BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: June 19, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Victims of Stalking: Address Confidentiality
DESCRIPTION
Existing law establishes an address confidentiality program,
operated by the Secretary of State, to which victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking may apply.
This bill would remove the requirement that victims alleging
stalking as the basis of their eligibility for the address
confidentiality program provide specific attached evidence to
the application. This bill would make the inclusion of specific
evidence in these applications permissive.
BACKGROUND
With the passage of SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), the
California State Legislature established the Safe at Home
Program within the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) to
allow victims of domestic violence to apply for a substitute
address to be used in public records in order to prevent their
assailants, or potential assailants, from finding their work or
home address. Through subsequent legislation, the program has
been expanded to include victims of sexual assault, stalking,
and reproductive health care service providers, employees,
volunteers and patients. (See SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats.
2000), AB 205 (Leach, Ch. 33, Stats. of 2000), and AB 797
(Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002).)
Upon successful application, a program participant is certified
to remain in the program for four years, subject to early
(more)
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
Page 2 of ?
termination or withdrawal, and must re-certify pursuant to the
SOS's renewal process if he or she wishes to continue in the
program beyond the four-year enrollment period. For victims not
yet of the age of majority or incapacitated persons, a parent or
guardian may apply to enroll the victim into the program.
Under existing law, victims alleging domestic violence or sexual
assault as the basis of their eligibility for the program must
include, in their application, a sworn statement that he or she
has good reason to believe that he or she is a victim of
domestic violence or sexual assault, and fears for his or her
safety, as specified.
Applicants alleging stalking as the basis of eligibility for the
program are held to a different standard. Applicants alleging
stalking must include, in addition to the sworn statement,
specific evidence such as police, court, or other government
agency records or files; documentation from legal, clerical,
medical, or other professionals from whom the applicant sought
assistance in dealing with the alleged stalking; or any other
evidence that supports the sworn statement alleging that the
applicant is a victim of stalking. Stalking, however, can take
many different forms, and therefore may be difficult to prove.
The National Institute of Justice describes stalking as:
a crime of power and control. Stalking is conservatively
defined as a course of conduct directed at a specific person
that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or
physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal,
written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that
would cause a reasonable person fear. Stalking behaviors also
may include persistent patterns of leaving or sending the
victim unwanted items or presents that may range from
seemingly romantic to bizarre, following or laying in wait
for the victim, damaging or threatening to damage the
victim's property, defaming the victim's character, or
harassing the victim via the Internet by posting personal
information or spreading rumors about the victim. National
Institute of Justice, Stalking, Visited may 30, 2012.)
Thus, because of the nature of the crime, stalking may be nearly
impossible to document. Taken individually, many instances of
stalking are not illegal or may not seem threatening to
outsiders. Therefore, victims who reasonably fear for their
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
Page 3 of ?
safety may not feel justified in reporting incidents to law
enforcement, law enforcement may not fully understand the
situation, or the evidence of a threat may disappear by the time
help arrives.
This bill seeks to remedy this problem by making the inclusion
of specific evidence in an application alleging stalking as the
basis of enrollment in the Safe at Home Program optional.
Accordingly this bill would conform the application requirements
for applicants alleging stalking to those for applicants
alleging domestic violence as the basis of their eligibility.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes an address confidentiality program,
operated by the Secretary of State, to which victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking may apply. The program
enables state and local agencies to respond to requests for
public records without disclosing a program participant's
residential address contained in any public record and otherwise
to provide for confidentiality of that person's identity. (Gov.
Code Sec. 6205 et seq.)
Existing law provides that upon proper application and
certification, applicants will be certified in the program for
four years, unless certification is withdrawn or invalidated.
(Gov. Code Sec. 6205(c).)
Existing law provides that any records or documents pertaining
to a program participant shall be retained and held confidential
for a period of three years after termination of certification
of participation in the program, and then destroyed, as
specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6206.5.)
Existing law requires that an applicant to the address
confidentiality program based on domestic violence, sexual
assault or stalking complete an application in person at a
community-based victims' assistance program. Applicants are
required to meet with a victims' assistance counselor and
receive orientation information about the program. Requires the
application to include a sworn statement that the applicant has
good reason to believe that he or she is a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and fears for his or her
safety. (Gov. Code Sec. 6206(a).)
Existing law provides that a domestic violence or sexual assault
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
Page 4 of ?
applicant may provide specified evidence with the application to
the address confidentiality program. (Gov. Code Sec.
6206(a)(2).)
Existing law requires a stalking applicant to provide evidence
with the application, including, but not limited to: police,
court, or other government agency records or files;
documentation from legal, clerical, medical, or other
professionals from whom the applicant sought assistance in
dealing with the alleged stalking; or any other evidence that
supports the sworn statement alleging that the applicant is a
victim of stalking. (Gov. Code Sec. 6206(a)(3).)
