California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 723 — Restraining orders.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 155, Statutes of 2011.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law authorizes any court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter to issue protective orders upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Existing case law has construed any order issued pursuant to this provision to be limited in scope and duration to the protection of victims and witnesses in connection with the criminal proceeding in which it is issued. Under existing law, contempt of a court order is a misdemeanor. This bill would expand the scope and duration of that provision. The bill would require, in all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, the court to consider, at the time of sentencing, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, regardless of whether the defendant is sentenced to the state prison or a county jail, or whether imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation. The order would be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. Because the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 155, Statutes of 2011.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m.

  4. In Senate. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 2344.) Ordered to the Senate.

  6. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  7. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (July 6).

  8. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From consent calendar.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  12. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 14).

  13. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  14. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  15. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1067.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  16. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  17. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  18. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  19. Set for hearing May 9.

  20. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  21. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 742.) (April 26).

  22. Set for hearing April 26.

  23. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  24. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 21.

  25. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Pavley · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Pavley

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

SB 723 Pavley Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 76 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 73004
Republican 2000
Democratic 1000
Total 76004
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Not Voting
Hall — Yea
Eng — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Butler — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Fong — Yea
Carter — Yea
Allen — Yea
Huber — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Logue — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Davis — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Valadao — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Williams — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Halderman — Yea
Mitchell — Not Voting
Chesbro — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lara — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hill — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Norby — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, to Consent Calendar.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15001
Democratic 1000
Total 16001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Davis — Not Voting
Donnelly — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Norby — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, to Consent Calendar.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Hill — Yea
Knight — Yea
Yamada — Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent #3

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 36001
Republican 1000
Democratic 2000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Runner — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Dutton — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 723 do?
Existing law authorizes any court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter to issue protective orders upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Existing case law has construed any order issued pursuant to this provision to be limited in scope and duration to the protection of victims and witnesses in connection with the criminal proceeding in which it is issued. Under existing law, contempt of a court order is a misdemeanor. This bill would expand the scope and duration of that provision. The bill would require, in all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, the court to consider, at the time of sentencing, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, regardless of whether the defendant is sentenced to the state prison or a county jail, or whether imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation. The order would be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. Because the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 723?
SB 723 is sponsored by Pavley.
What is the current status of SB 723?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 723?
Track SB 723 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 723

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 723

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →