BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2478|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2478
Author: Mendoza (D)
Amended: 6/23/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 6/22/10
AYES: Leno, Cogdill, Cedillo, Hancock, Steinberg, Wright
NOES: Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-2, 4/26/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Causing a disturbance at a school
SOURCE : Los Angeles Unified School District
DIGEST : This bill defines a new misdemeanor that would
be committed where a person creates a disruption at
preschool, kindergarten or grade school with the intent to
threaten the physical safety of a pupil, as specified,
arriving at, attending or leaving the school.
ANALYSIS : Existing law defines a school as any
elementary school, junior high school, four-year high
school, senior high school, adult school, as specified,
opportunity school, continuation high school, regional
occupational center, evening high school, technical school,
or any public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the
school property. A school is further defined as any place
CONTINUED
AB 2478
Page
2
where a teacher and one or more pupils are required to be
in connection with assigned school activities. (Section
626(a)(4) of the Penal Code [PEN])
Existing law includes numerous misdemeanor crimes involving
prohibited entry of a school or improper conduct at a
school. (PEN Section 626 et seq.)
Existing law provides that any person who comes into any
school building or upon any school ground, or street,
sidewalk, or public way adjacent thereto, without lawful
business thereon, and whose presence or acts interfere with
the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school or
disrupt the school or its pupils or school activities, is
guilty of a misdemeanor if he/she does any specified acts:
1. Prohibited acts on school grounds and exceptions:
A. The person remains there after being asked to
leave by the chief administrative official of that
school or his or her designated representative, or by
a person employed as a member of a security or police
department of a school district pursuant to the
Education Code, or a city police officer, or sheriff
or deputy sheriff, or a Department of the California
Highway Patrol peace officer.
B. The person reenters or comes upon that place
within seven days of being asked to leave by a person
specified in existing law.
C. The person has otherwise established a continued
pattern of unauthorized entry.
D. This section shall not be utilized to impinge upon
the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected
rights of freedom of speech or assembly. (PEN
Section 626.8(a)(1)-(3))
2. The penalty for unauthorized acts on school is as
follows:
A. A first conviction is punishable by a fine not
exceeding $500, by imprisonment in a county jail for
CONTINUED
AB 2478
Page
3
a period of not more than six months, or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
B. If the defendant has been previously convicted
once of a violation of any offense defined in this
chapter or provision of law related to disturbing the
peace, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period
of not less than 10 days or more than six months, or
by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $500,
and shall not be released on probation, parole, or
any other basis until he or she has served not less
than 10 days.
C. If the defendant has been previously convicted two
or more times of a violation of any offense defined
in this chapter or provisions related to disturbing
the peace, by imprisonment in a county jail for a
period of not less than 90 days or more than six
months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not
exceeding $500, and shall not be released on
probation, parole, or any other basis until he/she
has served not less than 90 days. (PEN Section
626.8(b)(1)-(3))
Existing law defines the following terms:
"Lawful business" is a reason for being present upon
school property which is not otherwise prohibited by
statute, by ordinance, or by any regulation adopted
pursuant to statute or ordinance.
"Continued pattern of unauthorized entry" is when on at
least two prior occasions in the same school year the
defendant came into any school building or upon any
school ground, or street, sidewalk, or public way
adjacent thereto, without lawful business thereon, and
his or her presence or acts interfered with the peaceful
conduct of the activities of the school or disrupted the
school or its pupils or school activities, and the
defendant was asked to leave by a person, as specified.
"School" is any preschool or public or private school
having Kindergarten or any of Grades 1 to 12, inclusive.
(PEN Section 626.8(c)(1)-(3))
CONTINUED
AB 2478
Page
4
Existing law states when a person is directed to leave
pursuant to existing law, the person directing him/her to
leave shall inform the person that if he/ she reenters the
place within seven days he/she will be guilty of a crime.
(PEN Section 626.8(d))
Existing law defines a "safe school zone" as any of the
following locations during regular school hours, or within
60 minutes before or after the schoolday, or within 60
minutes before or after a school-sponsored activity:
Within 1,000 feet of a school, "as designated by the
school".
Within 100 feet of a school bus stop, including a public
transit stop specifically designated as a school bus
stop.
This bill defines, within an existing school trespassing
statute, a new misdemeanor that is committed where a person
"willfully or knowingly creates a disruption with the
intent to threaten the immediate physical safety of any
pupil in preschool, kindergarten or of grades 1 to 8,
inclusive, arriving at, attending, or leaving from school."
Background
Case that prompted introduction of this bill . This bill
was, in part, prompted by the facts of and decision in
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department . The Center for Bio-ethical Reform
(CBER) is characterized by the decision of the court as "a
non-profit organization whose main purpose is to 'promote
pre-natal justice and the right to life for the unborn, the
disabled, the infirm, the aged and all vulnerable people
through education and development of innovative educational
programs'.'' ( Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Los Angeles
County Sheriffs Department , supra, 533 F.3rd at p. 784.)
One such program, "Reproductive Choice Campaign," consisted
of CBER placing large photographs of first trimester
aborted fetuses on the sides of trucks and then driving the
trucks on surface streets and freeways. In this case, CBER
CONTINUED
AB 2478
Page
5
drove around Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes,
in Los Angeles County, while the students were arriving at
school. Several children reported becoming physically ill,
some cried and many averted their eyes from the photos.
The school administration called the police and two Los
Angeles County sheriff deputies responded. After the
driver was detained for what he later characterized as an
unreasonable amount of time and shown the text of PEN
Section 626.8, he left the scene. CBER filed suit in
federal court claiming civil rights violations and seeking
damages.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of CBER on the
First Amendment issue ( Center for Bio-ethical Reform at p.
799.) The Court concluded that PEN Section 626.8 should
not have been applied to the driver of the truck as he was
not guilty of that statute and, hence, the government had
no other significant interest that justified restricting
CBER's speech ( Center for Bio-ethical Reform at p. 793.)
The Court does state in Footnote 9: "The California
Legislature may elect to draft a statute prohibiting
disruptive messages outside school buildings where the
disruption threatens the physical safety of school children
while they are coming to, leaving, or attending school. We
do not have before us, and therefore do not decide the
constitutionality of such a statute." ( Center for
Bio-ethical Reform at p. 790, fn. 9.) The Court also
states, "We have serious concerns about the
constitutionality of the statute as applied. We need not
decide, however, whether the statute as applied is
unconstitutional because we conclude that the California
courts would construe the statute narrowly so as not to
apply to Plaintiffs' conduct." ( Center for Bio-ethical
Reform at 786.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/5/10)
Los Angeles Unified School District (source)
California State Sheriffs Association
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Peace Officers Research Association of California
CONTINUED
AB 2478
Page
6
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"California schools have the constitutional obligation to
provide safe campuses to students and employees. The
right to free expression is also protected by the State
and Federal Constitutions. However, the right to free
expression is not absolute, and has been limited within
the school context by reasonable time, manner and place
regulations to ensure safety and to minimize disruption
to educational operations.
"If school administrators are unable to rely on Penal
Code section 626.8 to address disruptions of schools that
may result in physical harm to students, schools will
lose an important tool in ensuring safe campuses. This
change will help school administrators ensure student
safety without unduly burdening the right of free
expression."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey,
Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Ruskin, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Tran, Villines, Yamada
NOES: Anderson, Norby
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bass, Conway, Fuller,
Furutani, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Salas, John A.
Perez, Vacancy
RJG:mw 8/5/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
AB 2478
Page
7
**** END ****
CONTINUED