BILL ANALYSIS
SB 720
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 720 (Kuehl)
As Amended June 14, 2005
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :32-2
JUDICIARY 8-1 PUBLIC SAFETY 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Harman, Goldberg, |Ayes:|Leno, La Suer, Dymally, |
| |Laird, Leslie, Levine, | |Goldberg, Levine, Spitzer |
| |Lieber, Montanez | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Haynes | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to implement three recommendations of the
Attorney General's Task Force (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 (DOJ) all data filed with the court on
the required Judicial Council (JC) forms 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).
SB 720
Page 2
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.
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
service imposed.
3)Requires the courts to transmit to DOJ data relating to
criminal protective orders electronically through CLETS.
Requires DOJ 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 CLETS.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The Task Force, 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. This bill 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, this bill
would require, with respect to domestic violence protective
SB 720
Page 3
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, this 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.
This 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 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).
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 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.
SB 720
Page 4
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 JC-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 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.
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.
SB 720
Page 5
The 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0011245