This bill would remove the requirement that victims alleging
stalking as the basis for eligibility in the Safe at Home
Program provide evidence supporting allegations of stalking in
their application.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
In support of this bill the author writes:
Current law treats stalking victim participants of the Safe
at Home Program differently than other program participants
(those who have been victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, or were clinicians at abortion clinics). Stalking
is one of the most difficult crimes to document. For
consistency of the law and to ensure that stalking victims
have access to the program without having to provide medical
or police records, we should change statute to remove this
requirement.
2.Victims of stalking face challenges in producing evidence of
stalking
This bill would remove the requirement that applicants to the
Safe at Home Program, who allege stalking as the basis for
eligibility, include supporting evidence in their applications
to the program. In effect, the proposed change would make the
application process and evidentiary standard the same for
victims of stalking as for victims of domestic violence or
sexual assault.
As background, SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. of 2000)
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
Page 5 of ?
extended the protections of the Secretary of State's address
confidentiality program to victims of stalking. Simultaneously,
SB 1318 also eliminated the requirement that victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault must attach specific evidence to
their applications documenting the violence. In support of that
change in application requirements, the Secretary of State
contended, "that such documentary proof should not be required,
because the sworn statement and acknowledgment that providing
false and misleading information is publishable as a misdemeanor
should be sufficient to deter those who would use �the Safe at
Home Program] for purposes other than intended. Removing the
proof requirement would encourage more participants to the
program." (Sen. Com. on Judiciary analysis of Sen. Bill 1318
(1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 20, 2000, p. 6.) The
application requirements for victims of stalking, however, were
unaltered.
Concerning the different application requirements for victims of
stalking, this Committee's analysis noted that "there is a need
for even stronger documentation of stalking. ? Because stalking
can be alleged without the victim having actually �been] seen,
been in contact with, or be acquainted with the victim, some
documentation of this activity, other than the victim's
statement, should be required. Otherwise, someone who is simply
afraid of the dark, or his shadow, as an extreme but not
impossible example, could successfully enroll in the �Safe at
Home] program?" (Id. at 7-8.)
In response, the author contends that "to enroll in the program,
a participant has to enroll via an enrolling agency which must
be a registered 501(c)3 California non-profit agency with a
focus on victim services or be in a county victim/witness
assistance program." Arguably, the victim assistance counselors
at these enrolling agencies who provide one-on-one assistance
may help redirect individuals who would be better served by a
different program or service.
Furthermore, as a matter of policy, the law should not exclude
actual victims of stalking by creating additional hurdles
because individuals with insufficient evidence may be eligible
to the program. Maintaining an evidentiary requirement, for the
purpose of excluding those who believe they are in danger, but
are not actually being stalked, arguably creates barriers for
actual victims of stalking seeking protection. In support of
this bill, the Domestic Abuse Center argues that
"�unfortunately, victims of stalking are still required by
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
Page 6 of ?
statute to document the crime - a task that, oftentimes, is
close to impossible. Stalking is one of the most difficult
crimes to document. This oversight puts stalking victims in
needless danger." The Police Chiefs Association, also in
support, adds that "�t]he unintended consequence of this current
requirement is to chill the willingness of stalking victims to
come forward." The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
contends that their "office does not believe there is any
legitimate reason why stalking victims should have a higher
burden of proof to avail themselves of a law that will keep
their whereabouts unknown to their stalkers."
Understandably, the Legislature proceeded with caution in
expanding the protections of the address confidentiality program
to applicants alleging stalking as the basis for their
eligibility. However, after more than a decade, there is ample
evidence and experience to reevaluate the application
requirements for victims of stalking. Arguably, the requirement
that victims of stalking attach specified evidence to their
applications creates a significant hurdle to their enrollment in
the Safe at Home Program.
Support : California Coalition Against Sexual Assault;
California District Attorneys Association; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California Police Chiefs
Association; California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; Chief
Probation Officers of California; Domestic Abuse Center; Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Peace Officers
Research Association of California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : AB 906 (Galgiani) would authorize
witnesses who have testified in murder trials to participate in
the Safe at Home program. This bill is held in the Senate
Appropriations Suspense file.
Prior Legislation :
SB 489 (Alpert, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 1998) See Background.
AB 2483 (Blumenfield)
Page 7 of ?
SB 1318 (Alpert, Chapter 562, Statutes of 2000) See Background.
AB 205 (Leach, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2000) See Background.
AB 792 (Shelley, Chapter 380, Statutes of 2002) See Background.
SB 1062 (Bowen, Chapter 639, Statutes of 2006) added victims of
sexual assault to the list of eligible Safe at Home program
participants.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************