BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1498
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1498 (Campos) - As Introduced: January 9, 2014
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill expands the circumstances under which the court is
require to consider issuing a protective order, on its own
motion, from domestic violence cases to all cases where a
defendant is charged with rape, statutory rape, spousal rape, or
any offense that requires registration as a sex offender.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown likely minor, state trial court costs, to the extent
violations of increased criminal court protective orders
result in additional misdemeanor court proceedings. (Every 100
court-hours results in costs in the range of $40,000. For
order of magnitude purposes, in 2012 more than 1,500 persons
were committed to state prison for the relevant sex offenses,
and more than 1,500 persons were arrested for forcible rape.)
2)Unknown, likely minor, state trial court savings, to the
extent the protective order requirement results in fewer cause
hearings.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author and sponsor, the CA District Attorneys
Association, contend requiring the court to consider a
protective order will streamline the protective process by
eliminating the need for a hearing to determine whether harm
is likely to occur.
According to the author, "This proposal would take provisions
that are already in place allowing victims of domestic
AB 1498
Page 2
violence to obtain criminal protective orders during the
pendency of the criminal case and extend them to victims of
crimes specified under Penal Code section 290 as well as
victims of crimes specified under Penal Code section 261.5
(Statutory Rape)."
2)Current law (a) requires a court, where a defendant is charged
with domestic violence, to consider issuing a protective order
on its own motion; and (b) authorizes the court in a criminal
case to issue protective orders upon good cause belief that
harm or intimidation of a victim or witness is likely to
occur.
3)Are sex offenses analogous to domestic violence in terms of
protective orders ? As noted in the Assembly Public Safety
analysis, in general, good cause to issue a criminal
protective order must be based on a showing of "a threat, or
likely threat to criminal proceedings or participation in
them." One incident of assault, before there were any
criminal proceedings, and without intent to interfere with
such proceedings, is insufficient to justify issuance of a
criminal protective order under current law. The exception is
a domestic violence case, which allows a protective order to
be issued upon a showing of past harm to victim or witness.
This bill proposes to apply this domestic violence exception
to cases where a defendant is charged with a specified sex
offense. The bill specifies, in determining whether good cause
exists to issue a protective order, the court may consider the
underlying nature of the offense, the defendant's relationship
to the victim, the likelihood of continuing harm, and the
defendant's criminal history.
While some sex offenses may involve domestic violence or a
relationship between victim and defendant, not all involve a
relationship that make it likely the defendant would contact the
victim or influence the victim from participating in criminal
proceedings. In many sex offense cases, the rationale for the
domestic violence exception does not appear to exist.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1498
Page 3