Administration of Justice 03/11/2011
Vehicle Theft/Inspection/Registration Fees
AB 674 (Bonilla) – Support
As Introduced on February 17, 2011
AB 674, by Assembly Member Susan Bonilla, would remove the sunset
date for the collection of an additional one-dollar fee on
vehicle registrations and an additional two-dollar fee on
commercial vehicle registrations imposed by a county board of
supervisors as authorized in Vehicle Code Section 9250.19.
Revenue collected from these fees is used to fund local law
enforcement’s fingerprint investigations of specified
vehicle-related crimes. The current authority to levy the fees
expires on January 1, 2012.
AB 674 is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
AB 1323 (Gatto) – Request for Comment
As Introduced on February 18, 2011
AB 1323, by Assembly Member Mike Gatto, would amend Vehicle Code
Section 9250.14 to require the courts to levy an additional
penalty equal to the reasonable investigative costs incurred by
vehicle theft enforcement teams when investigating specified
crimes. The measure is similar to AB 674 in that it is addressing
vehicle theft; however, the additional one and two dollar fees
authorized by the board of supervisors are not generating enough
revenue to combat larger vehicle theft rings and cover the cost
of investigations. According to the author’s office, this measure
is attempting to assist counties in combating these organized
crime syndicates by allowing for counties to recover their full
investigative costs by requiring the courts to levy the
additional penalty.
AB 1323 is being sponsored by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s
Department. The measure is currently waiting for referral to a
policy committee.
AB 316 (Carter) – Pending
As Introduced on February 9, 2011
AB 316, by Assembly Member Wilmer Amina Carter, would authorize
local law enforcement to conduct both agricultural and
construction vehicle theft inspections. If it is determined that
a driver is not legally responsible for the load, the law
enforcement agency is authorized to temporarily take possession
of the load and retain responsibility for that load. This
authority would also be extended to metal products. Assembly
Member Carter carried similar legislation in AB 237 (2009);
however, the measure stalled in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
AB 316 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee on March 22.
Brown Act
AB 582 (Pan) – Request for Comment
As Introduced on February 16, 2011
AB 582, by Assembly Member Richard Pan, would amend Government
Code Section 54957.6 of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Specifically, the
measure would require a local board of supervisors to provide
timely notice when a compensation increase for an unrepresented
employee is to come before the board for consideration.
AB 582 is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Local Government
Committee.
Civil Grand Juries
AB 622 (Dickinson) – Request for Comment
As Introduced on February 16, 2011
AB 622, by Assembly Member Roger Dickinson, would, among other
things, require a civil grand jury to meet with the chief county
executive or department head who is subject of the jury’s
investigation 60 days prior to the civil grand jury’s release of
its final investigative report. Further, it would require
meetings of the civil grand jury to be open to the public and
press unless the investigation is related to confidential
personnel matters.
AB 622 is currently awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
Corrections System Review
Little Hoover Commission Hearing on March 24
The Little Hoover Commission will hold a hearing on March 24 as a
follow-up to its 2005 report: Reconstructing Government: A Review
of the Governor’s Reorganization Plan Reforming California’s
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Many of the commission’s
recommendations in that report are elements of the Governor’s
current Realignment Proposal. The commission believes it is
timely to review its recommendations in light of the current
budget discussions and to evaluate how to implement those
recommendations successfully to improve offender reentry.
Panelists speaking before the commission represent county
probation, county district attorneys, the county sheriff and the
courts. The agenda can be found here.