Back to kristieslaw.org

Comparison: California SB-719 in 2005
What the bill's supporters said it would do and what is actually did.

Note: This "Comparison" has been updated. The information originally was linked to California's State web site, but now the information is in pdfs.

Read SB-719, click here (pdf).
Posted June 13, 2005; Updates: June 14, 2005; August 27, 2005; September 9, 2005; October 4, 2005 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB-719.

Still waiting for answers to these questions about SB-719, click here.

Battle lines are drawn over Kristie's Law in California, pursuitwatch.org.

SB-719 passed both the Senate and Assembly and was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Oct. 4, 2005.
The Bill (SB-719) that passed the State Senate is in the left column.
The Assembly's amendments to SB-719 are in the center column (changes are in
orange type).
The Analysis is in the right column.

For faster navigation, click on any of the links below:

Restitution to Victims

Senator Gloria Romero on "Compensation" in 2004

Pursuit Policy Change (Part I)


Stricter Penalties

More jail time under existing law. Maybe?

Pursuit Policy Change (Part 2)

Senator Gloria Romero on "Following Policy" in 2004

Reporting System

California's Tax Dollars

Californians who want legislation
that will actually save lives
write to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Senate Bill 719 by State Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, will only hinder and delay REAL police pursuit changes in California. SB-719 'appears' helpful, but it is NOT."
Margie A. Swagerty of Chico
excerpt from her letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger

 

"I implore you not to sign SB-719. Legislation will be coming in the near future that will drastically curtail the number of deaths and injuries in California. Then you will be able to sign a bill that will show the rest of the nation that there are better ways to catch criminals without putting innocent lives in danger."
Beverly J. Malvestuto of Fresno
excerpt from her letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger

 

SB-719
LAST AMENDED IN
CALIFORNIA SENATE
MAY 19, 2005

INTRODUCED BY Senators Romero and Margett

(Principal coauthor: Senator Alquist)

(Coauthor: Senator Aanestad)

An act to amend Section 13955 of the Government Code, to amend Section 13519.8 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 2800.1, 2800.2, 2800.3, 14602.1, and 17004.7 of, and to add Sections 1666.1 and 2911 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles, and making an appropriation therefor.

 

SB-719
LAST AMENDED IN
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
SEPTEMBER 2, 2005

INTRODUCED BY Senators Romero and Margett

(Principal coauthor: Senator Alquist)

(Coauthor: Senator Aanestad)

An act to amend Section 13955 of the Government Code, to amend Section 13519.8 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 2800.1, 2800.2, 2800.3, 14602.1, and 17004.7 of, and   and 14602.1 of, to add Sections 1666.1 and 2911 to, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 17004.7 of,* the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles, and making an appropriation therefor.


*All strikethroughs and italics to the bill are amendments. Amendments are in orange type.

A Fact-Based Analysis: SB-719

Introduction by Jim Phillips, President, PursuitWatch.org

In 1987 the California legislature passed a bill that awarded Blanket Immunity to all Law Enforcement agencies that enacted a pursuit policy that met rudimentary standards. (See VEHICLE CODE SECTION 17000-17004.7)      

It is shocking that the legislature neglected to make training or compliance with the Vehicular Pursuit Policy a requirement of the code.  

The situation in California, since the 1987 bill, has degenerated to an absurd black comedy where agencies adopt what are many times inadequate and antiquated pursuit policies and then send their officers out to do whatever seems best, or expedient, at the time, regardless of what policy dictates.

I have read in newspaper coverage that SB-719 is basically the California Law Enforcement community's "counter proposal" to Kristie's Law. Unlike SB-719, Kristie's Law, proposed legislation in 2005, would have implemented a statewide restrictive pursuit policy, allowing chases to capture violent felons.

In 2004, when Kristie's Law was first introduced, it also would have required officers to FOLLOW their pursuit policy in order for their employers (public entities) to receive immunity from civil liability. Kristie's Law would NOT take away the officers immunity from personal lawsuits.

What SB-719 proposes is to slightly change the list of elements of pursuit policy -- while making no quantitative requirements. A law enforcement agency can do pretty much anything it pleases.

SB-719
AMENDED IN THE SENATE

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

Police pursuits.

(1)  Existing law provides for compensation to crime victims, as specified, from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund.

   This bill would include as qualifying as a crime victim for those purposes, injury or death caused by any party where a peace officer is operating a motor vehicle in an effort to apprehend a suspect, and the suspect is evading, fleeing, or otherwise attempting to elude the peace officer.

