BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
5
3
8
AB 538 (Arambula)
As Amended April 15, 2009
Hearing date: June 9, 2009
Penal Code
MK:br
EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM: ABUSE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1976 (Benoit) - Ch.89, Stats. 2008
AB 911 (Longville) - Ch. 295, Stats. 2004
AB 669 (Hertzberg) - Ch. 731, Stats. 2002
AB 2741 (Cannella) - Ch. 262, Stats. 1994
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; California
Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association
(CALNENA)
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 79 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD ANY ENTITY THAT PROVIDES EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BE
AUTHORIZED TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW PROHIBITING IMPROPER USE
OF THE 911 SYSTEM TO THE PUBLIC ENTITY THAT ORIGINALLY RECEIVED THE
CALL?
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow any entity that provides
medical services to report a violation of the law prohibiting
the improper use of the 911 system to the public safety entity
that originally received the call.
Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly and
maliciously interrupt or otherwise interfere with the
transmission of emergency-related communication over an amateur
or a citizen's band radio frequency and provides that it is a
felony if this offense results in serious bodily injury or
property loss in excess of $10,000. (Penal Code 653t.)
Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor to telephone the
911 emergency line with the intent to annoy or harass another
person, punishable by a fine of not more than $1000; by
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months; or
by both the fine and imprisonment; and specifies that intent to
annoy or harass is established by proof of repeated calls over
a period of time, however short, that are unreasonable under
the circumstances. (Penal Code 653x.)
Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly
report a false emergency and provides that it is a felony
if this offense results in great bodily injury or death.
(Penal Code 148.3.)
Existing law provides that the digits "911" shall be the primary
emergency telephone number, but a public agency may maintain a
separate secondary backup number and shall maintain a separate
number for non-emergency telephone calls. (Government Code
53111.)
Existing law states that the 911 system provides a simplified
means of procuring emergency services which will result in the
saving of life, a reduction in the destruction of property, and
quicker apprehension of criminals. (Government Code 53100.)
Existing law provides that local governments are encouraged to
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageC
develop and improve emergency communication procedures so as to
be able to quickly respond to any person calling 911 seeking
police, fire, medical, rescue, and other emergency services.
(Government Code 53100.)
Existing law states that every local public agency may establish
a non-emergency telephone system with the digits "311" dedicated
as the non-emergency telephone number, and the location of the
initial call is to be determined to provide a coordinated
uniform delivery system. (Government Code 53126.)
Existing law provides that "non-emergency telephone system" is
defined as a system structured to provide access to public
safety agencies and to services provided by local public
agencies, such as street maintenance and animal control.
(Government Code 53126.5.)
Existing law states any person who knowingly allows the use or
who uses the 911 telephone system for any reason other than
because of an emergency is guilty of an infraction, for a first
or second violation, a written warning shall be issued to the
violator by the public safety entity originally receiving the
call describing the punishment for subsequent violations. The
written warning shall inform the recipient to notify the issuing
agency that the warning was issued inappropriately if the
recipient did not make, or knowingly allowed, the use of the 911
telephone system for the non-emergency 911 call. The law
enforcement agency may provide educational materials regarding
the appropriate use of the 911 telephone system. (Penal Code
653y(a)(1).)
Existing law provides for a third or subsequent infraction, a
citation may be issued by the public safety entity originally
receiving the call pursuant to which the violator shall be
subject to the following penalties that may be reduced by a
court upon consideration of the violator's ability to pay (Penal
Code 653y(a)(2).):
for a second violation a fine of $50, plus penalty
assessments;
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageD
for a third violation, a fine of $100, plus penalty
assessments; and
for a fourth or subsequent violation a fine of $250,
plus penalty assessments.
Existing law states the parent or legal guardian having custody
and control of an un-emancipated minor who violates this section
shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for the
fine imposed pursuant to this section. (Penal Code 653y(b).)
Existing law provides for purposes of this section, "emergency"
is defined as any condition in which emergency services will
result in the saving of a life; a reduction in the destruction
of property; quicker apprehension of criminals; or assistance
with potentially life-threatening medical problems, a fire, a
need for rescue, an imminent potential crime, or a similar
situation in which immediate assistance is required. (Penal
Code 653y(c).)
This bill provides that any entity that provides emergency
medical services may report a violation, as described in
subdivision (a), to the public safety entity that originally
received the call.
This bil l provides that upon verification that a violation has
occurred, the public safety entity originally receiving the call
shall issue the applicable warnings and citations, as specified
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a).
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageE
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageF
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
---------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageG
According to the author:
Under current law, any person who knowingly allows the
use of, or who uses, the 911 telephone system for a
non-emergency, is guilty of an infraction. The law
provides that the entity that receives such
non-emergency calls, generally a public agency, shall
issue warnings and citations to violators.
There is a weakness in current law as it may apply to
people who knowingly call 911 for emergency medical
transportation services, claiming a medical emergency,
but whose only purpose is to get transported from one
location to wherever the hospital emergency room is
located. In essence, they use emergency medical
transportation as a taxi service. While no statistics
have been kept on this kind of abuse, both emergency
medical transportation services and emergency room
physicians have reported that this abuse is not
uncommon, particularly in rural areas.
911 calls made from landlines are routed to city and
county communication centers. 911 calls made from cell
phones are answered by CHP communication centers.
Depending on the nature of the emergency, personnel at
the call centers will arrange for the appropriate
response, including dispatching emergency transportation
services.
Many of these medical transportation services are
private operators who contract with the Local Emergency
Medical Services Agency. When dispatched, they are
obligated to roll to the location of the caller, and in
most instances if there is someone at that location
complaining of an emergency condition, the
transportation service has little choice but to
transport them to an emergency room for diagnosis and
treatment. Unfortunately, in many instances, after
arriving at the emergency room, the individual leaves
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageH
the premises, with no further complaint or treatment.
They abuse the 911 emergency system just to get free
transportation.
(More)
CHP, city and county communications centers keep
records, and can identify individuals who make repeated
calls. Under the law, only these public entities can
cite and fine 911 abusers. AB 538 would allow all
emergency medical service providers to inform the public
911 call centers of abusers, and clarify that if the
public entity investigates and confirms the abuse, then
the public entity would be required to follow current
law relative to issuing warnings and citations.
2. 911 Generally
The 911 telephone system was established as the primary
emergency telephone number in California by Chapter 1005,
Statutes of 1972, and is paid for by a statewide surcharge
(statutorily capped at 0.75%) on each telephone bill. Telephone
calls to 911 made from landline telephones are routed to local
city or county communication centers. All 911 calls made from
cellular phones are routed to a CHP communication center.
Currently, there are 24 CHP communication centers statewide,
staffed by 691 CHP dispatchers.
As of 2004, according to CHP representatives, CHP
communication centers received almost 8 million calls per
year; 800,000 of which are non-emergency calls. The San Diego
Sheriff's Department reported in 2001 that more than one-half
of its 911 calls were frivolous.
AB 911 (Longville) Chapter 295, Statutes of 2004 created the
infraction for knowingly using the 911 system for any reason
other than because of an emergency. AB 1976 (Benoit) Chapter
89, Statutes of 2008 increased the penalties for a second or
subsequent violation of the provisions created by AB 911.
3. Reporting by Emergency Medical Services of Misuse of 911
This bill provides that any entity that provides emergency
(More)
AB 538 (Arambula)
PageJ
medical services may report a violation to the public safety
entity that originally received the call. Upon verification
that a violation has occurred, the public safety entity
originally receiving the call shall issue the applicable
warnings and citations.
According to the author:
This bill is intended to address the problem of
individuals who call 911 to arrange emergency medical
transportation, knowing that they do not have a medical
emergency.
Existing law addresses the problem of people who call
911 as a prank, to harass, or to make conversation
unrelated to an emergency. However, the law is somewhat
vague in dealing with individuals who claim they are
having an emergency primarily to use the dispatched
emergency transportation as a taxi service.
SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT ANY ENTITY THAT PROVIDES EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES MAY REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW PROHIBITING
IMPROPER USE OF THE 911 SYSTEM TO THE PUBLIC ENTITY THAT
ORIGINALLY RECEIVED THE CALL?
***************