BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY A David Roberti, Chairman B 1993-94 Regular Session 3 1 0 AB 3103 (Ferguson) 3 As amended April 28, 1994 Hearing date: June 21, 1994 Penal Code LGK/jms RELIGIOUS MEETING DISTURBANCES HISTORY Source: Traditional Values Coalition Prior Legislation: SB 2483 (1990) - Chaptered Chapter 499, Statutes of 1905 Support: Capitol Resource Institute; individual pastors and citizens Opposition: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Coalition š for First Amendment Rights; individuals Assembly Floor vote: Ayes 64 - Noes 7 KEY ISSUE SHOULD THE PENALTIES BE INCREASED FOR WILLFULLY DISTURBING A šRELIGIOUS MEETING? PURPOSE Existing law provides that willfully disturbing an assembly meeting šfor religious worship, by profane discourse, rude or indecent šbehavior, or unnecessary noise, is a misdemeanor punishable by up što six months in county jail and/or a fine up to $1,000. This bill would increase the maximum jail sentence from six months što one year in county jail. (More) AB 3103 (Ferguson) Page 2 Under existing law, a court may require performance of community šservice between 20 and 40 hours as an alternative to imprisonment šor a fine. For a second conviction, in addition to any fine or šimprisonment, the court must order 40 to 80 hours of community šservice. For a third conviction, in addition to any fine or šimprisonment, the court must order 80 to 120 hours of community šservice. This mandatory community service requirement may be šwaived in the interest of justice. If the court orders community šservice, it may, consistent with public safety interests and with šthe victim's consent, order the defendant to perform a portion of, šor all of, the community service at the place where the disturbance šof religious worship occurred. The bill would increase the first offense permissive community šservice range from 20-40 hours to 50-80 hours; and the second and šsubsequent offense mandatory community service range from 40-80 šhours to 120-160 hours. The purpose of this bill is deter unlawful demonstrations at šreligious meetings. COMMENT 1. Expressed purpose of the bill According to the author: There have been several instances throughout the state where groups of people have congregated in front of churches and prevented parishioners from attending their Sunday services. On other occasions, people have disrupted church meetings by shouting, blowing whistles and pounding on church doors, all to disrupt services. Therefore, since the willful act of disrupting church services tears into the very heart of an individual's freedom to worship, we feel that an enhancement to the current penalty is certainly justified and much needed. 2. Need for additional penalties Materials supplied by the author describe the disruption of a Sunday Evening Worship Service of the Hamilton Square Baptist Church, in San Francisco, on September 19, 1993, when Reverend Lou Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition, was invited by the church to be the guest speaker. (More) AB 3103 (Ferguson) Page 3 According to the author, "homosexual and lesbian demonstrators began gathering around the church property as early as 5:00 PM." What ensued is described as a "riot", during which persons were injured, terrified, and verbally abused by the demonstrators. Reportedly, no arrests were made. It is unclear how the penalty increases in this bill would have altered the situation in San Francisco. If the police would not arrest the Hamilton Square Baptist Church demonstrators under current law, it is not clear that they would react differently under the provisions of this bill. Supporters point out that churches should be able to exercise their fundamental rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble. Deliberate attempts to deny these fundamental rights should be appropriately penalized. 3. Legislative history The prohibition against disturbing religious meetings became law in 1872 and was amended in 1905. It has been amended only one other time, in 1990, by SB 2483 (Russell, Chapter 822, Statutes of 1990), at the request of the sponsor of this bill. That bill added the proviso that the religious meeting take place at a tax-exempt place of worship, and created the community service requirements. 4. Community service This bill would increase, by as much as three times, the requirement that offenders perform community service. Existing law permits, but does not require, the court to order community service of between 20 and 40 hours as an alternative to imprisonment or fine for first time offenders. This bill would raise the minimum hours to 50 and the maximum hours to 80. Since the number of hours is permissive and the court is not required to impose any community service, it seems that the sponsor's objectives would be better served if the provision authorized a maximum but no minimum. In that way, the court could impose 40 hours (or 20) if it were deemed appropriate. Under the provisions of this bill, the court may impose zero hours or at least 50, but may not impose any amount in between. SHOULD NOT THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR FIRST TIME OFFENDERS BE ELIMINATED? (More) AB 3103 (Ferguson) Page 4 Existing law requires the court to order community service of between 40 and 80 hours in addition to imprisonment or fine for second time offenders and between 80 and 120 hours for third and subsequent offenders. This bill would raise the minimum number of required hours to 120 and the maximum to 160, making the new minimum twice the old maximum. By tripling the base, little latitude is left to the judge. Since there is a provision in existing law to waive the service requirements in the interest of justice, it is likely that many more persons would be exempted from any service because of the high minimum. A 50% increase from current law, to 60 hours, might be more appropriate as the minimum community service required of repeat offenders. SHOULD NOT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIRED OF REPEAT OFFENDERS BY THIS BILL BE REDUCED? 5. Opposition Some of the opponents are concerned about providing religious establishments with more protection than other professional or tax exempt businesses or groups. They believe that any protections applicable to religious meetings should also apply to health clinics and other places which tend to be the subject of demonstrations. Opponents also question whether this increased penalties proposed by this bill might chill freedom of dissent in peaceable demonstrations. *********