Bill Text: CA AB653 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Enrolled

---

Bill Title: Peace officers: marital privilege.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Vetoed) 2010-01-14 - Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file. [AB653 Detail]

Download: California-2009-AB653-Enrolled.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 653	ENROLLED
	BILL TEXT

	PASSED THE SENATE  JULY 16, 2009
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 17, 2009
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 30, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 20, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 30, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 13, 2009

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Feuer

                        FEBRUARY 25, 2009

   An act to add Section 3303.1 to the Government Code, relating to
peace officers.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 653, Feuer. Peace officers: marital privilege.
   Existing law provides that a spouse has a privilege during the
marital relationship and afterwards to refuse to disclose, and to
prevent another from disclosing, a communication if the spouse claims
the privilege and the communication was made in confidence between
the spouses while they were husband and wife. A married person also
has a privilege not to testify against his or her spouse in any
proceeding and, when the spouse is a party to a proceeding, a
privilege not to be called as a witness by an adverse party to that
proceeding without the prior express consent of the spouse having the
privilege. The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act
provides various rights and protections to peace officers, including
the procedure for interrogation of peace officers who are under
investigation.
   This bill would provide that a peace officer who asserts any of
the marital privileges described above shall not be subject to
administrative discipline for failure to report information to his or
her supervisor or department, except when the information concerns
criminal or certain other conduct of the peace officer's spouse, who
is also a peace officer employed by the department, and other
specified conditions apply. The bill would provide that this
provision would only apply to administrative disciplinary
investigations and hearings, and not to other civil or criminal
proceedings.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the
time-honored privilege not to testify against one's spouse is
grounded on the premise that compelled testimony of a spouse would,
in many cases, seriously disturb if not completely disrupt the
marital relationship (People v. Sinohui (2002) 28 Cal.4th 205). As
the California Law Revision Commission has commented with respect to
Section 970 of the Evidence Code, society generally stands to lose
more as the result of that disruption than it stands to gain from the
testimony that would be available if the privilege did not exist.
   (b) It is the intent of the Legislature to overrule Riverside
County Sheriff's Dept. v. Zigman (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 763 to the
extent that it is inconsistent with this act.
  SEC. 2.  Section 3303.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
   3303.1.  (a) A peace officer who asserts the privilege of a spouse
under Section 970, 971, or 980 of the Evidence Code to refuse to
testify or be called as a witness against his or her spouse, or to
disclose confidential marital communications, shall not be subject to
administrative discipline for failure to report information to his
or her supervisor or department, except when all of the following are
true:
   (1) The information concerns conduct of the peace officer's
spouse, who is also a peace officer employed by the same department,
that is criminal or a serious violation of department policy
punishable by a suspension of 15 days or more, or subjects the
department to a specific and significant risk of civil liability.
   (2) The interests of justice require disclosure of the information
because, after exercising reasonable diligence, independent evidence
does not otherwise appear to be reasonably available to proceed with
an administrative disciplinary investigation or hearing.
   (3) The sheriff or chief of police personally approves the
discipline in writing despite the assertion of the marital privilege.

   (b) This section does not apply if the peace officer is a
percipient witness to the misconduct at issue.
   (c) This section shall only apply to administrative disciplinary
investigations and hearings, not to other civil or criminal
proceedings.
   (d) Nothing in this section shall impair any right or privilege
pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between a department and a
certified bargaining unit representing peace officers, or limit their
ability to negotiate and agree to a higher standard of rights or
privileges.