Administration of Justice update 10/3/2014
2014-15 Budget Trailer Bills
Several budget trailer bills were acted on by the Legislature in the closing days of session to clarify and correct certain provisions of the 2014-15 budget. A few with provisions relevant to public safety / justice budget items are highlighted below; all of these measures were signed into law, with provisions effective immediately:
AB 1476 (Assembly Budget Committee) Changes to 2014-15 Budget
Act
Chapter No. 663, Statutes of 2014
AB 1476 makes a variety of changes to the 2014-15 Budget Act (SB 852), including the following adjustments or corrections to justice-related budget items of interest.
- Deletes from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) a $5 million appropriation associated with social innovation bonds. (This item is restored and redirected to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) in SB 875.)
- Clarifies that the $11.3 million appropriated to the BSCC is to be directed to probation departments for express purpose of addressing the limited-term increase in post-release community supervision population resulting from the increased credit earning required in the February 2014 three-judge panel order.
- Appropriates $27 million from the Judicial Branch’s Immediate and Critical Needs Account for preliminary plans and working drawings for the New Sacramento Court House.
SB 875 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee) – Public
Safety Trailer Bill Clean-up
Chapter No. 686, Statutes of 2014
- Appropriates $5 million to the BSCC for the social innovation financing program (redirected from OPR, as noted above). As detailed in last week’s Bulletin, Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins’ measure, AB 1837, is the accompanying legislative vehicle to establish the social innovation program.
- Makes technical changes to parole hearing notification process (by authorizing regular rather than certified mail notification in certain instances)
SB 877 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee) – Jail
Construction Bond Clean-Up
Chapter No. 688, Statutes of 2014
Eliminates duplicative language authorizing an additional $500
million in state lease-revenue bond capacity for local jail
rehabilitative facilities. SB 863 remains the stand-alone measure
that codifies these provisions. (SB 877 strips unnecessary and
repetitive language from AB 1468, the previously enacted public
safety trailer bill.)
Social Innovation Bonds
AB 1837 (Atkins) – Request for Comment
Chapter No. 802, Statutes of 2014
AB 1837, by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, establishes a framework for the issuance of up to $5 million in social innovation or pay-for-success bonds. An appropriation of the same amount included in the 2014-15 budget (see discussion of AB 1476 and SB 875 in the trailer bill section above) – part of the Recidivism Reduction Fund expenditures – is contingent upon authorizing legislation. This measure serves as that authorizing vehicle.
The measure dedicates grant funds, as specified, to social innovation financing contracts, which are agreements among government, private investors, and service providers under which the investors provide financing to service providers based on agreed-upon outcomes. In return, the governmental entity agrees to pay a return on the investment if the service provider achieves a successful programmatic outcome.
AB 1837 expresses legislative intent that this grant program, with the support of available philanthropic and private investment, would be dedicated to a variety of approaches shown to be successful in reducing recidivism – including strategies to address homelessness, substance use disorder treatment, and unemployment.
The measure creates the Social Innovation Financing Program, with specifications regarding required elements of grant applications. The Board of State and Community Corrections, the administering entity of the program, will solicit applications from interested county boards of supervisors. Three counties would be selected to receive grants of between $500,000 and $2 million (for a total not to exceed $5 million) to enter into contracts with interested investors. AB 1837 also identifies required elements of grant applications as well as expectations regarding performance targets. Successful county applicants would be permitted to use up to 10 percent of the award grant to develop the pay for success financing contract. The provisions of the measure sunset in 2020.
Collections Issues
AB 2085 (Fox) – Concerns
Died
AB 2085, by Assembly Member Steve Fox, would have established a new amnesty program for misdemeanor violations. CSAC raised two primary concerns: 1. whether the jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach outlined in the bill was appropriate and 2. whether the timing was right to launch another amnesty program given that the last effort to collect outstanding debt under a similar program concluded only 18 months prior to the bill’s introduction. The bill could have potentially resulted in additional debt collection for counties and courts that choose to participate by providing a financial incentive for debtors to pay fines owed who otherwise would have been unlikely to resolve the debt. However, AB 2085 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2199 (Muratsuchi) – Support
Chapter No. 468, Statutes of 2014
AB 2199, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, authorizes the court
to direct specified defendants to pay all or a portion of the
reasonable cost of probation-related services.
