Senator Sam Aanestad noted during this hearing that California's 4th Appellate Court said California's outdated and dangerous pursuit laws have left "public safety twisting in the wind" and have given California officers a "get out of liability free card." Here's a link to the Appellate Court's ruling.
From Candy's Testimony at the judiciary hearing: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger repeated one word during his campaign. That word is 'accountability.' I have read numerous reports on the topic of police pursuit since a Chico police pursuit killed my innocent daughter Kristie where officers disregarded guidelines in their own pursuit policy. I ask, 'Where is the accountability?' "
Blocked in the Judiciary Committee. Just when things were looking good for Kristie's Law, the bill to restrict police pursuits failed to pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, April 27, 2004.
Read about "Second Chance for Kristie's Bill" in the Chico Enterprise-Record. [...] the measure will get a second chance through a political maneuver known as "gut and amend." That's where the original language is removed from a bill that is going nowhere and replaced with language from another bill. In this case, the language from Aanestad's measure on pursuits, Senate Bill 1866, has replaced the original language of a bill by Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove. Dunn's measure, Senate Bill 1403, was referred to the Judiciary Committee on March 4, but no further action was taken on it. May 4th, 2004.
Representatives of large police groups, such as the Police Officers Research Association of California, have argued "imminent peril" is a vague concept and that officers need wide discretion in deciding when to pursue suspects. Important Note: Per the request of law enforcement and members of the Judiciary Committee, the language "imminent peril" (obtained from the Orange County Sheriff's Department's pursuit policy regarding use of a firearm during a pursuit) was completely removed from the bill and replaced with a list of specific violent felonies. In spite of the Senator's efforts to work with law enforcement groups and make the changes requested by the committee and law enforcement, the bill was struck down again. It's an election year and some senators believe law enforcements' endorsement is more important than public safety. Click here to see how they voted. May 5, 2004
SACRAMENTO-- Just when things were looking good for Kristie's Law the bill to restrict police pursuits the measure failed to pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday. That means the bill is blocked for now. It was granted "reconsideration," so it can have another hearing, but arranging one for this year, at this late date, could be difficult, said Brett Michelin, chief of staff to Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, the bill's author.
"It's very disappointing that it didn't get out of committee today," Michelin said. "But it's an issue that will be around here till the problem is addressed."Michelin said it's still possible for the bill to be revived this year. It could be incorporated into another measure, he said. Senate Bill 1866 needed four votes to move out of the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. It only got three.
Michelin blamed pressure from police groups for its stalling. A hearing before the committee seemed to go well Tuesday, but in the end, the votes weren't there, he said. Kristie's Law would limit police vehicle pursuits to only those cases where suspects posed "an imminent peril" to the public.
At Tuesday's hearing, questions were raised about the phrase "imminent peril." It was suggested the term was too vague. Michelin said Aanestad agreed to change the bill, and it seemed like that would satisfy the committee. Three senators voted for the bill: Committee chair Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Byron Sher, D-Stanford. Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, voted against the bill. Two other senators abstained: Sen. Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, and Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego.
Aanestad hoped the remaining committee member, Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would supply the fourth aye vote, but in the end he abstained. SB1866 is being called Kristie's Law after 15-year-old Kristie Priano of Chico, who died in 2001 after a police pursuit ended in a crash. Kristie's mother, Candy Priano, said Aanestad told her he'd try again with the bill next year. "I just hope we'll be back in 2005," she said. "But, unfortunately, so many people are going to die unnecessarily between now and then." It's estimated more than 350 people are killed each year in the United States as a result of police pursuits. Many are innocent bystanders and police officers themselves.
Kristie, an honor student and athlete, was being driven to a high-school basketball game by her parents, when the 2002 crash occurred at the intersection of Palm and East Fifth avenues in Chico. Chico police were pursuing another 15-year-old girl, who had taken her mother's SUV and gone joyriding with friends. The SUV ran a stop sign at Palm and Fifth and hit the Priano family's van broadside. Kristie sustained head injuries and died a week later. The Prianos claimed police had not followed their department's policy on pursuits. They sued the city of Chico, but the suit was thrown out because of a law granting cities and counties immunity from suits if their police agencies have written policies on pursuits. The immunity applies whether or not the policies are followed.
