BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
As Amended July 1, 2010
Hearing Date: July 15, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: Yes
SK/BP:jd
SUBJECT
Deceased Child Victims' Protection and Privacy Act
DESCRIPTION
This bill would enact the Deceased Child Victims' Protection and
Privacy Act, requiring, upon the request of a biological or
adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian of a deceased minor,
the sealing of the autopsy report and evidence associated with
the examination of that minor victim when the minor was a victim
of a crime that caused his or her death and a person has been
convicted and sentenced for committing that crime. This bill
would contain specified exceptions and would also provide that a
coroner or medical examiner shall not be liable for damages in a
civil action for any reasonable act or omission taken in good
faith compliance with the bill.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
Committee.)
BACKGROUND
The California Public Records Act (PRA) provides that all public
records of state and local agencies are open to public
inspection, unless exempt. The PRA represents a balance between
the right of individuals to privacy and transparency and
openness in government, stating, "access to information
concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental
and necessary right of every person in this state." This right
was further underscored when voters approved Proposition 59 in
2004, which amended the California Constitution to provide that
the people have the right of access to information concerning
(more)
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 2 of ?
the conduct of the people's business and, therefore, the
writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to
public scrutiny. Under Proposition 59, a statute shall be
broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access
and narrowly construed if it limits that right of access.
Coroner's reports have been deemed to be public records within
the meaning of the PRA and may be exempted from disclosure in
certain instances. (Dixon v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th,
1271; Rev. denied, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 4729 (May 13, 2009).)
This bill, which is sponsored by the San Diego District
Attorney's Office, was prompted by the recent tragic death of
Chelsea King in San Diego County. The sponsor indicates that 22
PRA requests were made for Chelsea King's autopsy report. While
the sponsor indicates that those PRA requests were denied under
existing provisions of the PRA which allow for nondisclosure of
investigative files, this bill would instead provide that
autopsy reports and associated evidence in the possession of a
public agency would, upon the request of certain family members,
be sealed and not disclosed in certain instances.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law provides, under the PRA, that public records of
state and local agencies are open to inspection, unless
exempt. (Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) The PRA provides that
it shall not be construed to require disclosure of personnel,
medical, or similar files, "the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion or personal privacy."
(Gov. Code Sec. 6254(c).) Records of investigations conducted
by any state or local police agency or investigatory files of
those agencies are also exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code
Sec. 6254(f).)
Existing law provides that public records may be exempt from
disclosure by express provisions of state or federal law.
(Gov. Code Sec. 6254(k).) Existing law provides that an
agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating
that it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of
law, as specified, or that on the facts of the particular case
the public interest served by not disclosing the record
clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.
(Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that the
people have the right of access to information concerning the
conduct of the people's business and, therefore, the writings
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 3 of ?
of public officials and agencies shall be open to public
scrutiny. The California Constitution also provides that a
statute shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's
right of access and narrowly construed if it limits that right
of access. (Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 3.)
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that, among
other rights, all people have an inalienable right to pursue
and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 1.)
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that in
order to preserve and protect a victim's rights to justice and
due process, a victim shall be entitled to be treated with
fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and
to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse,
throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. (Cal.
Const. Art. 1, Sec. 28(b)(1).)
Existing case law provides that coroner and autopsy reports are
public records and may be exempt from disclosure under
Government Code Section 6254(f) when they "constitute
investigations of a suspected homicide death." (Dixon v.
Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1271; Rev. denied, 2009 Cal.
LEXIS 4729 (May 13, 2009).)
Existing case law provides that the intent of the PRA is to hold
government accountable while still protecting individual
privacy. (Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th
169; Cal. State Univ., Fresno Ass'n v. Superior Court (2001)
90 Cal.App.4th 810.)
Existing law prohibits any copy or reproduction to be made of
any photograph, negative, or print, including video
recordings, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a
deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of
death or in the course of a post mortem examination or
autopsy. This prohibition does not apply to use in a criminal
action or proceeding that relates to the death of that person,
or except as a court permits, by order after good cause has
been shown and after written notification of the request for
the court order has been served to the district attorney, as
specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 129.)
