BILL ANALYSIS
AB 576
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 576 (Torres)
As Amended July 2, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |76-0 |(April 30, |SENATE: |36-0 |(July 16, |
| | |2009) | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY : Expands the definition of a "victim" for the purposes
of restitution to include any governmental entity that is
responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring public and
privately owned property defaced with graffiti or other
inscribed material, as specified, and has sustained economic
loss as a result.
The Senate amendment makes a technical, non-substantive
correction and adds co-authors.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that every person who maliciously defaces real or
personal property with graffiti or other inscribed material is
guilty of vandalism, which is punishable as an alternate
felony/misdemeanor.
2)States that if the amount of damage is $400 or more, vandalism
is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail or state
prison not exceeding one year or by a fine of not more than
$10,000. If the amount of damage is $10,000 or more, by a
fine of not more than $50,000 or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
3)States that if the amount of damage is less than $400,
vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year; or by a fine of not more than $1,000; or,
by both that fine and imprisonment.
4)Provides that if the amount of damage is less than $400 and
the defendant has been previously convicted of vandalism or
affixing graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified,
vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for
AB 576
Page 2
not more than one year; by a fine of not more than $5,000; or
by both that fine and imprisonment.
5)Provides that any person who violates the graffiti or
vandalism statutes on or within 100 feet of a highway or its
appurtenances is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months; or by
a fine not exceeding $1,000; or by both that imprisonment and
fine. A second conviction is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year; by a fine not exceeding
$1,000; or by both that imprisonment and fine.
6)Provides that a city, county, or city and county may enact an
ordinance to provide for the use of city or county funds to
remove graffiti or other inscribed material from publicly or
privately owned real or personal property located within the
city, county, or city and county and to replace or repair
public or privately owned property within that city, county,
or city and county that has been defaced with graffiti or
other inscribed material that cannot be removed cost
effectively.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Graffiti is a costly and
pervasive problem affecting all residents, property owners,
businesses, and public agencies across the state. The California
Research Bureau estimates that the statewide cost of graffiti
abatement is potentially upwards of $350 million annually. The
majority of these costs are borne entirely by local governments.
One of the main reasons local governments continue to shoulder
the economic impact of graffiti because cost recovery procedures
are too cumbersome and ineffective.
"While these numbers are staggering, perhaps more disturbing is
the power graffiti has to cause fear and insecurity within a
community. The graffiti epidemic is an assault on an
individual's peace of mind, making graffiti a social crime that
directly targets the quality of life and freedom citizens are
both entitled to and desire within their neighborhoods.
Graffiti, distinct from many other crimes, requires proactive
enforcement and dedicated investigation. However, the ability
AB 576
Page 3
of local law enforcement to diligently investigate and prosecute
individuals committing acts of graffiti is hampered only by law
enforcement's limited resources. To be successful in our
continued fight against graffiti, it is critical that law
enforcement has the necessary resources to employ the latest
enforcement strategies and that local governments are able to
recover the costs of graffiti abatement via criminal
restitution."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0001780