BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2634
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 2634 (Bradford) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND AGENTS BE SUBJECT TO
POTENTIAL INJUNCTIONS ELIMINATING MISCONDUCT WHEN A PATTERN OR
PRACTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HAS BEEN PROVED?
SYNOPSIS
This bill would clarify that courts have the authority to issue
injunctions to eliminate a pattern or practice of civil rights
violations committed under color of law. This principle is
consistent with the general and inherent authority of courts to
order equitable relief appropriate to the nature of the
violation; it is also consistent with the explicit statutory
authority of the courts to do so in pattern or practice cases
prosecuted by the Attorney General. Supporters believe it would
be beneficial to clarify this authority in private-party cases
as well. The problem typically arises with respect to alleged
violations by law enforcement officers. When a pattern or
practice of civil rights violations is found, the question
arises whether the court can order the violator to refrain from
further misconduct not only toward the person who sued but to
others as well. Because the defendant is before the court, it
appears appropriate, efficient and economical to deter bad acts
against others if there is evidence warranting such an order.
The bill has no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Clarifies court authority to make appropriate
equitable relief when a pattern or practice of civil rights
violations has been established. Specifically, this bill
provides that any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state,
has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as
described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his
or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for
damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section
AB 2634
Page 2
52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to
protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or
rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct in
violation of specified law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that if a person or persons, whether or not acting
under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or
coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation,
or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual
or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or of the rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or
any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil
action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief
in the name of the people of the State of California, in order
to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or
rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General,
any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a
civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If
this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed
individually against each person who is determined to have
violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each
individual whose rights under this section are determined to
have been violated. (Civil Code section 52.1(a).)
2)Also provides that any individual whose exercise or enjoyment
of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of
this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be
interfered with, as described in section 52.1 (a) may
institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or
her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not
limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and
other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable
exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. (Civil
Code section 52.1 (b).)
3)Provides that no governmental authority, or agent of a
governmental authority, or person acting on behalf of a
governmental authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice
of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any
person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
AB 2634
Page 3
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or
by the Constitution or laws of California. (Civil Code
section 52.3(a).)
4)Further provides that the Attorney General may bring a civil
action in the name of the people to obtain appropriate
equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or
practice of conduct specified in section 52.3 (a), whenever
the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of section 52.3 (a) has occurred. (Civil Code
section 52.3(b).)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is intended to
provide more effective remedies when a court finds certain
egregious civil rights violations:
The use of excessive force by law enforcement officers is a
serious and ongoing concern in California, but asking a
court to prohibit an unsafe pattern and practice against
other nonparties is difficult. Current law allows the AG to
sue law enforcement for pattern and practice violations,
but it is rarely used as a result of civil rights
violations.
AB 2634 will allow an individual, at the court's
discretion, to seek injunctive relief for all other
nonparties when the use of excessive force is a result of
pattern and practice. The private party must meet an
extremely high burden of providing injury based on a
pattern and practice. By granting an individual the legal
right to ask a court to order law enforcement to
discontinue such acts, future civil rights violations can
be prevented against both the individual and other
nonparties as a result of law enforcement's pattern and
practice.
The sponsor of the measure, California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice (CACJ) further explains:
This measure will strengthen legal remedies available when
a person is the victim of police abuse. Specifically, AB
2634 will allow a court to order a law enforcement entity
AB 2634
Page 4
to cease unlawful practices whenever there is evidence of a
pattern or practice of civil rights violations.
Excessive force and civil rights violations by police
officers causes significant damage to communities.
Individuals often suffer physical harm or death; families
must try to rebuild their lives and distrust of police
officers permeates neighborhoods. As a result, community
members who are victims of crime become cautious about
reaching out to the police due to concerns that they may be
victimized by the police as well. Unfortunately, police
abuse scandals tend to occur in lower-income communities
and neighborhoods with a high population of people of
color.
Many community groups organize in response to police abuse
incidents with little success. Departments are averse to
altering their policies even when there are repeated
occurrences of police abuse. Often times pursuing a
lawsuit is the only option. However, current California
law fails to explicitly provide array of legal options.
Although an individual can sue for monetary damages,
current law does not expressly give a court the ability to
issue an order requiring a police department to change its
policies and practices, even if there is a pattern and
practice of civil rights violations. AB 2634 addresses
this deficiency in the law.
Specifically, this bill will amend Civil Code section 52.1
to explicitly state that an individual who successfully
sues for violation of civil rights and demonstrates that
these violations are part of a pattern and practice of the
law enforcement entity, may ask a court to issue an
injunction to require a change in departmental policy and
action. This additional legal remedy is designed to reduce
the incidents of police abuse in California.
This Bill Appears To Be Clarifying And Consistent With Existing
Law. Under this bill, judges would have the explicit authority
to order appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to end a
pattern or practice of civil rights violations. No court has
reportedly held that judges lack this authority now. Indeed,
the inherent equitable powers of the courts to fashion remedies
designed to ensure proper obedience to the law may already be
clear. (See, e.g., U.S. v. Building Inspector of America, Inc.,
AB 2634
Page 5
(D.Mass. 1995) 894 F. Supp. 507, 520-521)(In issuing injunctive
relief, a court has broad power to restrain acts which are of
the same type or class as unlawful acts which the court has
found to have been committed or whose commission in the future,
unless enjoined, may fairly be anticipated from the defendant's
conduct in the past.)
Nevertheless, supporters argue, this bill would provide helpful
clarification by making the court's authority explicit. This
approach is consistent with existing Civil Code section 52.3,
which provides that no governmental authority, agent, or person
acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that
deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or
by the Constitution or laws of California. (Civil Code section
52.3(a).) Existing law also provides that the Attorney General
may bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the
pattern or practice of conduct specified in section 52.3 (a),
whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of section 52.3 (a) has occurred. (Civil Code
section 52.3(b).) By expressly incorporating the same language
in section 52.1 as currently operates in section 52.3 - i.e.,
appropriate relief to eliminate the pattern or practice -
supporters argue that the court's authority will be clarified
for the benefit of all parties.
Author's Technical Amendment. To clarify the intent of the
measure to be consistent with existing injunctive relief
provisions where a pattern or practice is found, the author
appropriately proposes the following clarification:
(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights
secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been
interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as
described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his
or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for
damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section
52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to
protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or
rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct in
violation of subdivision (a). If a civil action is brought under
AB 2634
Page 6
this subdivision in response to an act under color of law, and
it is established that the act under color of law is the result
of a pattern or practice of activity, injunctive relief may
include injunctive relief against nonparties to prohibit the
underlying act.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (sponsor)
ACLU
All of Us or None
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Center for Young Women's Development
Fathers and Families of San Joaquin
Homies Unidos
MILPA East Salinas
National Coalition of Barrios Unidos
San Joaquin Regional Green Jobs Coalition
Street Level Health Project
Valley Latino Environmental Advancement Project
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334