This bill would provide that, when a child under 18 years of age
is killed as a result of a criminal act and a person has been
convicted and sentenced for committing that act, the autopsy
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 4 of ?
report and evidence associated with the examination of the
victim ("associated evidence") in the possession of a public
agency shall, upon the request of a qualifying family member
of the deceased child, be sealed and may not be disclosed.
This bill would provide that an autopsy report and associated
evidence that has been sealed under the bill could be
disclosed to the following:
a. law enforcement, prosecutorial agencies and experts hired
by those agencies,
public social services agencies, or child death review
teams to be used solely for investigative, prosecutorial,
or review purposes and not disseminated further;
b. the defendant and the defense team and experts hired by
the defense team in the course of criminal proceedings or
related habeas proceedings to be used solely for
investigative and review purposes and not disseminated
further; and
c. civil litigants in a cause of action related to the
victim's death with a court order
upon a showing of good cause and proper notice to be used
solely to pursue the
cause of action and not disseminated further.
This bill would provide that a qualifying family member who
has been charged with or convicted of any act in furtherance
of the victim's death may not request that the autopsy report
and associated evidence be sealed under the bill. Upon the
filing of charges against a qualifying family member, this
bill would specify that any seal maintained at the request of
that family member under the bill's provisions shall be
removed.
This bill would provide that if a qualifying family member
requests that an autopsy report and associated evidence be
sealed and another qualifying family member opposes that
sealing, the opposing party may request a hearing before the
superior court for a determination of whether the sealing
should be maintained. This bill would provide for the
following in relation to such a hearing:
a. the opposing party must notify all other qualifying
family members, the medical
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 5 of ?
examiner's office, and the district attorney's office at
least 10 court days in
advance of the hearing;
b. at the hearing, the court must consider: (1) the
interests of all qualifying family
members; (2) the protection of the memory of the deceased
child; (3) any
evidence that the qualifying family member requesting the
seal was involved in
the crime that resulted in the death of the child; (4) the
public interest in scrutiny
of the autopsy report or the performance of the medical
examiner; (5) any impact
that unsealing would have on pending investigations or
pending litigation; and
(6) any other relevant factors;
c. official information in the possession of a public
agency necessary to the
determination of the hearing shall be received in camera
upon a proper showing;
d. in its discretion, the court may, to the extent
allowable by law and with good
cause shown, restrict the dissemination of an autopsy report
or evidence
associated with the examination of the victim;
e. the ability to oppose the sealing of the autopsy report
or unseal the autopsy
report under the bill shall not apply where a public agency
has independently
determined that the autopsy report may not be disclosed
pursuant to
Government Code Section 6254(f) because it is an
investigative file. In that
instance, nothing in the bill shall preclude the application
of Government Code
Sections 6258 and 6259.
This bill would provide that a qualifying family member, or
biological or adoptive aunt, uncle, sibling, first cousin, or
grandparent of the deceased child may request that the seal be
removed. That request must be adjudicated in the same manner
as provided for above when a qualifying family member opposes
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 6 of ?
the initial sealing.
This bill would provide that its provisions do not limit
public access to information contained in the death
certificate, including: name; age; gender; race; date, time,
and location of death; name of a physician reporting a death
in a hospital; name of the certifying pathologist; date of
certification; burial information; and cause of death.
This bill would provide that when a medical examiner declines
a request to provide a copy of an autopsy report that has been
sealed pursuant to the bill's provisions, the examiner shall
cite the bill's provisions as the reason for the denial.
This bill would specify that nothing in the bill shall
prohibit the use of autopsy reports and evidence in relation
to court proceedings.
This bill would provide that its provisions do not abrogate
the rights of victims, their authorized representatives, or
insurance carriers to request the release of information
pursuant to Government Code Section 6254(f) which permits
insurers to obtain information for claims purposes.