Specifically, AB 2199 responds to the December 2013 (Peo. v.
Fandinola) appellate court opinion that found that neither
section 1203.1b of the California Penal Code, nor any other
statutory provision permits charging probation fees to a person
on mandatory supervision. As a result, this bill simply amended
current law to allow the court to order an individual on
mandatory supervision to contribute toward the reasonable costs
of probation-related services and fees. As you recall, mandatory
supervision was a status created under 2011 Public Safety
Realignment to give counties needed tools to manage the realigned
criminal justice population.
From the county perspective, AB 2199 makes a great deal of sense given that there is virtually no difference between the probation-related duties and responsibilities associated with mandatory supervision and other types of probation services where defendants currently contribute toward the cost of supervision. All existing provisions regarding the ability to set up payment plans and evaluate a defendant’s ability to pay remain.
AB 2151 was signed into law on September 19.
AB 2332 (Wieckowski)
Died
AB 2332, by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski, would have restricted trial courts’ use of contracts for personal services beginning with contracts entered into or renewed as of January 1, 2015, as specified. The bill specifically exempted a contract between trial courts or between a court and a local government agency. AB 2332 also would have required disclosure of certain financial information as well as impose audit requirements. The measure was similar to AB 566, also authored by Assembly Member Wieckowski, of last year, which was vetoed. Some raised concerns that these measures would have the potential to impact local collections programs. AB 2332 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee in August.
AB 2645 (Dababneh)
Chapter No. 111, Statutes of 2014
AB 2645, by Assembly Member Matt Dababneh, requires a court transferring a probation or mandatory supervision case to another county to determine the amount of victim restitution before the transfer is made. The Governor signed this measure into law in early July.
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Died
AB 2724, by Assembly Member Steven Bradford, would have provided that the ability to pay a fine is not a prerequisite to filing a request that the court vacate a civil assessment, and that an agreement to pay a fine in installments or perform community service in lieu of paying a fine is sufficient for the court to request that the hold on the defendant’s driver’s license be lifted. The measure, which would likely have affected local agencies’ civil assessment collections, was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee
SB 419 (Block) – Support
Chapter No. 513, Statutes of 2014
CSAC supported SB 419, by Senator Marty Block, which clarifies the authority of local agencies to collect restitution fines from specified criminal justice populations and makes these fines enforceable by the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. SB 419, sponsored by the Chief Probation Officers of California, was signed into law by Governor Brown on September 20.
Specifically, SB 419 amends Penal Code Sections 1214 and 2085.5 to make it clear that local collection programs and agencies designated by a county board of supervisors have the ability to collect restitution from inmates that have either: completed their sentence in county jail; have been sentenced to post-release community supervision; or have been sentenced to mandatory supervision. The bill also clarifies that restitution orders for these populations are fully enforceable by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
SB 419 ensures that local entities tasked with the collection of restitution from county jail inmates who previously would have served a prison term prior to Realignment, as well as those in the community on mandatory or post-release community supervision have the clear authority to carry out the duties assigned to them. Amendments taken late in August provide further clarification necessary to improve restitution recovery at the local level.
SB 1197 (Pavley)
Chapter No. 517, Statutes of 2014
SB 1197, by Senator Fran Pavley, provides for the collection and distribution of restitution and restitution fines when a defendant is released on post release community supervision (PRCS) community supervision, or mandatory supervision. The measure further requires a county electing to collect restitution fines and orders to coordinate efforts with Franchise Tax Board. The Governor signed this measure into law on September 20.
Human Trafficking
SB 473 (Block) – Support
Vetoed
SB 473, by Senator Marty Block, would have added human trafficking to the list of crimes used to establish criminal gang activity. The measure was sponsored by the counties of San Diego, Los Angeles and Alameda, which have experienced quite acutely the problems that flow from sexual exploitation of vulnerable populations. Three of the top ten highest trafficking areas in the nation are located in California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the San Diego metropolitan areas. CSAC supported SB 473 given that it would offer law enforcement and prosecutors another tool to curb this growing problem by enhancing the penalties associated with human trafficking tied to criminal street gang activities.
While the Governor signed various other measures related to human trafficking, he vetoed SB 473, questioning the necessity of extending the penalties for these types of convictions. The veto message reads: “These sentences are more than three times the punishment that existed two years ago. SB 473 would add yet another set of enhancements, the third in nine years. No evidence has been presented to support these new penalties.”
Non-Homicide Trials Cost Assistance
SB 16 (Gaines) – Support
Died
SB 16, by Senator Ted Gaines, sought to address cost assistance in non-homicide criminal cases. CSAC and RCRC jointly supported this measure.
The program contemplated in SB 16 was modeled largely modeled after the homicide reimbursement program in which state financial assistance may be sought when costs greatly exceed a county’s financial capacity. Under this measure, counties could have applied to the State Controller’s Office for reimbursement of the costs incurred by the county. The program would have been subject to an appropriation by the Legislature.
In our view, SB 16 was narrowly crafted and sought to address only the most complex and costly cases that threaten to overwhelm a county’s ability to provide an appropriate defense. The reimbursement program only would have applied to cases in which the Attorney General is handling the prosecution due to the matter’s scope and complexity. The bill stemmed from a case in the author’s jurisdiction where a case involving a complex financial scheme is severely taxing the county’s resources. The measure was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee during its Suspense File hearing.
Court Records: Sealing and Destruction
AB 1756 (Skinner) – Oppose
Died
AB 1756, by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, would have prohibited
a court from charging a fee for the destruction and sealing of
juvenile court records when the record in question belongs to a
person who is 26 years old or younger.
The measure was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on
August 14.
Counties: Search and Rescue Costs
AB 2151 (Wagner) – Support
Vetoed
AB 2151, by Assembly Member Don Wagner, would have allowed a city or county to seek reimbursement from residents in specified instances when search and rescue costs are incurred.
Specifically, this measure would have permitted a city or county to seek reimbursement from a resident when search and rescue efforts necessitate the use of extraordinary methods and certain acts or omissions were a contributing factor to the need for search and rescue. The bill would further have required a person deemed to have the ability to pay to remit those funds to the city or county within 30 days.
Governor Brown vetoed the bill. Although he indicated general agreement with the bill’s intent to discourage unlawful actions that would endanger persons and rescue personnel, he indicated concerns about the bill’s “vague language that may create an incentive for counties to abuse the authority granted by this bill.” Given that counties are already permitted under current law to recover costs for search and rescue through a civil lawsuit if they can prove “gross negligence” on behalf of the rescued individual, the Governor encouraged the author to craft a future bill that strikes the right balance between appropriate due process and cost recovery for reckless misconduct.
Mandatory Supervision
AB 579 (Melendez) – Support
Chapter No. 12, Statutes of 2014
AB 579 by Assembly Member Melissa Melendez was an urgency measure to clarify that the period of mandatory supervision period begins immediately upon release from custody for individuals who have been given a split sentence under Penal Code Section 1170 (h) as a result of 2011 Public Safety Realignment.
This is not a new policy, but rather clean-up language necessary to correct a Chapter No.ing out issue created by 2013 legislation that amended the same code section and inadvertently removed the mandatory supervision language.
Governor Brown signed the measure into law on April 28, with its provisions effective immediately, ensuring county probation departments are – once again – able to initiate their mandatory supervision duties as originally intended by statute.
Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant
AB 2060 (V. Manuel Perez)
Chapter No. 383, Statutes of 2014
AB 2060, by Assembly Member V. Manuel Perez, creates the
Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant Program,
administered by the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB),
to provide grant funding for vocational training and
apprenticeship opportunities for offenders under county
jurisdiction who are on probation, mandatory community
supervision, or post-release community supervision.
Sponsored by, The California Workforce Association, AB 2060 was
signed into law on September 17. The bill requires local grants
to be used for services for the supervised probation, mandatory
supervision, or postrelease community supervision population.
Vehicle Registration Fees
AB 2393 (Levine) – Support
Chapter No. 292, Statutes of 2014
AB 2393, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, allows counties to impose an increased vehicle registration fee to provide additional funding for fingerprint identification programs used by local law enforcement to identify individuals involved in specified vehicular crimes.
Specifically, AB 2393 amends Vehicle Code Section 9250.19 allowing counties to impose an increased vehicle registration fee from $1 to $2 for non-commercial vehicles and from $2 to $4 for commercial vehicles to fund fingerprint identification programs which are used by local law enforcement to identify human remains and criminal suspects involved in vehicular crime. For those counties not previously imposing a vehicle registration fee to fund fingerprint identification programs, AB 2393 also allows these counties to opt-in and begin charging at the same rate as currently participating counties.
The Governor signed AB 2393 into law on August 25.
Criminal Procedure: Video Appearances
AB 2397 (Frazier) – Support
Chapter No. 167, Statutes of 2014
AB 2397, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, authorizes increased use of video technology for inmate court appearances. The bill, signed into law on July 21, was co-sponsored by the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California.
Specifically, the bill permits a defendant who does not wish to be personally present for noncritical portions of trial to submit an oral waiver in open court prior to the proceeding, or submit a written request to the court and would allow the court to grant the request in its discretion. Further, if the defendant is represented by counsel, the bill provides that a defendant’s attorney shall not be required to be personally present with the defendant for noncritical portions of the trial if the audio video conferencing system or other technology allows for private communication between the defendant and the attorney. Finally, the bill makes legislative findings making it clear that the bill does not expand or limit the right of a defendant to be personally present with his or her counsel at a particular proceeding as required by the California Constitution.
This bill has the potential to reduce costs associated with various judicial hearings and specified proceedings for local law enforcement without limiting inmate access to due process under the law.
Court Witnesses: Local Agency Employees
AB 2727 (Frazier) – Support
Chapter No. 170, Statutes of 2014
AB 2727, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, increases the deposit amount paid to local public agencies when an employee is subpoenaed to appear as a witness in civil litigation.
Specifically, this bill, which was signed into law on July 21, increases the amount that a party must pay to a local agency for each day an employee is required to remain in attendance and participate in court-related activities pursuant to a civil subpoena issued at the party’s request. The deposit amount prior to AB 2727 was $125 dollars per day; AB 2727 increases this amount to $275 dollars per day.
Probation
AB 2373 (Hernández) – Oppose
Died
CSAC remained in opposition to AB 2373, authored by Assembly Member Roger Hernández, relating to county probation department funding. The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Existing law requires the chief probation officer to identify in writing to the superior court presiding judge and the board of supervisors when, in his or her opinion, there are insufficient resources to carry out statutory or court-ordered responsibilities. AB 2373 would extend that provision to require a county board of supervisors either to (1) provide the needed level of funding identified by the probation chief or (2) respond in writing within 30 days that it does not have the resources to do so. The premise of the bill, in our opinion, remained objectionable. It would have created an unnecessary overlay to the county board of supervisors’ core responsibility to weigh and prioritize budget requests across dozens of county departments and hundreds of vital programs and services delivered at the local level. Further, the bill would have set a precedent for other constituencies to seek a similar process. As drafted, AB 2373 would have effectively elevates probation’s identified needs above all others in the county.
CSAC supports and values the work and significant contributions of probation departments. However, in both principle and practice, the approach proposed in AB 2373 was unacceptable. It set up an adversarial and one-sided process that would not have resulted in the desired outcomes that may have been at the heart of the bill. Questions of funding and how to deploy vital public resources across the vast array of county responsibilities are best managed in the open, public budget process that already exists at the local level.
SB 933 (Anderson) – Oppose
Died
SB 933, authored by Senator Joel Anderson, would have required chief probation officers to establish and implement a system of graduated sanctions for probation violations.
