Lifetime Restraining Orders Against Perpetrators Of Major Crimes bill Killed In Public Safety Committee

A bill to allowed a lifetime restraining order against perpetrators of major crimes was voted down in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday despite early indications that it had a decent chance of being passed.

Assembly Bill 1931, authored by Assemblywoman Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach), would have specifically allowed the court to issue a permanent protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of any serious or violent felony or any felony requiring registration as a sex offender. AB 1931, also known as Kayleigh’s Law would have also authorized the court to permanently extend certain previously issued orders under certain circumstances. Currently, restraining orders are maxed out at 10 years.

Assemblywoman Dixon wrote the bill because she wanted additional protections under the law. Specifically, she put AB 1931 into place because of  Kayleigh Kozak, who successfully lobbied for a similar law in her home state of Arizona in 2021. She worked with Kristy von Waldburg, an Orange County native, to urge the bill’s passage into law in California. Kristy is also a childhood sexual abuse survivor who advocates for crime victims, and saw the current temporary, 10 year maximum restraining order as not enough. Dixon also noted that under the current system, victims must encounter their perpetrator in court each time they want an extension, bringing panic and anxiety to victims each time.

While many in the legislature and analysts thought that AB 1931 would likely be passed this year, support for AB 1931 actually began to wane in the previous weeks. Many lawmakers thought that the law went too far, even with the possibility of amendments to make it more palatable later on.

The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) noted during the hearing that the bill would not only apply to sexual assault victims, but over 80 types of crimes in the California penal code, including robbery and carjacking. As it would also be made retroactive, the CPDA said it would create a logjam in the courts. Following more groups coming out in opposition, the bill was then killed in the Committee.

“There is a reason that survivors, like Kayleigh and Kristy, dedicate their time to advocating for victims,” Following the vote on Tuesday, Assemblywoman Dixon said. “It is unthinkable that without this bill, survivors must see their abusers multiple times in their life to secure a very basic protection of a restraining order. If a predator has attacked an individual resulting in a serious felony, violent felony or a felony sex offense, shouldn’t the victim be protected from having to face that felon again with a lifetime restraining order? Without it, victims are left to confront their fear – and re-live a heinous crime – over and over again. I am incredibly disappointed. By allowing Kayleigh’s Law to fail, the Committee failed to protect vulnerable Californians.”

Carolyn Ritter, a legal advocate for sexual abuse victims, told the Globe Tuesday that “Every indication was that this bill would pass. But everyone seemed to underestimate just how many would see the bill as going too far. A lifetime restraining order against a sex offender or someone who committed a major crime against them is something that has either been passed in states like Arizona already or is being considered. No one thought that California legislators would be so progressive to deny this one, but we were proven wrong today.”

“Dixon is right in saying that by not passing this, the state is failing to protect vulnerable Californians. It’s amazing that legislators decided that sex offenders and criminals were more important than abuse victims. And we all thought California was turning around. They’re boosting police funding everywhere, hiring more cops. They’re removing a lot of those progressive laws that protected criminals. But apparently they favor criminals over compassion.”

“The next time you see a news story of a woman frightened because her former abuser now lived nearby but there is nothing she can do because her restraining order ended, think back to this moment.”

It is currently unknown if an amended version of the bill will be tried again next year.