BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2634
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2634 (Bradford)
As Amended August 4, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |65-2 |(April 24, |SENATE: |28-5 |(August 7, |
| | |2014) | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
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,
may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or
her own behalf a civil action for damages, 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.
The Senate amendments address a potential chaptering conflict
with AB 2617 (Weber) of the current legislative session.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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 [Attorney General] 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
AB 2634
Page 2
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.
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.,
894 F. Supp. 507, 520-521 (D. Mass. 1995)) 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. Existing law also
provides that the AG 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 Civil
Code Section 52.3(a), whenever the AG has reasonable cause to
believe that a violation has occurred. By expressly
incorporating the same language in Civil Code Section 52.1 as
currently operates in Civil Code 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. There is no opposition on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 2634
Page 3
FN: 0004345