   By expanding the uses of a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation.

SB-719
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

Police pursuits.

(1)  Existing law provides for compensation to crime victims, as specified, from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund.

This bill would include as qualifying as a crime victim for those purposes, injury or death caused by any party where a peace officer is operating a motor vehicle in an effort to apprehend a suspect, and the suspect is evading, fleeing, or otherwise attempting to elude the peace officer.

By expanding the uses of a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation.

Analysis of SB-719: Compensation/Restitution to innocent victims of pursuit

Analysis by Candy Priano with assistance from Jim Phillips, Dr. Geoffrey Alpert, and Ret. Police Chief Donald Van Blaricom. However, if any of the analysis is in error, Candy Priano accepts full responsibility and will correct the error immediately.

•  Our state law in 2005 provides similar, if not the same, compensation to victims of pursuit as SB-719 proposes to do.

•  Family members of victims of pursuit, dating back to at least 2001, have told me that they received reimbursement from a state victims' fund for funeral and burial expenses, the same restitution provided in Sec. 2. Section 13955 of SB-719.

•  Senator Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, the author of SB-719, had a much different opinion about compensation at a 2004 Public Safety Committee Hearing. From a videotape of the hearing, Senator Romero responds to law enforcement lobbyist opposing Kristie's Law.

Senator Romero said: "This is not about compensation for the families. I don't think the parents here want money. You have missed the point. This is about public safety. This is about the innocent bystander and all the money in some fund somewhere that you will give your support is not going to bring back any of the victims, and it's not going to satisfy the mothers and fathers and members of this committee who think it's a lot more than money."

•  Jim Phillips' comment: "In a misguided notion that victims seek financial liability from agencies, the bill provides for pay-outs from the California Restitution Fund for pursuit victims. Victims and their families do not seek restitution; they seek accountability. Restitution is for stolen camcorders, not for families who have had loved ones killed."

SB-719
AMENDED IN THE SENATE

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

(2) Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the handling of high-speed vehicle pursuits and to develop uniform, minimum guidelines for adoption by California law enforcement agencies for response to high-speed vehicle pursuits, as specified. Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature that all local law enforcement agencies adopt those guidelines as a minimum for the agency's pursuit policy.

This bill, instead, would require each law enforcement agency to adopt, promulgate, and require regular and periodic training consistent with an agency's specific pursuit policy that, at a minimum, complies with the commission's guidelines.

By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

SB-719
LAST AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

(2) Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the handling of high-speed vehicle pursuits and to develop uniform, minimum guidelines for adoption by California law enforcement agencies for response to high-speed vehicle pursuits, as specified. Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature that all local law enforcement agencies adopt those guidelines as a minimum for the agency's pursuit policy.

This bill, instead, would require express the intent of the Legislature that each law enforcement agency to adopt, promulgate, and require regular and periodic training consistent with an agency's specific pursuit policy that, at a minimum, complies with the commission's guidelines.

By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Analysis of SB-719: Still keeps blanket immunity intact even when the policy is not followed.

You'll need a magnifying glass to see the significance of this change.

"The bill added the following to maintain blanket immunity: police departments would have to not only adopt written pursuit policies but also 'promulgate' them. That means, apparently, they would need to distribute them and certify that officers had read them. Agencies would need to conduct pursuit training at least once a year." Source: Chico Enterprise-Record, Reporter Larry Mitchell, June 4, 2005  

The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training ALREADY requires that an officer take two hours of pursuit training per year. Middle managers and above must take one hour per year.
SB-719 would express the intent of the Legislature that each law enforcement agency adopt, promulgate and require regular and periodic training (Not specified. Why?). The Assembly Analysis of this bill states: If 55,000 local law enforcement officers statewide undergo two hours of specified vehicle pursuit training annually, at an average cost of $50 per hour, and successfully claim state reimbursement, annual reimbursable costs would be about $6 million. (To see this analysis on the state page, click here.

•  Geoff Alpert, a nationally recognized expert on pursuit practices, via email stated: "Specifically, the bill does not require testing or certification for officers. It simply says officers should 'read and sign' the policy. There is no mention of policy review at the state level."

•  Jim Phillips: It is a fundamental principal of management, in police agencies as well as private industry, that policy implementation involves 4 elements:
1. Policy development
2. Policy training and implementation
3. Tracking performance
4. Accountability
In California the only mandate is that an agency have a policy. All SB-719 asks is that officers read the policy, so the mandate still allows law enforcement to do whatever it pleases.  