This bill would specify that a coroner or medical examiner
shall not be liable for damages in a civil action for any
reasonable act or omission taken in good faith compliance with
the bill.
This bill would contain the following definitions:
a. a "child who is under 18 years of age" does not include
any child who comes
within either of the following descriptions: (1) he or
she is a dependent child of the juvenile court pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 at the time of his
or her death; or (2) he or she was residing in a state or
county juvenile facility, or a private facility under
contract with the state or county for the placement of
juveniles, as a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602 at the time of his
or her death;
b. "evidence associated with the examination of the victim"
means any object, writing, diagram, recording, computer
file, photograph, video, DVD, CD, film, digital device, or
other item which was collected during or serves to document
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 7 of ?
the autopsy of a deceased child; and
c. "qualifying family member" means the biological or
adoptive parent, spouse, or
legal guardian.
This bill contains an urgency clause, stating that it is
necessary that the bill take effect immediately in order to
prevent, as soon as possible, autopsy information concerning
deceased children from being made available to the public.
This bill contains a severability clause and various
legislative findings and declarations.
2.Existing law governs criminal discovery. (Pen. Code Sec. 1054
et seq.)
This bill would state that nothing in the bill shall limit the
discovery provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 1054 et
seq.
3.Existing case law provides for a First Amendment right of
access to court proceedings and court records. (See, e.g.,
NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th
1178; In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045,
Rev. denied 2006 Cal. LEXIS 5955 (May 17, 2006).) Existing
Rules of Court, based on that case law, provide that court
records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is
required by law and specifies procedures for the sealing of
court records in trial and appellate courts. (Cal. Rules of
Court, Rules 2.500, 2.550, 2.551, 8.46.)
This bill would provide that nothing in the bill shall be
construed to limit the authority of the court to seal records
or restrict the dissemination of an autopsy report or evidence
associated with the examination of the victim under case law,
statutory law, or Rules of Court.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
SB 982 will protect the privacy of the families of murder
victims by allowing them to request that autopsy reports not
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 8 of ?
be subject to public records act requests. This Act is
intended to limit the unnecessary dissemination of autopsy and
private medical information . . . [and] allow families to
request that the autopsy report of the victim be sealed from
public inspection. This Act would not affect the
dissemination of the reports to law enforcement agents or
prosecutors [or defendants or civil litigants under] state and
federal discovery [laws].
Currently there is no law which allows family members to
protect their privacy or the privacy of a loved one by
requesting that [autopsy reports] be sealed. While an
investigative agency can decide not to disclose such
information, that decision is left to each individual agency.
Decisions by the agencies are frequently challenged in the
courts and through the media and other groups. This law will
give the victim's family the right to seal the information
from unnecessary disclosure while still protecting the ability
to access such documents when legally necessary.
Thousands of Californians are murdered each year, a statistic
that has remained steady for over 30 years. The emotional
pain suffered by the families of these lost victims is
unimaginable. That pain is relived through criminal
proceedings, which serve as a troubling reminder of the
suffering that loved ones endured before their lives were
taken. No document is more telling of the specific nature of
a victim's injuries than the autopsy report crafted by a
Medical Examiner. For the family of a crime victim, the
writing and diagrams contain the details of a loved one's last
experiences in this world. While criminal proceedings and
certain civil actions may require the use of such documents to
satisfy the needs of a particular suit, there is no such
compelling interest in public production and distribution of
these documents.
2. July 1, 2010 amendments
Prior to the July 1st amendments, this bill would have provided
that upon the request of a biological, adoptive, or foster
parent, spouse, or guardian of a deceased victim of a crime who
was under 18 years of age, the autopsy report and evidence
associated with the examination of the victim shall be sealed
and not disclosed, except as specified.
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 9 of ?
