Deceased Child Victims' Protection and Privacy Act.
Summary
Existing law prohibits the making of a copy, reproduction, or facsimile of any kind of photographs, negatives, or print of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the course of a postmortem exam or autopsy made by or caused to be made by the coroner, except for use in a criminal proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person, or except as a court of this state permits, as specified. The California Public Records Act generally provides that public records, as defined, are open to public inspection and every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act sets forth specified exemptions from those provisions, including an exemption for specified investigatory or security files compiled by law enforcement entities. This bill would enact the Deceased Child Victims' Protection and Privacy Act. The bill would provide that, when a minor who is not within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, as specified, is killed as a result of a criminal act and a person has been convicted of the crime and sentenced, or been found to have committed the act by a juvenile court and adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, upon the request of a qualifying family member of the deceased minor, the autopsy report and evidence associated with the examination of the victim in the possession of a public agency would be sealed and would not be disclosed, except as specified. The bill would also provide that a coroner or medical examiner shall not be liable for damages in a civil action for any act or omission taken in compliance with these provisions. These provisions would not be construed to limit the authority of the court to seal records or restrict the dissemination of an autopsy report or evidence associated with the examination of a victim, as specified. In addition, these provisions would establish an independent basis upon which an autopsy report or other evidence associated with the examination of a victim may be withheld from public disclosure; however, these provisions would not apply if the above-described exemption from the California Public Records Act applies. Provisions of law proposed by AB 1844 of the 2009–10 Regular Session, an urgency measure, would require every sex offender required to register, as specified, to participate in an approved sex offender management program while on parole or formal supervised probation. AB 1844 would require probation departments and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to enter into contracts with certified sex offender management professionals to provide these programs. This bill, contingent on the prior approval of AB 1844, would eliminate this contracting requirement and make other related and conforming changes. Because the bill would impose additional duties on local officials, such as the county coroner, the district attorney, or the public defender, relating to preventing the disclosure of this information, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2008
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Assembly Passage
Aug 2010
Signed into Law
Sep 2010
Introduced Dec 1, 2008
Signed Sep 27, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 30, 2010 · Assembly Aug 30, 2010
How they voted
30–1
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 35
Aug 30, 2010
D
Democratic23
78% Yea
R
Republican12
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
39
Key actions
9
Committee
8
Amendments
3
Sep 25, 2010
Signed into law
Approved by Governor.
legislature
Aug 30, 2010
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 33. Noes 1. Page 5035.) To enrollment.
upper
Aug 30, 2010
Upper · Passed
Urgency clause adopted.
upper
Aug 27, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on August 25.)
lower
Aug 27, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.)
lower
Aug 19, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. On JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Jul 2, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on July 1.)
lower
Jul 2, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.)
lower
Jun 16, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 16.)
lower
Jun 16, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 12, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Apr 28, 2009
Committee
Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 27, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 587.)
upper
Dec 1, 2008
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
DH
Dennis Hollingsworth
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 5
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 5. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline