Guest Commentary written by

Jess Huang

Jess Huang

Jess Huang is a former political staffer with experience in every level of government. She works for a Washington D.C. anti-monopoly think tank and is currently authoring three books.

On Valentine’s Day weekend, my ex-boyfriend assaulted me and threatened to kill me. He’s 440 pounds and 6-foot-6. I’m 137 pounds and a foot shorter. But when I called the local police department, they arrested me instead.

Never mind my injuries. Never mind the overwhelming size difference. Never mind the clear evidence of assault — the open beer can my ex threw at my head, the knife he thrust at me, demanding I stab him in the heart.

None of it mattered. 

Under the California Penal Code, officers must make an arrest in domestic violence cases when they determine probable cause. Enacted in 1986, this specific provision was meant to protect victims.  

The problem? The law assumes officers are trained to identify the dominant aggressor, but research shows that training gaps and the code’s mandatory arrest provision often pressures them into rushed, surface-level decisions. Experts say this creates too much room for error. 

That night, the evidence seemed clear. Yet, the officer focused on a cut on my ex’s finger, and believed his claim that I was responsible. He ignored my statement that my ex had threatened me with a knife and cut himself. 

He also ignored a textbook sign of domestic abuse: my ex confiscated car keys before attacking me, sneering, “Try to get to the airport now.” Coercive control is a widely recognized abuse tactic. 

Instead, the officer charged me with “corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant” over the cut, and treated my attempts to retrieve the keys as a criminal act. The charge, a more serious offense than domestic battery, carries a sentence of up to four years and is typically reserved for traumatic injuries.

My ex, on the other hand, wasn’t arrested that night. He was provided mental health resources. This underscores how training gaps can lead to wrongful arrests and excessive charges.  

In jail, I met two 22-year-old women who were also arrested under the same penal code in similar cases. Like me, their partners weren’t charged.

I was lucky. I made bail, found a good criminal defense attorney and the district attorney dropped my charges due to lack of evidence. But it could have been much worse. Penal Code 13701 escalates most domestic violence arrests to felony charges, meaning my decision to call the police could have ruined my life. 

Since then, I’ve reached out to former legislative contacts to push for change. What I found was alarming: Most elected officials have little grasp of the penal code’s consequences.

Only state Sen. Steven Choi’s office took me seriously, agreeing to at least explore legislation during the next session. One office dismissed me outright; another deflected me to clinics.

A system meant to protect survivors shouldn’t work this way.

The Legislature and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office need to act now to stop more victims from being punished for seeking help. Penal Code 13701 must be reformed with better training and stricter guidelines to prevent biased or uninformed arrests like mine. 

This should include specialized training on dominant aggressor identification, higher standards for probable cause and mandatory on-site supervisor review before arresting a victim who called for help. Additionally, wrongfully arrested victims deserve a fast-tracked process to dismiss charges and seal records to prevent future harm. 

I regret calling local police that night. Trying to break a 14-year cycle of abuse has cost me everything from thousands in legal fees and therapy, to lingering trauma. The people meant to protect me failed me.

But regret isn’t enough. This was a wake-up call. If someone like me — with a resources and legislative contacts — can be failed, what happens to the victims without those advantages?  

That’s why I’m speaking up.