SB1866 would allow such immunity only if police departments adopt policies stating pursuits will not be initiated unless there is immediate peril to the public. Also, police would have to follow those policies in order for their employers a city, county or the state to be immune to litigation. Some law-enforcement officials, like Chico Police Chief Bruce Hagerty, say Kristie's Law would impair officers' ability to do their jobs.
But others disagree. At Tuesday's hearing, Candy Priano quoted Cpl. Dennis Gutierrez of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department as saying, "If (SB1866) does pass, it won't stop us from catching the bad guys. We can put out a warrant, we can pick them up at their home; they have families in the area." Because pursuits are so dangerous, many police agencies across the country have limited their use, according to professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, who has studied the subject for about 20 years.
Michelin said he and Aanestad had a productive meeting Tuesday morning with law-enforcement officials, who indicated they would work cooperatively on SB1866. It seemed to him the police agencies' opposition to the bill was easing, he said.
Last week, SB1866 passed the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Sen. Sam Aanestad's bill to restrict police pursuits has been revived after being dealt a defeat last week. An amended version of the measure is to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon. In that committee last week, the bill failed by one vote. Members of the panel granted it the right to a second hearing, but Aanestad's staff said with legislative deadlines closing in, the bill appeared to be finished for this year. However, the measure will get a second chance through a political maneuver known as "gut and amend." That's where the original language is removed from a bill that is going nowhere and replaced with language from another bill.
In this case, the language from Aanestad's measure on pursuits, Senate Bill 1866, has replaced the original language of a bill by Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove. Dunn's measure, Senate Bill 1403, originally dealt with procedures for filing lawsuits. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee on March 4, but no further action was taken on it.
The new version of SB 1403 will be heard by the Judiciary Committee today. Aanestad, a Republican from Grass Valley, designed his measure, known as Kristie's Law, to limit police chases to only those cases where the suspects posed "an imminent peril" to the public. At last week's hearing, police representatives opposed to SB 1866 argued the "imminent peril" definition was unworkable. Aanestad agreed to make amendments, but the bill failed anyway.
Gene Wong, chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee, said in the new version, Aanestad has agreed to drop the definition "imminent peril" but retain the concept as a "standard," which would allow police somewhat more flexibility Wong said he understood Aanestad might go a step further and drop "imminent peril" altogether in favor of allowing pursuits only of people suspected of having committed "violent felonies." That standard is followed by a number of police agencies around the country. Aanestad wrote Kristie's Law at the request of Mark and Candy Priano of Chico. Their 15-year-old daughter, Kristie, was fatally injured in 2002, after the van she and her family were traveling in was hit broadside by a vehicle being chased by Chico police.
It's estimated at least 350 Americans die each year from injuries caused by police pursuits. Many are police themselves or innocent bystanders.
There is a national trend for police agencies to adopt more restrictive policies on pursuits, according to an expert on the subject, professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina. Aanestad, who calls the issue a serious public safety matter, wants California to adopt a policy setting minimum standards for pursuits statewide.
SACRAMENTO -- "Kristie's Law," the police-pursuit bill, lost again in a Senate committee Tuesday, but Sen. Sam Aanestad wasn't giving up hope the bill might still pass this year. Brett Michelin, Aanestad's chief of staff, said police groups seem to be getting the message that restricting pursuits has significant support in the Legislature. They're working on proposals of their own, hoping to avoid having to live with legislative mandates their members dislike, he said. Nevertheless, statewide law-enforcement groups, which oppose "Kristie's Law," appeared to be winning a victory Tuesday as the bill by Sen. Aanestad, a Grass Valley Republican, came before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a second time.
The bill needs four votes to move out of the committee. Last week it got three votes. It appeared that on Tuesday it would still only get three votes. Aanestad, who represents Butte County, introduced "Kristie's Law" at the urging of Mark and Candy Priano of Chico.
One evening in January 2002, the Prianos were driving on Palm Avenue in Chico with their two children, when their van was hit broadside by an SUV driven by a 15-year-old girl who had taken it from her mother to go joyriding and wound up being pursued by Chico police. In the crash, the Prianos' 15-year-old daughter, Kristie, sustained fatal injuries. The family contends the pursuit should never have taken place that police should have arrested the girl later when she returned home. After doing research on pursuits, the Prianos said they discovered a growing campaign by people around the country to restrict police pursuits.