Opponents of the measure, in particular the Children's Advocacy
Institute (CAI), expressed several concerns about the bill
including that it might inadvertently permit an individual
responsible for the death of a child to request sealing of the
autopsy report and therefore hide his or her involvement in the
death. CAI also argued that the bill was "predicated on the
belief" that there was never a compelling interest in public
disclosure and distribution of a murdered child's autopsy
report. In particular, CAI raised concerns that there is a
compelling interest in disclosure when children die while in
foster care or juvenile custody situations. Similarly, the
California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) noted that
autopsy reports have been used in a number of articles exposing
abuse or wrongful behavior and cited the recent Sacramento Bee
investigative series reporting on the death of
four-and-a-half-year old Amariana Crenshaw which was based in
part on autopsy reports. That series resulted in Sacramento
County's Child Protective Services admitting it had failed to
protect the little girl from harm when it did not sufficiently
investigate numerous allegations of abuse and neglect by the
girl's foster mother.
In response to the concerns expressed by opponents, the bill was
amended to address the situation in which a child has been
murdered and the person responsible has been convicted and
sentenced for the crime. The July 1st amendments exempt
instances where a child has died while in foster care or custody
of the juvenile justice system. The amendments also provide a
court process when a qualifying family member requests sealing
and another qualifying family member objects to that sealing.
As amended on July 1, that same court process would apply when
specified family members seek to unseal the information. Based
on these amendments, CAI has indicated that it is no longer
opposed to the bill. CNPA, while still opposed to the measure,
notes that, in its view, the amendments recognize the important
public interest in disclosure of autopsy reports in the death of
a child.
3. Bill would create exception to the Public Records Act;
application to autopsy reports in the possession of a public
agency
This bill would require, upon the request of a biological or
adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian of a deceased minor,
the sealing of the autopsy report and evidence associated with
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 10 of ?
the examination of that minor victim in the possession of a
public agency when the minor was a victim of a crime that caused
his or her death and a person has been convicted and sentenced
for committing that crime. The purpose of the bill, as noted in
the legislative findings and declarations and supported by
background materials provided to the Committee, is to allow
"families of deceased minor victims of violent crimes . . . to
request that autopsy reports not be subject to public records
act requests."
Under the PRA, public records of state and local agencies are
open to inspection, unless they are exempt. For example, public
records may be exempt from disclosure when expressly provided
for under state or federal law. This bill, by providing an
express exemption when a qualifying family member requests that
the autopsy report of a deceased minor in the possession of a
public agency be sealed in certain instances, creates such an
exception to the PRA. In addition, this bill's restrictions
would apply only to the disclosure of autopsy reports and
associated evidence "in the possession of a public agency." The
term "public agency" does not include the judiciary. For
example, the PRA specifically excludes the judicial branch from
its definition of "public agency." That lack of application to
court records is consistent with the sponsor's letter of support
for the bill stating that it would require "that Medical
Examiners/Coroners seal the autopsies of murdered children upon
the request of the parent." The bill's use of the term "seal,"
a phrase not generally used in the PRA context, should not be
determinative here as the sponsor has indicated that when
coroners determine that an autopsy report is not subject to
disclosure under Government Code Section 6254(f) because it is
an investigative file, they "seal" the report.
While the plain language of the bill does not apply to autopsy
reports and associated evidence held by a court, the sponsor now
indicates that the intent of the drafter was to apply this
bill's restrictions on disclosure to autopsy reports and
associated evidence entered into the court record. Should this
bill be amended to expressly apply to court records, important
constitutional and workability issues would arise as discussed
below.
a. Potential constitutional concerns should the bill be
amended to specifically apply to court records
Should this bill be amended to apply its restrictions on
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 11 of ?
disclosure to court records, it would thus require that an
autopsy report and associated evidence entered into the court
record be sealed from public view upon the request of a
biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian of a
deceased minor when the minor was a victim of a crime that
caused his or her death and a person has been convicted and
sentenced for committing that crime. Absent appropriate
safeguards, such a mandatory sealing may not meet
constitutional muster. Under existing law, the First
Amendment provides a right to public access of court records
and court proceedings and existing California Rules of Court
implement that right. (See, e.g., NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v.
Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178; In re Marriage of
Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, Rev. denied 2006 Cal.
LEXIS 5955 (May 17, 2006); Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 2.500,
2.503, 2.550, 8.46.)
Under NBC Subsidiary and the California Rules of Court derived
from that case, a court must meet certain requirements before
it may close a hearing or seal a record. Specifically, the
court must expressly find that: (1) there exists an overriding
interest that overcomes the right of public access to the
record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the
record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the
overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not
sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5)
no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding
interest. In Burkle, which implicated personal, not familial,
privacy, the court held that Family Code Section 2024.6 "is
unconstitutional on its face as an undue burden on the First
Amendment right of public access to court records." (Burkle,
supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 1070.) Section 2024.6 required a
court, upon the request of a party to a divorce proceeding, to
seal any pleading that lists the location or identifying
information about the parties' financial assets and
liabilities. Under Section 2024.6, records sealed could be
unsealed upon petition to the court and good cause shown.
In finding Section 2024.6 to be unconstitutional, the Burkle
court noted in particular the mandatory sealing required by
the statute and determined that it did not conform to the
requirements of the First Amendment as set out by NBC
Subsidiary. Should this bill be amended to specifically apply
to court records, its mandatory sealing provisions as to court
records (combined with a much narrower unsealing provision and
different privacy interest) would arguably raise similar
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 12 of ?
constitutional concerns.
WOULD NOT THE APPLICATION OF THIS BILL TO COURT RECORDS
WITHOUT APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS?
b. Workability issues should the bill be amended to
specifically apply to court records
Should this bill be amended to apply its restrictions to court
records, it would arguably raise workability issues as the
process for sealing the autopsy report and associated evidence
is not clear from the language of the bill. For example,
would the qualifying family member make the request for
sealing to the court, or to the coroner, or the district
attorney's office? In addition, because only certain
individuals are "qualifying family members," there would have
to be some determination that the individual requesting that
the record be sealed met the definition of "qualifying family
member." And, some determination also must be made that a
person has been convicted and sentenced for the commission of
the criminal act that killed the minor and that the minor was
not either in foster care or in juvenile custody at the time
of his or her death. If amended, there are likely additional
workability issues such as whether Judicial Council would be
required to create a form, change any Rules of Court, or
whether current practices and procedures regarding the sealing
of court records would need to be changed.
4. Bill would permit specified persons to request unsealing
This bill would provide that a qualifying family member, aunt,
uncle, sibling, first cousin, or grandparent of the deceased
child may request that the seal be removed. That request must
be adjudicated in the same manner as provided for when a
qualifying family member opposes the initial sealing. Under the
bill, the individual requesting that the autopsy report and
associated evidence be unsealed must, at least 10 court days in
advance of the court hearing on the matter, notify all other
qualifying family members, the medical examiner's office, and
the district attorney's office.
At the hearing, the bill would require the court to consider all
of the following: (1) the interests of all qualifying family
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 13 of ?
members; (2) the protection of the memory of the deceased child;
(3) any evidence that the qualifying family member requesting
the seal was involved in the crime that resulted in the death of
the child; (4) the public interest in scrutiny of the autopsy
report or the performance of the medical examiner; (5) any
impact that unsealing would have on pending investigations or
pending litigation; and (6) any other relevant factors.
Finally, should the court permit the unsealing, the bill would
provide that in its discretion, the court may, to the extent
allowable by law and with good cause shown, restrict the
dissemination of an autopsy report or evidence associated with
the examination of the victim.
Opponent California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA)
writes that while permitting specified individuals to request
that the autopsy report and associated evidence be unsealed "is
absolutely necessary to protect the public from the unintended
consequences of allowing private individuals with private
agendas to make public record access decisions on behalf of the
state, it is, in its current form, nonetheless indefensible. .
