BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair S
2005-2006 Regular Session B
5
8
4
SB 584 (Soto)
As Amended March 30, 2005
Hearing date: April 19, 2005
Penal Code
AA:br
TRESPASS :
"STERILE" AREAS OF COURTHOUSES AND COUNTY BUILDINGS
HISTORY
Source: San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD EXISTING MISDMEANOR TRESPASS LAWS BE EXPANDED TO SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBIT INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING THE SCREENING AND INSPECTION
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE "STERILE AREAS" OF COURTHOUSES AND
COUNTY BUILDINGS, AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE PENALTY FOR THIS PROPOSED NEW OFFENSE BE INCREASED TO UP
TO A YEAR IN JAIL WHEN THE "STERILE AREA IS POSTED WITH A STATEMENT
PROVIDING REASONABLE NOTICE THAT PROSECUTION MAY RESULT FROM A
TRESPASS," AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 584 (Soto)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) expand existing misdemeanor
trespass laws to specifically prohibit intentionally avoiding
the screening and inspection procedures applicable to
courthouses and county buildings, as specified; and 2) provide
an increased misdemeanor penalty - up to a year in jail -- for
this offense when the "sterile area is posted with a statement
providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a
trespass," as specified.
Current law provides that, except as specifically enumerated in
statute, any person who brings or possesses within any state or
local public building or at any meeting required to be open to
the public as specified, specified weapons is guilty of an
alternate misdemeanor or felony. (Penal Code 171b.) Similar
statutes exist with respect to bringing loaded firearms into
"the State Capitol, any legislative office, any office of the
Governor or other constitutional officer, or any hearing room
in which any committee of the Senate or Assembly is conducting
a hearing," (Penal Code 171d) "the Governor's Mansion, or any
other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other
constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the
Legislature," (Penal Code 171d) and the sterile areas of an
airport, as specified and defined (Penal Code 171.5.<1>)
---------------------------
<1> Penal Code Section 171.5(b) "does not apply to (a) a duly
appointed peace officer, as defined in P.C. 830 et seq.; (b) a
retired peace officer with authorization to carry concealed
weapons as described in P.C. 12027(a); (c) a full-time paid
peace officer of another state or the federal Government who is
carrying out official duties while in California; (d) a person
summoned by one of these officers to assist in making arrests or
preserving the peace while the person is actually engaged in
assisting the officer; and (e) a person who has authorization to
possess a weapon specified in P.C. 171.5(c), granted in writing
by a designated airport security coordinator who is responsible
for the airport's security. (P.C. 171.5(d), added in 2002.)" 2
Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Crimes - Pub 189A.
(More)
SB 584 (Soto)
PageC
Current law provides that every person who willfully commits a
trespass by engaging in specified acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor. (Penal Code 602.)
Current law includes within these provisions "intentionally
avoiding (except as permitted by federal law) submission to the
screening and inspection of one's person and accessible property
in accordance with the procedures being applied to control
access when entering or reentering a sterile area of an airport,
as defined . . ." (Penal Code 602(v)(1).) Current law
provides that a violation of this provision "that is responsible
for the evacuation of an airport terminal and is responsible in
any part for delays or cancellations of scheduled flights is
punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year in a county
jail if the sterile area is posted with a statement providing
reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass
described in this subdivision." (Penal Code 602(v)(2).)
This bill would amend the trespass statute to include the
following conduct with respect to courthouses and county
buildings:
Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally
avoiding submission to the screening and
inspection of one's person and accessible property
in accordance with the procedures being applied to
control access when entering or reentering a
sterile area of a courthouse or county building .
(emphasis added.)
This bill would provide that the violation of this provision
would be a misdemeanor (punishable by up to six months in jail).
This bill further would provide that a violation of its
provisions would be "punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
for a period not exceeding one year if the sterile area is
posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that
prosecution may result from a trespass described in this
subdivision."
(More)
SB 584 (Soto)
PageD
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
As recent events clearly show, we must give
courthouses additional tools for protecting the
safety of people working there, people seeking
redress, those selected to serve on juries,
individuals who go to court to conduct business
and even men or women whose presence is required.
2. What This Bill Would Do; Current Law
As explained in detail above, current law currently prohibits
persons from bringing dangerous weapons into state or local
public buildings unless specifically authorized as spelled out
in the statute. The penalty for violating current law is an
alternate misdemeanor/felony. The prohibited weapons are:
(1)any firearm;
(2)any deadly weapon described in Section 653k or 12020;
(3)any knife with a blade length in excess of four inches, the
blade of which is fixed or is capable of being fixed in an
unguarded position by the use of one or two hands;
(4)any unauthorized tear gas weapon;
(5)any taser or stun gun, as defined in Section 244.5; and
(6)any instrument that expels a metallic projectile, such as a
BB or pellet, through the force of air pressure, CO2
pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun or paint
gun. (Penal Code 171(b)(a).)
This bill would make it a misdemeanor to intentionally avoid
"submission to the screening and inspection of one's person and
accessible property in accordance with the procedures being
applied to control access when entering or reentering a sterile
area of a courthouse or county building."
(More)
SB 584 (Soto)
PageE
This language mirrors current law pertaining to airport
screening areas. (Penal Code 602(v).)
This bill additionally would impose an increased misdemeanor
penalty - up to one year in county jail instead of up to 6
months - "if the sterile area is posted with a statement
providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a
trespass described in this subdivision."
(More)
Current law applies trespass law to people who intentionally
avoid the screening procedures at airports. This bill
essentially mirrors those provisions except for the penalties:
for airports , to get increased jail time the person has
to be responsible for the evacuation of an airport terminal
and for delays or cancellations of scheduled flights if the
sterile area is posted with notice that prosecution may
result from trespass;
under this bill , the increased jail time is triggered
only if the area is posted with reasonable notice of
possible prosecution.
Under this bill, whether someone is exposed to greater jail time
depends solely on whether the area has been posted with a notice
warning trespassers might be prosecuted - neither the person's
conduct nor the ensuing consequences would matter. The author
and/or the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to
either 1) make it just like the airport provision and actually
require an evacuation and disruption to trigger the increased
penalty; or 2) require posted notice in order for the conduct to
constitute trespass at all, and not do an increased jail
sentence at all.
SHOULD A NEW CRIME BE ENACTED TO SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT
INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING THE SCREENING AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES
APPLICABLE TO COURTHOUSES AND COUNTY BUILDINGS?
WHY IS THIS BILL NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE EXISTING WOBBLER THAT
APPLIES TO BRINGING UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS INTO THESE BUILDINGS?
SHOULD "INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING" SCREENING AND INSPECTION
PROCEDURES AT COURTHOUSES AND COUNTY BUILDINGS BE A CRIME EVEN
IF A PERSON DOES NOT POSSESS A WEAPON?
SHOULD THE JAIL PENALTY FOR THIS OFFENSE BE INCREASED WHEN THE
"STERILE AREA IS POSTED WITH A STATEMENT PROVIDING REASONABLE
NOTICE THAT PROSECUTION MAY RESULT FROM A TRESPASS," AS
(More)
SB 584 (Soto)
PageG
SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO MORE CLOSELY PARALLEL THE PENALTY
PROVISIONS OF THE AIRPORT SCREENING TRESPASS LAW?
3. "Sterile Areas" in the Context of Trespass Laws
As explained above, this bill would enact a new crime for
intentionally avoiding screening that controls access to
entering or reentering a "sterile area of a courthouse or county
building." This bill does not define "sterile area" in this
context.
For purposes of Penal Code Section 171.5 concerning sterile
areas in airports, "sterile area" is defined to mean "a portion
of an airport defined in the airport security program to which
access generally is controlled through the screening of persons
and property, as specified in Section 1540.5 of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations."<2> The trespass provisions in
current law concerning sterile areas in airports cross-reference
the Section 171.5 definition. The author and/or the Committee
may wish to consider whether and how to define "sterile area of
a courthouse or county building."
SHOULD "STERILE AREA OF A COURTHOUSE OR COUNTY BUILDING" BE
DEFINED?
***************
---------------------------
<2> The federal regulations referred to define "sterile area"
as "a portion of an airport defined in the airport security
program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and
to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an
aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign
air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the
screening of persons and property." (49 CFR 1540.5.)