Under existing law, county probation officers currently have the flexibility to determine the type and level of supervision for offenders that is most appropriate to carry out court-ordered conditions of probation. While we appreciate the author’s intent to make sure evidence-based practices and sanctions are being implemented at the local level, SB 933 is, in our view, not necessary. As demonstrated by the tremendous success of SB 678 (Leno, Chapter No. 608, 2009), the Community Corrections Performance Incentive Act, county probation departments are already deeply engaged in the use of evidence-based programs across the public safety spectrum and have been taking proactive steps to reduce recidivism in our communities.
County probation departments currently use standardized decision making instruments and tools that are designed to determine the most appropriate sanctions for parolees who violate the conditions of their parole. These factors include the severity of the current violation, the probationer’s criminal record, and their assessed risk level among other key factors relating to their successful reentry. Our boards are working every day in collaboration with probation departments to carry out the substantial new duties under criminal justice realignment to help ensure its success. Rather than a costly mandate to codify practices that are currently well underway, what is truly needed are sustained resources and funding to ensure the success of evidence-based programs that already exist at the local level.
In our view, SB 933 was overly prescriptive. Science and research may lead us to different strategies in the coming years, and we fear the language of the bill would have limited counties’ ability to adapt to changes in best practices. For these reasons and because counties likely would experience major one-time and ongoing costs to establish and implement a graduated sanctions protocol for probation violations as outlined, we must regrettably oppose the measure.
The measure was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 2314 (Hall) – Oppose
Died
AB 2314, by Assembly Member Isadore Hall, sought to authorize any probation officer to carry a firearm in the line of duty as determined by the chief probation officer on a case-by-case basis under terms and conditions specified by the chief probation officer. CSAC – jointly with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), and Los Angeles County — remained opposed to the measure, despite amendments that eliminate a blanket requirement that all probation officers must be armed.
AB 2314 would have provided that if a chief probation officer had not armed or had not adopted a policy regarding arming probation officers prior to January 1, 2015, the chief probation officer must have develop a policy by June 30, 2015. In our view, this measure was unnecessary given that the number of departments (55 of the 59) arming their probation officers suggest that the local decision making process is working. The current process allows for counties to consider and make appropriate adjustments in light of the changed environment resulting from the implementation of 2011 public safety realignment. The requirement to put an arming policy in writing would have created unnecessary liability for counties.
The bill passed the Assembly, but was not heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee prior to legislative deadlines. Therefore, the measure did not move forward this year.
Composition of Community Corrections Partnership
AB 2526 (Gonzalez) – Oppose
Died
AB 2526, by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez, sought to alter the composition of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). The proposed changes were similar to previous legislative efforts to expand both the full CCP and executive committee membership by adding to two members: a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police officer and a rank-and-file probation officer.
CSAC and other public safety advocacy groups opposed the measure,
questioning not only the necessity but raising the concern that
passage of this bill could invite future composition changes that
would result in the body becoming too large and unwieldy.
AB 2526 passed the Assembly, but was not heard in the Senate
Public Safety Committee prior to legislative deadlines.
Therefore, the measure did not move forward this year.
Juvenile Placements
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Chapter No. 615, Statutes of 2015
AB 2607, by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, sought to facilitate swift placements of juveniles into out-of-home placements and minimize to the greatest extent possible keeping juveniles detained while awaiting an appropriate placement. AB 2607 underwent various amendments and ended up strengthening provisions requiring that minors or nonminors be released from juvenile detention as ordered, unless the court determines that a delay in release from detention is reasonable The Governor signed the measure into law on September 26.
Jails and Juvenile Facilities: Telephone Service Contracts
AB 1876 (Quirk)
Died
AB 1876 authored by Assembly Member Bill would have prohibited commissions in telephone service contracts for county jails and juvenile facilities, and would have required such contracts to be awarded to the lowest bidder.