•  Retired Bellevue, Wash., Police Chief Donald Van Blaricom agrees: "The absence of accountability in any process for controlling human behavior is a systemic deficiency that clearly demonstrates to all concerned that policy, training, and supervision are really meaningless when there are no consequences for ignoring them."

  (3) Existing law specifies certain content for the California Driver's Handbook and examinations for a driver's license.
   This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon updating the handbook, to include at least one question in any of the tests of an applicant's knowledge and under-standing to verify that the applicant has an understanding of the risks and punishments associated with eluding a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle.

(3) Existing law specifies certain content for the California Driver's Handbook and examinations for a driver's license. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon updating the handbook, to include at least one question in any of the tests noncommercial driver's license examinations of an applicant's knowledge and understanding to verify that the applicant has an understanding of the risks and punishments associated with eluding a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle.

Analysis of SB-719: Updating the DMV handbook  

This component was lifted from the 2004 version of Kristie's Law.
Candy Priano states: When I renewed my driver's license in January 2004, it became apparent to me that the DMV Handbook had information about fines for littering but contained no information about how drivers should appropriately stop for an officer. Consequently, Senator Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, included this information and drafted the language for Kristie's Law when it was first introduced in 2004.

 

SB-719
AMENDED IN THE SENATE

Stricter Penalties
   (4) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, for any person while operating a motor vehicle to intentionally evade and willfully flee or otherwise attempt to evade a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle or bicycle under certain conditions.
   This bill would make that offense a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. By increasing the punishment for a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

   (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by both the fine and imprisonment for any person who commits the offense described in (4) above in a willful or wanton disregard for persons or property.

   This bill instead would make this offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year with the same fine as prescribed above.

  (6) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in a county jail for not more than one year or a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4, or 5 years or a specified fine for any person who commits the offense described in (4) above and proximately causes serious bodily injury, as defined, or death to any person.

   This bill would increase the term of imprisonment in the state prison as follows:

   (a) A term of 3, 5, or 7 years or the specified fine or both the fine and imprisonment where the offense involves serious bodily injury.

   (b) A term of 4, 6, or 10 years in the state prison where the offense involves a death.

SB-719
LAST AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY

Stricter Penalties
  
(4) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, for any person while operating a motor vehicle to intentionally evade and willfully flee or otherwise attempt to evade a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle or bicycle under certain conditions.
   This bill would make that offense a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. By increasing the punishment for a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.


   (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by both the fine and imprisonment for any person who commits the offense described in (4) above in a willful or wanton disregard for persons or property.

   This bill instead would make this offense punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year with the same fine as prescribed above.

(6) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in a county jail for not more than one year or a felony punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4, or 5 years or a specified fine for any person who commits the offense described in (4) above
and proximately causes serious bodily injury, as defined, or death to any person.

This bill would increase the term of imprisonment in the state prison as follows:

(a) A term of 3, 5, or 7 years or the specified fine, or both the fine and imprisonment where the offense involves serious bodily
injury.

(b) A term of 4, 6, or 10 years in the state prison where the offense involves a death.

A Fact-Based Analysis: SB-719

Analysis of SB-719: Stricter Penalties  
Advocates for safer police pursuits believe fleeing and eluding should be a felony with mandatory (non-bargaining penalties) prison time. The year or two of additional jail time a person MIGHT get for fleeing in SB-719 is an insult to pursuit victims and officers. With SB-719, an innocent person or officer has to die in order for the suspect to be imprisoned for just 4, 5, or 10 years.

Another major oversight is that SB-719 does not address stricter penalties for juveniles who are increasingly fleeing in record number from police.

(4)   Look at this first change in penalties: Existing law makes it a misdemeanor with jail time not exceeding 6 months. And what does SB-719 do? Keeps it a misdemeanor with jail time not exceeding one year. Wow! (sarcasm intended)

(5)   Look at this second change: They just rewrote the same copy in a different order, with one exception. No change in fines and no change in county jail time!   Imprisonment in a county jail for no more than one year is the same for both existing law and SB-719.  

Here is the exception: Existing law states "or a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison" but does not say for how long the sentence. SB-719 will make this offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for only 16 months, or 2 or 3 years. So even if judges believe the crime merits a longer sentence, they will not be able to do that because SB-719 limits the number of years.

 

 

....

