BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1174
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1174 (Furutani) - As Amended: March 10, 2011
SUBJECT : School safety: willful disturbance of public school
activities
SUMMARY : Provides that a person who willfully disturbs a
public school activity is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punished by a fine of not more than $500. Specifies that
"public school activity" includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, the arrival and departure of pupils to and from
public school grounds during school hours as specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifies that any person who willfully disturbs any public
school or any public school meeting is guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than
$500. (Education Code (EC) Section 32210)
2)Specifies that any person who is not a pupil of a public
school, a parent or legal guardian of a pupil, or an officer
or employee of the school district, or who is not required by
his or her employment to be in a public school building or the
grounds of any public school during school hours, and has been
asked by the principal or the principal's designee to leave a
public school building or public school grounds, shall
promptly depart and shall not return for at least seven days.
Specifies that the principal or the principal's designee, may
make such a request exclusively on the basis that it appears
reasonable to the principal or the principal's designee that
the continued presence of the person on school groups would be
disruptive of, or would interfere with, classes or other
activities of the public school program. (EC Section
32211(a))
3)Specifies that any person who fails to leave a public school
building or public school grounds upon the request of the
principal or the principal's designee, or who returns within
seven days, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished
AB 1174
Page 2
pursuant to Section 626.8 of the Penal Code (PC). (EC Section
32211(b))
4)Requires the governing board of every school district to post
at every entrance to each school and grounds of the district a
notice setting forth "school hours," which are defined as the
period commencing one hour before classes begin and one hour
after classed end at any school, or as otherwise defined by
the governing board. (EC Section 32211(e))
5)Specifies 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 or she
does not leave as requested, or returns within seven days.
(PC Section 626.8(a)) Establishes punishment for violation of
this provision based on prior convictions, starting with a
fine of $500, imprisonment in county jail for no more than six
months, or both a fine and imprisonment. (PC Section
626.8(b))
6)Defines "safe school zone" as an area that encompasses any of
the following places during regular school hours or within 60
minutes before or after the schoolday or 60 minutes before or
after a school-sponsored activity at the schoolsite:
a) Within 100 feet of a bus stop, whether or not a public
transit bus stop, that has been publicly designated by the
school district as a schoolbus stop.
b) Within 1,500 feet of a school, as designated by the
school district. (PC Section 626)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill and a related bill pending in the Assembly,
AB 123 (Mendoza), both address incidences of non-school-related
solicitations/messages imposed on students as students are
entering or leaving school grounds. The author states, "State
law requires children between the ages of 6 and 18 to attend
school. Because of this, students become a captive audience
while at school, and while considerable attention is placed on
what kids are exposed to in the classroom, there is little
AB 1174
Page 3
oversight as soon as students are dismissed. Without the proper
tools, school administrators are unable to maintain a safe
learning environment and ensure students' safety."
The author cites the following examples of inappropriate
interactions:
"In 2002, members of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust
gathered outside Millikan High School in Long Beach. The group,
located on the sidewalk directly bordering the high school,
displayed gruesome signs and distributed leaflets to students
during dismissal.
In 2003, at Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes, a group
from the Center for Bio Ethical Reform placed graphic
photographs on the sides of trucks and drove around Dodson
Middle School while students arrived. Several children reported
becoming physically ill, some cried and many averted their eyes
from the photos.
At Lakewood High School in Long Beach Unified School District,
different individuals have been present during school dismissal
to distribute items such as flyers for a nearby strip club."
The EC states that any person who willfully disturbs any public
school or any public school meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor,
and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500. The EC
further states that an individual who is not a pupil,
parent/legal guardian, employee, or does not have any other
business with the school, who does not promptly leave when
requested by a principal or his/her designee, or returns within
seven days, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished
with penalties pursuant to the PC, which include a fine of no
more than $500, six months imprisonment in a county jail or both
a fine and imprisonment. Penalties are more severe if the
defendant has had similar prior convictions. The author states
that administrators cannot intervene unless the solicitor is
physically on school property.
This bill expands the EC provision imposing a fine of not more
than $500 to include any person who willfully disturbs a public
school activity and specifies that a public school activity
includes the arrival and departure of pupils to and from public
school grounds. The author states that he introduced the bill
at the suggestion of students enrolled in a legislative advocacy
AB 1174
Page 4
class at Lakewood High School in Long Beach Unified School
District, who are disturbed and feel unsafe due to incidents
where solicitors attempt to talk to students and hand out
materials, including bibles, on sidewalks adjacent to schools as
students are leaving school. The students state that while they
can choose to not answer the door to strangers at home or
patronize businesses where solicitors are present, they are
required to attend school and are therefore captured audience.
