Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Threats topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears bill to close Penal Code 422 "sensitive places" loophole
Summary
Assemblymember Patel told the Senate Public Safety subcommittee AB 237 would let prosecutors pursue threats aimed at locations — such as schools and clinics — without naming a specific individual; supporters and civil-rights groups disputed whether current law already covers such threats.
Assemblymember Patel on Tuesday urged the Senate Committee on Public Safety to adopt AB 237, a bill he said would close a loophole in Penal Code 422 that can block prosecutions when threats name a location rather than a specific person.
"AB 237 closes a problematic loophole in Penal Code 422 that makes the prosecution and conviction of people who threaten sensitive places unnecessarily difficult," Patel said, arguing that vague threats directed at schools, hospitals, synagogues and other sites have in recent years frustrated prosecutors and left communities in fear.
The bill's author and supporting witnesses, including Pat Espinosa of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and Jonathan Feldman of the California Police Chiefs Association, told senators the problem arises from how jury instructions and courts treat the statute. "The way 422 is written ... it requires a specific victim," Espinosa said. He described jury instructions that insert a single named victim into multiple elements of the offense, which he said makes prosecutions harder when a threat is made to a location or a class rather than to a named individual.
"You can imagine a scenario where someone posts a unanimous statement maybe on social media and says, 'I'm gonna blow up the school,'" Espinosa said. "Who is sufficient to be in sustained fear?"
Supporters framed the bill as narrowly drawn. Patel said AB 237 "does not increase punishment. It doesn't put people who need diversion services into jail." He told the committee he accepted amendments to emphasize diversion for minors.
Opponents, including the ACLU's legislative attorney George Pramathu and Alice Michael of the California Public Defenders Association, said current law already allows prosecution of generalized threats and warned the measure could expand criminalization of young people and people with severe mental illness. "Current law is working," Pramathu said, noting the San Diego case the author cited had been refiled to address the judge's concerns. Michael warned the bill risks sweeping in adolescents and mentally ill people whose online speech is inappropriate but not criminal.
Committee members weighed the competing concerns. Vice Chair Ciarco asked the sponsor to explain the difference between the bill and the existing case law; Patel and witnesses pointed to appellate decisions they said created inconsistent outcomes. Some senators expressed support while acknowledging the civil-rights and mental-health concerns raised by opponents.
No formal vote was taken; the committee did not establish a quorum and the bill was heard as part of a subcommittee proceeding.
AB 237 was presented and discussed without a recorded committee vote; sponsors asked for an "aye" vote when the Senate convenes with a quorum.