This bill also would have required all current telephone contracts that provide telephone services to any person detained in a local adult or juvenile facility to be amended to eliminate commissions and other payments before January 1, 2016. AB 1876 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Inter-county Inmate Transfers
AB 1512 (Stone) – Support
Chapter No. 44, Statutes of 2014
AB 1512, by Assembly Member Mark Stone, allows the Board of
Supervisors of a county to enter into a transfer agreement with
another county to house local jail inmates when certain criteria
are met. The Governor signed the bill into law on June 23.
Prior to the AB 1512, a county may enter into a transfer
agreement with another county to house local jail inmates when it
is deemed — in the opinion of the sheriff of the transferring
county — that the current facilities for housing inmates are
inadequate to serve the population. The sheriff of the receiving
county must also concur that the facility where the inmates are
to be transferred has the capacity to handle the new population.
Once these two conditions have been satisfied, the boards of
supervisors in the two counties may enter into an inmate transfer
agreement.
AB 1512 extended the provisions under existing law and allows for
county inmate transfers to continue until July 1, 2018.
San Diego County Regional Communication System
AB 2149 (Atkins) – Support
Chapter No. 45, Statutes of 2014
AB 2149, by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, authorizes San Diego
County to enter into a contract with a private entity so that it
may move forward with a Regional Communications System (RCS) that
will connect and serve first responders in San Diego and Imperial
Counties.
Specifically, AB 2149 permits the County of San Diego to use any
competitive procurement method to establish an RCS and related
infrastructure, including a method that is outside existing
processes specified under the Local Agency Public Construction
Act. A new RCS is needed not only to replace outmoded technology
but also to better serve the burgeoning demands on the first
responder agencies in the counties of San Diego and Imperial. The
authority granted by AB 2149 permits the project to advance in an
efficient and timely manner, while ensuring a competitive
procurement process.
This vital project connects law enforcement, fire services, emergency medical providers, as well as local, state, federal, and tribal agencies operating in the two-county region. CSAC was pleased to support AB 2149, which was signed into law on June 23, as it will ensure that the region can (1) benefit from improved radio system coverage and increased capacity and (2) will be positioned to manage future system demands.
Residential Property – Evictions
AB 1513 (Fox)
Chapter No. 666, Statutes of 2014
AB 1513, by Assembly Member Steve Fox, sets up a pilot program in specified jurisdictions named in the measure – two cities in the County of Los Angeles and one in the County of Mendocino – to permit removal of persons unlawfully occupying residential property that has been registered with local law enforcement and verified to be vacant. The pilot program runs through 2018.
Department of State Hospitals Placement Evaluations
AB 2543 (Levine) – Oppose
As amended April 23, 2014
AB 2543, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, would have changed the process for undertaking evaluations for certain Department of State Hospitals (DSH) placements.
DSH has responsibility for providing mental health services to patients in five state hospitals and three in-custody psychiatric programs within state prisons. AB 2543, would have substantially recast the process by which two forensic populations are evaluated for placement into a DSH facility. Under current law, the court selects and appoints experts – with specified experience and credentials – to evaluate defendants who plead not guilty by reason of insanity (under Penal Code section 1370) or those found to be incompetent to stand trial (section 1369). Instead, AB 2543 would have replaced this process with an evaluation panel drawn from a pool of DSH psychiatrists and psychologists.
CSAC remained opposed to the bill for a number of reasons. It appeared to create a rather significant conflict by giving DSH the ability to authorize – or, more importantly, deny – placements. We were further concerned that this change could extend already substantial delays in state hospital placements.
AB 2543 failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Mentally Disordered Offender
AB 1065 (Holden) – Support
As amended January 6, 2014
AB 1065, by Assembly Member Chris Holden and sponsored by Los Angeles County, sought to provide additional notification to county probation departments should an individual’s Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) status change due to a court order. Specifically, AB 1065 aimed to extend the time the State would hold an offender after they had been declassified as MDO from five to 30 days. Additionally, the bill would have required CDCR to notify the county of a pending release of a former MDO within five days of a court order for release.
Although CSAC supported the bill given that additional notification and planning time before discharge would allow for more coordinated and safer releases into the community, the bill was held in Assembly Appropriations and did not move forward this session.