AB 123 amends the PC and adds the penalty provision to any
person who willfully or knowingly creates a disruption with the
intent to threaten the immediate physical safety of pupils in
kindergarten through grade 8 while arriving at, attending, or
leaving school. According to the Assembly Public Safety
committee analysis, AB 123 was introduced in response to a court
ruling involving the 2003 Dodson Middle School incident in
Rancho Palos Verdes (Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department 533 F.3rd 780,784) where a
driver drove around the school with graphic photographs of first
trimester aborted fetuses on the side of a truck. School
officials contended that the presence of the truck created
traffic and safety concerns. Students stopped in the middle of
a street to stare at the pictures, several students started
crying, and a group of boys talked about throwing rocks at the
truck. School officials contacted local law enforcement and Los
Angeles County Sheriff deputies contended that the driver
violated PC Section 626.8, which states 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 and subject to penalties if he or she does not leave
as requested or returns within seven days.
Student protection versus First Amendment rights? The
organization the driver was affiliated with filed suit in
federal court claiming civil rights violations. On appeal, the
Ninth Circuit Court found that the organization's first
amendment rights were violated. The court ruled that PC Section
626.8 did not apply to the driver of the truck, stating that
government cannot restrict speech based on listeners' reactions.
The court, however, stated in footnote 9 that, "The California
Legislature may elect to draft a statute prohibiting disruptive
messages outside school buildings where the disruption threatens
AB 1174
Page 5
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."
In the analysis of AB 123, the Assembly Public Safety Committee
states that the protections provided by the First Amendment are
not absolute. Government may regulate certain categories of
expression consistent with the Constitution. "The First
Amendment permits 'restrictions upon the content of speech in a
few limited areas, which are 'of such slight social value as a
step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is
clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and
morality'." �R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 382-383
(quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572).] The
First Amendment also does not cover "true threats". "A threat
is an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury or
damage on another. Alleged threats should be considered in
light of their entire factual context, including the surrounding
events and reactions of the listeners. The fact that a threat
is subtle does not make it less of a threat. A true threat,
that is one where a reasonable person would foresee that the
listener will believe he will be subjected top physical violence
upon his person, is unprotected by the First Amendment."
�Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette v. American
Coalition of Life Activists (2002) 290 F.3rd 1058, 1077.] AB
123 narrowly states that a penalty is imposed only if a person
willfully or knowingly creates a disruption with the intent to
threaten the physical safety of pupils as students are entering,
leaving or attending school.
While adding "public school activity", which includes students
arriving at and departing from school, appears consistent with
the construct in the EC provision, staff recommends an amendment
to apply the misdemeanor and fine where a disruption outside a
school building threatens the physical safety of school children
while they are coming to, leaving, or attending school,
consistent with the footnote in the Center for Bio-Ethical
Reform v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ruling.
Arguments in Support . The Association of California School
Administrators supports the bill and states that the bill will
expand "the scope of authority for school administrators to
protect students entering or leaving a school site beyond the
school property itself."
AB 1174
Page 6
Arguments in Opposition . The American Civil Liberties Union has
an opposed unless amended position and states that the bill "on
its face appear to criminalize protected First Amendment
activities. Students, teachers, school employees and the
general public on public sidewalks could be arrested for
picketing, passing out flyers, talking to students, teachers or
administrators that 'disturbs' a 'public school activity'
(including but not limited to the arrival and departure of
students from school)."
Related legislation . AB 123 (Mendoza), pending on the Assembly
floor, expands an existing misdemeanor related to interference
or disruption of school activities and punishable by up to six
months in the county jail to include any person who willfully or
knowingly creates a disruption with the intent to threaten the
immediate physical safety of pupils in kindergarten through
grade 8 arriving at, attending, or leaving school.
AB 2478 (Mendoza), vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2010, is
identical to AB 123 (Mendoza). The Governor's veto message
stated the following, "I believe it is important to ensure the
physical safety of all students, but the protection provisions
of this bill do not include students in grades 9 through 12. I
am also concerned that the provisions of this bill would likely
be ineffective, limited to situations where the person charged
with interfering with the peaceful conduct of a school would
have to have the specific intent to physically harm students
rather than causing a disruption that causes physical harm.
Since this bill is too narrowly drawn and otherwise duplicates
existing law governing the crime of making criminal threats, I
am unable to sign this measure."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Civic Voice students at Lakewood High School (sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Association of California School Administrators
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union (unless amended)
One individual
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 1174
Page 7