BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1433
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1433 (Alquist) - As Amended: April 11, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill makes several changes to gun-related provisions
pertaining to protective orders. Specifically this bill:
1)Requires that, prior to a hearing regarding a protective
order, the court shall ensure that a search is conducted to
determine if the subject of the order has a registered
firearm. (Current law requires the court to determine if the
subject has specified convictions, including weapon-related
offenses; outstanding warrants; whether the subject is on
probation or parole; and whether the subject has prior
protective orders.)
2)Requires a peace officer who serves a protective order that
prohibits a subject from possessing a gun to request the gun
be immediately surrendered. (Current law requires a protective
order subject to relinquish guns for the duration of the order
upon the request of a peace officer, or within 24 hours absent
such a request.)
3)Requires a protective order subject who is required to
relinquish a gun within 48 hours of being served with the
order to file a copy of the relinquishment receipt with the
law enforcement agency that served the order. Failure to file
the receipt is a violation of the protective order. (Current
law requires the subject to file the receipt showing the gun
was surrendered. Failure to file the receipt is a violation of
the protective order.)
4)Requires a peace officer serving a protective order to take
temporary custody of any gun or deadly weapon in plain sight
SB 1433
Page 2
or discovered pursuant to a consensual or lawful search
necessary for the protection of the officer or other persons
present. (Current law requires a peace officer at the scene of
a domestic violence incident to do the same.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potentially significant one-time GF pressure - in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars - to state trial courts to the extent
the gun possession background search requirement requires
technology upgrades.
2)Ongoing GF pressure, potentially in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars, for increased state trial court workload related
to the gun possession background searches.
3)This bill specifies that gun possession background searches
shall be implemented only to the extent resources are
available or appropriated for this purpose. This
implementation contingency language is the same language
adopted in 2001 when SB 66 (Kuehl) created the requirement for
background checks to which SB 1433 adds gun checks. The
Judicial Council indicates that protective order background
search practice is uneven across the state due to historical
and ongoing budget pressures.
4)Likely minor reimbursable local costs as a result of requiring
peace officers serving protective orders to confiscate any
guns in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or
lawful search necessary for the protection of the officer or
other persons present.
5)Minor nonreimbursable local law enforcement costs for
additional gun relinquishments upon peace officer request.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to tighten existing
protections regarding gun possession by persons subject to a
protective order. The author cites two cases in which persons
subject to a protective order did not immediately relinquish
guns, and used the guns to kill family members.
The proposed additions to current law, while not major, are
designed to ensure and expedite the relinquishment of guns by
SB 1433
Page 3
protective order subjects.
2)Given more than $1 billion in cuts to the state courts, is
this the time to create new requirements? While this bill
makes the gun possession background searches contingent upon
available funding (state trial courts have been cut by about
25% over the past four years, plus an additional $550 million
in 2012-13), the Judicial Council supports this measure.
3)Given current fiscal restraints, is this the time to create
new local law enforcement mandates ? The committee may wish to
consider deleting the mandate that a peace officer take
custody of any gun or deadly weapon in plain sight or
discovered pursuant to a consensual or lawful search necessary
for the protection of the officer or other persons present.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081