Sea Horse wrote:You cannot simply take a single line from California Code and take it out of its context and try to apply it broadly in all situations. It wasn't written broadly for all situations. It was written by a human. It's new. It hasn't been tested, found deficient, then edited to more closely match what the drafters wanted it to mean.
I think the more important point of the first sentence is "regardless of the citizenship of the person". Many Human Trafficked victims are not in legal status with regards the Immigration Service. If such a victim is found, many would ordinarily be deported. The police departments, if they want to convict the perpetrator, must keep these "out of status" or "undocumented aliens" (aka "illegal aliens") for a long time (even years) until the case comes to trial. They must work with the Immigration Services (USCIS & ICE) to enable them to keep these victims (witnesses) here to effect a prosecution.
It's possible that the drafters of the new piece of Calif Penal Code wanted to ensure that law enforcement would not discount a victim (discriminate) based on their potentially illegal immigration status.
You might want to find the reports which lead to the change in the Penal Code. That will describe what they were trying to fix in the code (what the earlier problems or code deficiencies were) and what solutions they wanted with the new language.
Posting a link here would be most helpful.
So authorities are required to expend less
effort to find victims of human trafficking who happen to be US nationals? That would ignore the volumes of analysis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
By "the reports which lead to the change in the Penal Code," do you mean the legislative history
? It is included in the link I posted in my initial mention of the new statute.
I just learned today that California has new laws relating to human trafficking, which go into effect January 1, 2009.
For the full text of the primary bill, go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
and search for Assembly Bill 2810.
(Note: you will need to search the prior legislative session, not 2009-2010.)
Sea Horse wrote:Ah, here's the part about why CA Penal Code 236.2 included the words "regardless of the citizenship of the person" and why that is a key part of the sentence and intimately connected with the prior phrase "Law enforcement agencies shall use due diligence to identify all victims of human trafficking" -- and why the two phrases cannot be separated and only the first phrase used (as per spacecootie's assertions).
Sea Horse wrote:In other words, the reason for including the entire sentence ("Law enforcement agencies shall use due diligence to identify all victims of human trafficking, regardless of the citizenship of the person.") is to encourage -- nay, require -- law enforcement personnel to determine if HT was occuring when they were originally investigating into or raiding for "something else".
It is a basic maxim of statutory construction that a former clause controls over the latter; the broader command to use due diligence to identify victims of human trafficking takes precedence, so the statute is not limited to the narrower requirement of using certain criteria to identify victims in certain circumstances.
The stuff you quoted is not part of the legislative history of this particular statute, so not relevant (as is so much of your copypasta). The Legislative Analyst's report on the final draft of AB 2810, as passed by both chambers of the state legislature, signed by the governor, and chaptered, states:
Legislative Analysis of AB2801 wrote:
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Trafficking into the United States is an acknowledged problem, but often ignored is the fact that trafficking of American citizens also occurs domestically within U.S. borders. Law enforcement personnel, social workers, and legal personnel must be trained to understand that American Citizens as well as non-citizens are trafficked within the United States."
Viewed in light of the comments that are part of the history of this particular legislation, it becomes apparent that the "regardless of citizenship" language is there to express legislative intent that US Citizens are not ignored as victims of human trafficking.
The due diligence requirement to "identify victims of human trafficking" speaks for itself. The following clauses, requiring law enforcement to consider specific criteria when contacting people who have been confined, or arrested for specific sex crimes, are subordinate to the due diligence requirement.
However, it is really unnecessary go get into the legislative history. "If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, 'then the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.' [Citation.] 'Where the statute is clear, courts will not "interpret away clear language in favor of an ambiguity that does not exist." [Citation.]' " Lennane v. Franchise Tax Board
(1994) 9 Cal. 4th 263, 268
1. The command to law enforcement to "use due diligence to identify all
victims of human trafficking" (emphasis mine) is unambiguous.
2. The phrase "regardless of the citizenship of the person" means just what it says: that due diligence must be used to identify all
victims, without considering, one way of the other, whether or not they are US citizens.
3. The remaining mandates that law enforcement consider certain criteria when encountering people under certain circumstances do not limit the requirement to "use due diligence to identify all
victims of human trafficking."