BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1982
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1982 (Ting) - As Amended: April 21, 2014
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the crime of stalking, punishable by county
jail or state prison, by requiring general intent of the
perpetrator rather than specific intent. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Provides that a person who makes a credible threat and
willfully engages in a course of conduct directed at a
specific person or group of persons and knows or should have
known the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to
fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her
immediate family is guilty of stalking.
(Current law requires maliciously and repeatedly tormenting or
terrorizing a specific person.)
2)States stalking may include, but is not limited to, acts
committed directly, indirectly, electronically, or through
third parties, and may include, but is not limited to, acts
committed by gesture, method or device, following, monitoring,
observing, physically, or electronically surveilling,
interfering with a person's property, identity theft,
impersonation, or communicating to or about, a person.
3)Includes a domesticated pet within the definition of immediate
family for purposes of the crime of stalking.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potentially significant ongoing GF costs, likely more than $1
million, for increased state prison commitments. From 2011
AB 1982
Page 2
through 2013, 635 persons were committed to state prison for
stalking - 307 for 16 months, two or three years, and 228 for
two, three, four, or five years. (Stalking was specifically
exempted from realignment to county jail.) If the expanded
definition of stalking proposed by this bill increases the
average annual commitment rate of 212 over the past three years
by 10%, the annual cost will exceed $1 million - while the state
faces a federal court order to reduce the state prison
population.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to "update" the stalking law
and lower the threshold of proof to protect more stalking
victims.
According to the author, "In order to prosecute someone for
stalking, prosecutors must prove that the stalker had the
specific intent to place the victim in fear for their safety
or the safety of their immediate family. ?This criminal
stalking threshold is much higher and harder to meet than the
requirement in many other states, which operate under a
general intent standard. General intent enables the court to
focus on a stalker's behavior, not their motives, when hearing
a stalking case or issuing a criminal restraining order."
2)Replacing Specific Intent with General Intent . As noted in the
Assembly Public Safety analysis, in every crime there must be
a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal
negligence. Generally, the intent requirement is divided into
general and specific intent. A general intent crime involves
only the intent to commit the act which causes the harm. A
specific intent crime requires intent to cause the resulting
harm.
Under the current stalking statute, the prosecution must prove
the defendant willfully and maliciously harassed or willfully,
maliciously, and repeatedly followed another person, and made
a credible threat with the intent to place the other person in
reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or
her immediate family.
This bill deletes the malice requirement. This bill also
deletes the requirement the defendant acted with specific
intent to instill fear in the victim. Instead, as to intent,
AB 1982
Page 3
the prosecution would have to prove only that (a) the
defendant willfully engaged in a course of conduct, and (2)
the defendant knew or should have known this course of conduct
would instill fear in a reasonable person. Therefore, stalking
becomes a general intent crime.
3)Adding pets to the definition of family for purposes of
stalking creates a new precedent as it does not appear that
any other state statute includes a pet within the definition
of family.
4)Support includes law enforcement, the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to animals, and crime victims. The
sponsor of the bill, the San Francisco District Attorney,
states, "AB 1982 will bring our statute in line with the Model
Stalking Code developed by the National Institute of Justice.
It will change the crime from specific intent to general
intent, an essential change that will more effectively enable
us to protect victims of stalking.
"Under current California stalking law, the State must prove the
stalker's intentions; that not only did they intend to stalk
their victim, but that they made a credible threat and that
they were acting with specific intent to place the victim in
fear for their safety. This bill will shift the focus from
the stalker's motives to the stalking itself. As a result,
California courts will consider whether the stalking behavior
was sufficient to put a reasonable person in fear for their
safety."
5)Opposition includes the defense bar and the ACLU. According to
CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice, "AB 1982 completely
obliterates the clear and concise language of the current
statute. It dramatically expands the type of conduct
(including passive conduct) that can be characterized as
criminal behavior. It greatly increases the types of behavior
that can result in significant punishment. Finally, it
expands the target of the 'stalking' law to include
'domesticated pets."
"Expanding the definition of one's 'immediate family' to
include non-human beings is a dangerous experiment in the eyes
of CACJ."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1982
Page 4