BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2467|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2467
Author: Hueso (D), et al.
Amended: 8/21/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/26/12
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Domestic violence protective orders:
electronic monitoring
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a court with jurisdiction
over a criminal matter to include electronic monitoring as
part of a protective order, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law generally authorizes courts with
jurisdiction over a criminal matter to issue certain
protective orders "upon a good cause belief that harm to,
or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has
occurred or is reasonably likely to occur," as specified.
(Penal Code � 136.2.)
CONTINUED
AB 2467
Page
2
Existing law authorizes a court with jurisdiction over a
criminal matter to issue any "order protecting victims of
violent crime from all contact by the defendant, or
contact, with the intent to annoy, harass, threaten, or
commit acts of violence, by the defendant." (Penal Code �
136.2(a)(7))
This bill authorizes a court issuing a protective order
under this provision to require electronic monitoring, as
specified:
A protective order under this paragraph may require
the defendant to be placed on electronic monitoring if
the local government adopts a policy to authorize
electronic monitoring of defendants for this purpose.
If the court determines that the defendant has the
ability to pay for the monitoring device, the court
shall order the defendant to pay for the monitoring.
If the court determines that the defendant does not
have the ability to pay for the electronic monitoring,
the court may order electronic monitoring to be paid
for by the local government that adopted the policy to
authorize electronic monitoring. The duration of
electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from
the date the order is issued. At no time shall the
electronic monitoring be in place if the protective
order is not in place.
Existing law provides that in cases in which a criminal
defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic
violence, "the court, at the time of sentencing, shall
consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from
any contact with the victim. The order may be valid for up
to 10 years, as determined by the court. This protective
order may be issued by the court regardless of whether the
defendant is sentenced to the state prison or a county
jail, or whether imposition of sentence is suspended and
the defendant is placed on probation. It is the intent of
the Legislature in enacting this subdivision that the
duration of any restraining order issued by the court be
based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court,
the probability of future violations, and the safety of the
victim and his or her immediate family." (Penal Code �
CONTINUED
AB 2467
Page
3
136.2(i).)
This bill authorizes a court issuing a protective order
under this provision to require electronic monitoring, as
specified:
An order under this subdivision may include provisions
for electronic monitoring if the local government
adopts a policy, with the concurrence of the county
sheriff or the chief probation officer, authorizing
electronic monitoring of defendants for this purpose.
If the court determines that the defendant has the
ability to pay for the monitoring program, the court
shall order the defendant to pay for the monitoring.
If the court determines that the defendant does not
have the ability to pay for the electronic monitoring,
the court may order the electronic monitoring to be
paid for by the local government that adopted the
policy authorizing electronic monitoring. The
duration of the electronic monitoring shall not exceed
one year from the date the order is issued.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potential ongoing annual costs to the courts in the range
of $433,000 to $0.9 million (General Fund) for every five
to 10 percent of 78,000 protective order hearings
impacted statewide. This estimate assumes an additional
10 minutes per hearing for the court to determine the
appropriateness of electronic monitoring and the ability
of the individual to pay. To the extent a greater
percentage of cases are impacted, costs to the courts
would be significantly higher.
Potentially significant ongoing non-reimbursable costs to
counties that have adopted a policy to authorize
electronic monitoring to cover the costs of electronic
monitoring to the extent the court determines an
individual is unable to pay. Assuming an average daily
cost for active electronic monitoring of $20, costs for
one year could exceed $700,000 per 100 indigent
CONTINUED
AB 2467
Page
4
defendants.
Potential future cost savings to law enforcement and the
courts to the extent the utilization of electronic
monitoring of domestic violence defendants results in
fewer protective order violations and/or deters the
committal of additional criminal offenses.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/12)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California State Sheriffs Association
Carlsbad Chief of Police
Chief Probation Officers of California
Chula Vista Police Chief
Crime Victims United of California
Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee
Peace Officers Research Association of California
South Bay Community Services
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Domestic violence offenses continue to be a
significant public health and criminal justice
problem. In the U.S. each day three women are killed
due to domestic violence. In CA alone, about 700,000
women currently experience domestic violence; this is
three times the national average. Domestic violence
is the leading cause of serious injury to women and is
responsible for three times as many emergency room
visits as car crashes and muggings combined. Courts
and law enforcement respond with protective orders;
however, over 50% of them are violated, according to
the National Partnership to End Domestic Violence.
The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CCDR) as well as several counties
throughout the state attach GPS devices on defendants
who are violent sexual predators on parole or violent
gang members, respectively. CCDR, for example, has
approximately 7,000 GPS units. It pays approximately
$5 per day for the electronic monitoring and the
CONTINUED
AB 2467
Page
5
device, which is leased. The counties pay about $4-7
per day. ? Neither the CCDR nor the counties use GPS
in domestic violence cases.
About 30 other states use or are working on laws to
use electronic devices to monitor defendants in
domestic violence cases?. In Massachusetts, GPS
monitoring has been very successful in preventing
homicides related to intimate partner violence. A
six-year report showed that 6% of defendants in
domestic violence cases were ordered to wear a GPS
device (Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center, Inc. Safety and
Accountability report 2005-11)?.
It's time for California to offer tangible protection
to victims of domestic violence and stalking. AB 2467
will turn victims into survivors by giving courts and
law enforcement the tools to monitor offenders?.
This bill is named "Kathy's Law," after Kathy
Scharbarth, a San Diego resident murdered by her
ex-boyfriend in November 2011, while a restraining
order was in place. Her perpetrator violated the
restraining order several times before strangling her.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/30/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Fong, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wagner, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Davis, Feuer, Fletcher, Fuentes, Valadao
RJG:n 8/20/12 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
AB 2467
Page
6
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED