Criminal street gangs: injunction: petition for exemption.
Summary
Existing law provides for injunctive relief from the unlawful activities of criminal street gangs, the duration of which is within the court's discretion. Existing law provides for injunctive relief from a person who engages in harassment, as specified, of a duration of not more than 3 years, and provides that, at any time within the 3 months before the expiration of the injunction prohibiting harassment, the plaintiff may apply for a renewal of that injunction by filing a new petition. This bill would provide that, in addition to any other administrative or judicial remedies, in an action relating to an injunction pursuant to specified provisions to enjoin criminal street gang activity, an individual may file with the court a petition on a form developed by the Judicial Council to exempt him or her from the injunction or portions of the injunction. The bill would require the petitioner to state that he or she meets specified conditions. The bill would allow the court to hold an evidentiary hearing and receive any relevant evidence in order to rule on any petition filed pursuant to these provisions. The bill would permit the court to require the petitioner to testify at this hearing. The bill would require the petitioner to notify any prosecuting agency that filed the action for injunction of the filing of the petition. The bill would permit the court to charge the petitioner for the reasonable costs of filing the petition. The bill would provide that its provisions pertaining to the petition process become operative on July 1, 2012. The bill would express legislative findings, declarations, and intent regarding the enactment of the above provisions.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Aug 2011
Senate Passage
Jun 2011
Assembly Passage
Aug 2011
Vetoed
Mar 2012
Introduced Feb 14, 2011
Vetoed Mar 1, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Jun 1, 2011 · Assembly Aug 31, 2011
How they voted
21–12
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 35
Jun 1, 2011
D
Democratic23
91% Yea
R
Republican12
91% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
27
Key actions
5
Committee
5
Amendments
1
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Veto sustained.
upper
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Sep 29, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Sep 29, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Aug 31, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (36-33-3)
assembly
Aug 18, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 6.) (August 17).
lower
Jul 6, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 16, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Jun 1, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (21-12-2)
senate
May 26, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 2. Page 1114.) (May 26).
upper
Mar 25, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 417.) (March 22).
upper
Feb 24, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 14, 2011
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
Roderick Wright
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 296
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 296. 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