(6)   Under the existing law, a person charged with fleeing that results in a death could actually receive one more year in the state prison than they would if SB-719 becomes law. Under the existing law, the maximum sentence is 5 years in a state prison. Under SB-719, the minimum sentence is 4 years in a state prison.

It appears that even under SB-719 fleeing is more than likely going to be a misdemeanor (and not a felony) even when the offense causes serious bodily injury or death to any person. AND, instead of 3, 4, or 5 years in a state prison, SB-719 increases the penalties to 3, 5, or 7 for serious bodily injury. These could be life-altering injuries where the victims need around the clock care.

And what an insult to innocent victims: Under SB-719, the fleeing suspect would receive 4, 6, or 10 years where the offense involves a death. In other states the penalties are typically no less than 20 years when the offense involves a death.

(7) Existing law establishes the California Traffic Safety Program, to include state and local programs, as specified.
  This bill would require all traffic safety programs that receive state funds and that include public awareness campaigns involving emergency vehicle operations to include in the public awareness campaign, information on the risks to public safety of peace officer motor vehicle pursuits, and the penalties that may result from evading a peace officer.

(7) Existing law establishes the California Traffic Safety Program, to include state and local programs, as specified.
  This bill would require all traffic safety programs that receive state funds and that include public awareness campaigns involving emergency vehicle operations to include in the public awareness campaign, information on the risks to public safety of peace officer motor vehicle pursuits, and the penalties that may result from evading a peace officer.
Does this mean that the California Traffic Safety Program is not doing this now?

SB-719
AMENDED IN THE SENATE

Reporting System
(8) Existing law requires each state and local law enforcement agency to report to the Department of the California Highway Patrol, on a form approved by the department, certain specific vehicle pursuit data, including, but not limited to, certain required data.
   This bill instead would require the department to develop and approve a paper or electronic form that includes additional data, and would require that the report be made to the department no later than 30 days following a police pursuit, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by increasing the level of services imposed on local law enforcement agencies.  
  The bill would additionally require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to submit annually to the Legislature a report regarding motor vehicle pursuits.

SB-719
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY

Reporting System
(8) Existing law requires each state and local law enforcement agency to report to the Department of the California Highway Patrol, on a form approved by the department, certain specific vehicle pursuit data, including, but not limited to, certain required data.
   This bill instead would require the department to develop and approve a paper or electronic form that includes additional data, and would require that the report be made to the department no later than 30 days following a police pursuit, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by increasing the level of services imposed on local law enforcement agencies.  
  The bill would additionally require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to submit annually to the Legislature a report regarding motor vehicle pursuits.

Analysis of SB-719: Reporting System

(8) Does not appear to be an actual change in the reporting system.   Police are policing themselves. No outside, independent review. In both existing law and SB-719, the local law enforcement agency submits a form approved by the department to the California Highway Patrol. SB-719 would require the report be made to the department no later than 30 days following a police pursuit. (Need to find out how many days does the department have today under existing law to file a report.)

Note: Jim Phillips is working on this section. Jim is suspect as to the accuracy of the CHP figures. And California pursuit fatalities quoted in SB-719, do not agree with the 2003 National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Fatalities Report for Pursuits.

From SB-719: Section 1(d) California leads the nation in the number of innocent bystanders killed in these pursuits. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that in 2003 there were 46 deaths in California that resulted from high speed police pursuits of fleeing suspects. Twelve of the 46 deaths were innocent bystanders. Eighteen were passengers in the pursued vehicle, 15 were fleeing suspects, and one was a peace officer.

Click here to view a copy of the actual report from NHTSA which shows that California had 51 deaths and 18 were occupants of other vehicles not involved in the chase.

SB-719
AMENDED IN THE SENATE

(9) Existing law provides that any public agency employing peace officers that adopts a written policy on vehicular pursuits, as specified, shall be immune from liability for civil damages for personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the collision of a vehicle being operated by an actual or suspected violator of the law who is being has been, or believes he or she is being or has been pursued by a peace officer employed by the public entity in a motor vehicle. Existing law makes the adoption of a vehicle pursuit policy pursuant to these provisions discretionary.

   This bill, for civil immunity purposes, would require adoption, promulgation, and provision for regular and periodic training , as defined, pursuant to a vehicle pursuit policy mandatory if a public agency employs peace officers to drive emergency vehicles and authorizes vehicle pursuits. The bill would revise the minimum standards required for a written policy for the safe conduct of motor vehicle pursuits .

SB-719
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY

(9) Existing law provides that any public agency employing peace
officers that adopts a written policy on vehicular pursuits that meets certain minimum standards, as specified, shall be immune from liability for civil damages for personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the collision of a vehicle being operated by an actual or suspected violator of the law who is being has been, or believes he or she is being or has been pursued by a peace officer employed by the public entity in a motor vehicle. Existing law makes the adoption of a vehicle pursuit policy pursuant to these provisions discretionary.

This bill would require adoption, promulgation, and provision for regular and periodic training, as defined, pursuant to a vehicle pursuit policy, if a public agency employs peace officers
to drive emergency vehicles and authorizes vehicle pursuits. The bill would
revise the minimum standards required for a written policy for the safe conduct of motor vehicle pursuits. These provisions would become operative on July 1, 2007.

Analysis of SB-719: Again, No Accountability

(9) This portion of the bill is so disingenuous, because there is no change at all to the existing law. By now, all law enforcement agencies have an adopted pursuit policy and will make sure that their officers sign off on the sheet of paper to indicate that they have read the policy, but beyond that there is still no accountability for following the policy. (Read the 1987-2005 VEHICLE CODE SECTION 17000-17004.7. for the minimum requirements ALREADY in place.)   

 

 

  

QUESTION??? As amended, "This bill would require adoption, promulgation, and provision for regular and periodic training, as defined, pursuant to a vehicle pursuit policy, if a public agency employs peace officers to drive emergency vehicles and authorizes vehicle pursuits. The bill would revise the minimum standards required for a written policy for the safe conduct of motor vehicle pursuits. But still, no accountability when officers fail to follow these minimum standards.

Look at this change: These guidelines shall be a resource for each agency executive to use in the creation of a specific pursuit policy that the agency shall is encouraged to adopt and promulgate, and that reflects the needs of the agency, the jurisdiction it serves, and the law. Click here to read the bill sent to the governor.

But what's equally disingenuous are these comments made by Senator Gloria Romero to law enforcement lobbyist in 2004 during the Senate Public Safety Hearing for Kristie's Law:

"Part of me is almost thinking we have been here before and about a year ago the same cast of characters sitting in opposition came before this committee and expressed the same opposition to a much more simpler bill. One that simply said, 'You guys write the policy.' All I was asking for is that you follow it. You implement it." 

One does wonder why such a drastic change in Senator Romero's stand on police pursuits practices in California, especially when at least one person dies each week and dozens are injured, many seriously, in California police pursuits.  

Jim Phillips states that Romero's flip-flop just might be law enforcement's intimidation tactics with legislators: "Blanket immunity is untouchable because California Law Enforcement is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the state," says Phillips. "Additionally, the endorsement of political candidates by Law Enforcement is a very important element in any campaign. California Law Enforcement would like to frame the whole immunity issue into the simplistic logic of 'If the bad guys had not run, none of this would have happened.' PERIOD. While this is certainly true, it ignores the complexity of pursuits and prevents any rational approach to making them safer and less costly. The scandalous position of California Law Enforcement is that they are powerless to do anything to prevent pursuit deaths and injuries and that is exactly what they do -- nothing."

SB-719
AMENDED IN THE SENATE

(10) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

   With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

   Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

SB-719
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY

(10) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

   With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

   Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

Analysis of SB-719

(10) Where will California get the money? This legislation does not require additional money because nothing has changed. Law enforcement and our state legislators have done nothing -- okay, very little -- to change California's outdated and dangerous pursuit practices. That's why some things are not adding up:

  1. "Restitution" for victims' families -- victims receive compensation today
  2. More pursuit training for officers -- SB-719 does not require testing or certification for officers & no policy review at the state level.
  3. Public awareness programs
  4. More paperwork -- no accountability on reporting; no independent review of the Pursuit Reporting System
  5. No mandatory jail time -- an insult to victims and officers
  6. When one considers that this was a counter proposal to Kristie's Law, why was I not involved in any of the discussions on this bill. How can a bill be balanced if the victims do not even have voice?

I am an innocent victim of pursuit who buried her loving, law-abiding daughter, Kristie, as a result of a non-policy chase where officers and the dispatcher violated their own pursuit policy.

I have to ask:
Would SB-719 have saved Kristie's life or the lives of other innocent victims? The answer is "No."

Will SB-719 save the lives of future victims? The answer is "No."

... and California legislators are advertising
SB-719 as a cure for California's unsafe and deadly pursuit practices.