Last year, when they took their case to Aanestad, the senator agreed to carry a bill. He introduced a measure last year, but postponed moving it forward so his staff could do more research on the issue.
Earlier this year, Aanestad introduced Senate Bill 1866. Its chief effect would have been to set a statewide policy allowing police to initiate pursuits only when fleeing suspects posed an "imminent peril" to the public. Representatives of large police groups, such as the Police Officers Research Association of California, have argued "imminent peril" is a vague concept and that officers need wide discretion in deciding when to pursue suspects. Chico Police Chief Bruce Hagerty strongly opposes the bill.
The measure passed the Senate Public Safety Committee in April. Last Tuesday, it came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but failed to get the four votes it needed. After several Judiciary Committee members who supported the bill expressed interest in seeing it move forward this year, Aanestad arranged for it to get a second hearing before the Judiciary Committee. He took the language from his original measure, Senate Bill 1866, and put it into another measure that wasn't moving, Senate Bill 1403. But when the vote came Tuesday, SB1403 fell short just as SB1866 had. Last week, three senators voted for the bill: Committee chair Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Byron Sher, D-Stanford. Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, voted against the bill. And three other senators abstained: Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, and Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles.
In Tuesday's voting Escutia and Sher again voted for "Kristie's Law", and Morrow and Cedillo had voted no. Ducheny, Kuehl and Ackerman abstained. Michelin said he was disappointed. During Tuesday's hearing, Ducheny talked like she was going to vote for the bill, but in the end she abstained, he said. Still, he said, he was encouraged because representatives of the police groups said Tuesday they were close to finishing their own language for a bill restricting pursuits. It may be possible to insert "Kristie's Law" into yet another bill later this year, Michelin said. Legislators who support restricting pursuits feel it's important to keep a bill moving, since that's the best way to press police groups to work out a compromise, he added.
Experts say many of California's pursuit policies are outdated and dangerous. Read the full story in The Chico Enterprise-Record, April 24, 2004
Chico's Police Chief opposes Kristie's Law. Read the full story by Larry Mitchell in The Chico Enterprise-Record, April 24, 2004
The hearing for Kristie's Law (SB 1866, now SB 1403) took place in front of the California Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 13th. After the introduction of the bill by Sen. Aanestad and testimony by Mark and Candy Priano and myself (Jim Phillips) the opponents of the bill were given the opportunity to express themselves. A host of Law Enforcement representatives stepped to the witness table. After a self-serving statement from the first opponent of the bill about how he was moved to tears by the Priano's story, he launched into litany of often discredited clichés about why the police need wide discretion in pursuit policy. A detailed analysis about police pursuit legislation in California by PursuitWatch.org, April 17, 2004
"I wake up every day asking, 'How could this happen?' "Kristie's father, Mark Priano, told the Senate Committee on Public Safety. An honor student and athlete at Champion Christian School in Chico, Kristie died in January 2002, seven days after a vehicle crashed into her family's van while fleeing police. That car was driven by another 15-year-old who had driven off with her mother's vehicle. Read the full story in The Sacramento Bee, April 14, 2004
Safety quest: "Kristie is dead, just like many other crime victims, yet the police and local politicians did not surround our family with support," she said. "One local politician told us, 'Well, you sued the city.' We did not file our suit for six months. I think that was plenty of time for the police and local politicians to come to us and explain truthfully what happened and why." Read the full story by Staff Writer Larry Mitchell in The Chico Enterprise-Record, April 13, 2004
Jim Phillips, Founder of PursuitWatch.org, who has worked with Florida law enforcement to develop smarter and safer police pursuit policies, testified on behalf of Kristie's Law at the Senate Public Safety Hearing. Read Jim Phillips' testimony, April 13, 2004
"Our family supports law enforcement, but our experience has led us to seek changes in our state's police pursuit law. I have talked to many officers who support restrictive pursuit policies because they believe innocent bystanders should not be getting killed so they can catch "the bad guys." These officers still do their job. They just do it in a different way -- a safer way. Read the rest of Candy Priano's testimony, April 13, 2004
