Public agencies: unlawful interference.
The enactment of AB 660 is significant as it expands the legal framework surrounding the treatment of unlawful interference at public agencies. By redefining certain activities as infractions rather than misdemeanors, the bill aims to better address issues of obstruction and intimidation while also providing a specific legal recourse against those who deceive others about laws when interacting with public agencies. This change is also set to impose a state-mandated local program under the California Constitution, although the bill specifies that no reimbursement will be required for local agencies or school districts due to the nature of the newly created infraction. This adjustment could lead to an increase in penalties for individuals engaging in such deceptive conduct.
Assembly Bill No. 660 aims to amend Section 602.1 of the California Penal Code, specifically addressing unlawful interference with the operations of public agencies. The legislation updates existing law which categorized intentional obstruction or intimidation of lawful business conducted by public agencies as a misdemeanor. The proposed amendment introduces a new infraction for individuals who make material misrepresentations of the law while attempting to transact business with public agencies and subsequently refuse to leave when requested by agency personnel or law enforcement.
The general sentiment around AB 660 appears to be supportive among those who seek to uphold the integrity and efficiency of public agency operations. Proponents argue that clarifying and expanding the definitions of unlawful interference will help curb deceptive tactics that hinder lawful business transactions. However, there may be concerns from civil liberties advocates regarding the implications of broadening laws that govern interactions with public agencies, particularly about the potential for overreach or misuse of these statutes.
Notable points of contention surrounding the bill may arise regarding the balance between enforcement of laws against interference and the protections needed for lawful activities, such as union protests or constitutional rights. The stipulation that individuals engaged in lawful labor union activities or protected constitutional rights are exempt from these prohibitions serves to delineate the intended application of the law. However, there is an underlying concern that the expanded authority might be interpreted broadly by law enforcement, potentially infringing upon the rights of individuals engaging in protected activities.