. . persons besides qualifying family members could have
information that the qualifying family member who requested the
sealing was somehow involved in the crime." CNPA continues with
the following scenario:
A mother of a child for years ignores and takes active steps
to cover up the routine beating, molestation or mistreatment
of her child at the hands of her boyfriend, who is ultimately
convicted in connection with the child's death. She does such
a good job of it, the situation never reaches the eyes and
ears of child protective services. Immediately after
conviction, a plea deal-no public trial, she requests sealing
of the autopsy records as a means to protect herself from
further official scrutiny. No qualifying family members exist
to object to the request. Her best friend, though, or her
neighbor, or her employer, or an enterprising newspaper, have
identified substantial evidence that implicates the mother in
the child's death. Under SB 982, none of these people would
be able to crack open the courtroom door, let alone make a
pitch for public disclosure in the interests of justice. At a
minimum, SB 982 should be amended to allow access to the
courts to anyone with information about the crime to argue, on
the facts of the case, that the public interest in disclosure
clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.
5. Existing law already prohibits disclosure of coroner
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 14 of ?
photographs
Existing law prohibits any copy or reproduction to be made of
any photograph, negative, or print, including video recordings,
of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person,
taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the
course of a post mortem examination or autopsy. This
prohibition does not apply to use in a criminal action or
proceeding that relates to the death of that person, or except
as a court permits, by order after good cause has been shown and
after written notification of the request for the court order
has been served to the district attorney, as specified. (Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 129.) This provision of law was added in order
to separate out photographs and other more "salacious"
information, thereby declaring copies of that information to be
protected from disclosure, from written reports.
This bill would also define "evidence" in a way that overlaps
with the provisions of existing law described above.
Specifically, in relevant part, the bill defines "evidence" to
mean any recording, photograph, or video which was collected
during or serves to document the autopsy of a deceased child.
Because it is not clear why these items of information are
included in this bill when they are already protected under
existing law, the Committee may wish to inquire of the author
and his sponsor the rationale for their inclusion.
6. Existing authority of court to seal autopsy reports not
impacted
This bill, as proposed to be amended, would specifically provide
that it may not be construed to limit the authority of the court
to seal records or restrict the dissemination of an autopsy
report or associated evidence under case law, other statutory
law, or Rules of Court. This language is intended to make clear
that existing provisions of law which permit a party to a
proceeding to request that court records, such as autopsy
reports, be sealed are separate and distinct from the PRA
exemption created under this bill.
For example, under existing law, a defendant has a right to
request that an autopsy report be sealed. Under this bill,
however, a qualifying family member who has been charged with or
convicted of the crime leading to the minor's death could not
request that the autopsy report be sealed pursuant to the
provisions of this bill. The California Public Defenders
SB 982 (Hollingsworth)
Page 15 of ?
Association (CPDA) raised concerns that the bill thus could lead
to "a defendant's motion being inappropriately denied or an
appropriately granted seal being lifted" when the request is
made pursuant to existing provisions of law. The language added
by the proposed amendments would appear to address this concern.
7. Position of California Public Defenders Association
CPDA has an "oppose unless amended" position on this bill but
indicates that, should the bill be amended as described in this
analysis, those amendments "would address our concerns
sufficiently to change our position to 'Neutral'."
Support : California District Attorneys Association
Opposition : California Broadcasters Association; California
Newspaper Publishers Association; California Public Defenders
Association (unless amended)
HISTORY
Source : San Diego County District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 2521 (Nation, 2004) originally would have
restricted the release of autopsy reports under the PRA by
defining "medical files" under the PRA to include autopsy
reports. In response to concerns, the bill was subsequently
amended to require coroners to notify a decedent's next of kin
when a PRA request has been made for the coroner's report on the
decedent. This bill was set for hearing in this Committee, but
the author pulled the bill from the hearing calendar.
**************