BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 492|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 492
Author: Maldonado (R), et al
Amended: 4/23/09
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/14/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : School loitering and gang activity
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill (1) increases the maximum fine and
jail term for loitering on school grounds from $1,000 to
$2,000 and six months and one year, respectively, if the
defendant is required to register with law enforcement for
a gang-related conviction, (2) directs the court to
consider minimum jail terms of 10 days for a second
conviction and 90 days for subsequent convictions, (3)
requires as a condition of any grant of probation that the
defendant not enter school grounds without the express
permission of the school administrator, and (4) grants the
court discretion to not impose the school entry prohibition
in the interests of justice.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, it is a misdemeanor for
any person to loiter after being asked to leave, as
CONTINUED
SB 492
Page
2
specified, about any school or public place at or near
which children attend or normally congregate. Existing law
establishes enhanced misdemeanor penalties, including
minimum penalties, for this crime if the person is required
to register as a sex offender.
This bill provides enhanced penalties for this crime if the
person
is required to register with the chief of police or sheriff
for committing any of specified criminal street gang
offenses. This bill requires the court, if the court
grants probation to a minor or adult in these
circumstances, to impose upon the defendant or minor a
condition prohibiting the defendant or minor from entering
the grounds of a school without the express permission of
the chief administrative officer of the school. This bill
allows the court to excuse a defendant or minor from this
condition under certain circumstances. Because this bill
increases the penalties for an existing crime, this bill
imposes a state-mandated local program.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/5/09)
California District Attorneys Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Los Angeles County District Attorney
San Bernardino County Sheriff
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/5/09)
California Public Defenders Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"The City of Salinas has been experiencing a dangerous
increase in gang-related activity. Last year, 23 of 25
homicides in the city were blamed on gangs.
"Five people were murdered in gang-related slayings in a
three day period in January, 2009. Two of the victims
were students at Alisal High School. One victim, a
CONTINUED
SB 492
Page
3
15-year-old boy, was shot at 9:00 in the morning on
school grounds.
"Children should not be afraid to go to school or
intimidated by illegal activities that occur across a
fence from school property. Gang members in Salinas are
congregating school grounds. How can a student learn
while criminal activity is going on just outside the
school? Gang members have become so brazen in Salinas
that they have posted a gang 'hit list' on YouTube.
"SB 492 would prevent gang members from loitering on
school grounds. This bill would add a misdemeanor
sentence enhancement if the defendant convicted of
loitering had been previously been convicted of a
gang-related offense. SB 1128 (Alquist), Chapter 337,
Statutes of 2006, established a precedent by providing
for enhanced penalties where sex offenders are convicted
of loitering on school grounds.
"Finally, this bill provides that a gang participant who
is on probation for school loitering may not enter school
grounds without the permission of a school official.
While still allowing these probationers to go on campus
for legitimate reasons, this provision will prevent gang
members on probation from congregating near school
grounds."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Public Defenders
Association states:
"By setting up increasingly harsh penalties for each
violation, this bill would expand and incentivize the
arrest and incarceration of scores of persons for the
crime of loitering--defined as 'delaying, lingering, or
idling' on school premises--simply on the basis of a past
status that may not even currently exist. There is no
requirement in the bill that the person arrested
currently be a gang member, or even currently be required
to register as a gang member. This bill would subject to
arrest, prosecution and incarceration grown men and women
who were required to register as a youth, but who are now
working as community peace activist or organizers. It
could similarly apply to striking or organizing teachers
CONTINUED
SB 492
Page
4
or school staff, to virtually anyone the police chose to
cite. Moreover, a simple belief by an officer that a
person might have once had to register could, under this
bill, supply probable cause to stop and detain a person,
even handcuff and arrest the person, under the bogus
pretense of investigating a loitering charge.
"The idea that a person who once might have been
affiliated with a gang could be subjected to increased
punishment--mandatory jail time--regardless of their
current status may be, is constitutionally repugnant and
morally offensive."
RJG:mw 5/5/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED