation Department
San Mateo Police Department
Santa Barbara Police Department
Women's Center
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Steven Meinrath / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744