Administration of Justice update 5/19/2014
2014-15 Budget
Trailer Bill Language on Key Public Safety Issues Now Online
–
Request for Review
Trailer bill language for several priority public safety budget issues is now available online, as detailed below. We ask counties to review the language as quickly as possible and offer any feedback to Elizabeth Howard Espinosa or London Biggs.
Additional Investment in Local Detention Facilities Focused on Programming/Treatment Beds
As counties will recall, the Governor’s January budget proposed an additional $500 million for the local jail construction projects that emphasize programming and treatment space. CSAC remains in strong support of this proposal. It recognizes that the implementation of 2011 public safety realignment fundamentally changed the county jail function and that local detention facilities are wholly inadequate to provide the treatment and rehabilitative services needed to support better community reintegration, improved offender outcomes, and strengthened public safety. Dedicated funding for building the right jail capacity is but one element of a more comprehensive budget package that demonstrates the Governor’s commitment to strengthening counties’ ability to manage new criminal justice responsibilities over the long term.
Indeed, a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) identifies the need for significant additional investment over the next several decades to meet California’s jail capacity demands. The investment in building the next generation of jail facilities – facilities that can accommodate longer-term jail inmates as well as offer the space for programming, medical or behavioral health treatment, visitation, or exercise needed to safely and compassionately manage the jail population – remains a top priority for California’s counties.
The proposed trailer bill language that would guide the construction grant program is now available. Under this proposal, counties would be required to compete for the funds. Provisions regarding a 10 percent match and consideration of specific priorities – including the county’s pretrial population and use of a risk-based release program – are included.
Resources for Increased Court Security Costs in New Facility Construction
One of CSAC’s justice-related priorities this year is to seek a resolution to an emergent issue in the provision of court security. As counties will recall, the 2011 realignment of the court security function – which shifted the financial responsibility for covering court security costs from the state trial court system to the counties while keeping intact the sheriffs’ responsibility to provide the service — did not include a mechanism to address increased costs or service levels necessitated by new court facility construction.
The Governor’s May Revision includes a $1 million appropriation and proposes trailer bill language to establish a mechanism by which counties may seek funding to address increased levels of service following activation of a new court facility. As discussed in the May Revision narrative, Proposition 30 requires the state to provide annual funding for newly required activities (after October 9, 2011) that have the overall effect of increasing county costs in a realigned program. Recognizing that new court facilities built by the state and occupied on or after October 9, 2011 may impose additional court security responsibilities, the Governor’s May Revision includes funding and a process for evaluating changed service requirements in new facilities. The language outlining the latter process is available here.
10-Year Cap on County Jail Terms / Presumption of a Split Sentence
The Governor’s January budget also proposed the establishment of a “bright line” maximum jail term for 1170(h) offenders who now serve terms for felony convictions in county jail rather than state prison. The proposed language to carry out the long-term jail term cap is now posted here. Note that the language establishing a presumption for splitting sentences also included in this language, given that the same sections of the Penal Code are being amended.
We urge counties to review the trailer bill language and provide CSAC with feedback as quickly as is practical.
Criminal Procedure: Video Appearances
AB 2397 (Frazier) – Request for Comment
As Amended May 12, 2014
AB 2397, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, amends current law to allow for increased use of video technology for inmate court appearances. The bill is co-sponsored by the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California.
Specifically, the bill would authorize 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.
In our view, 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. If you have comments or concerns about increased video use for inmate court appearances in your county, please contact Elizabeth Howard Espinosa at or London Biggs.
This bill was supported unanimously in the Assembly Public Safety Committee and now awaits a full vote on the Assembly Floor.
Corrections: Inmate Transfers
AB 1512 (Stone) – Support
As amended March 18, 2014
AB 1512, by Assembly Member Mark Stone, would allow 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.
Under current law, the Board of Supervisors of 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. The transferring county must report annually to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the number of offenders who would otherwise be under that county’s jurisdiction and the reason for needing to house the offenders in an alternate placement.
This statutorily-approved process has been successful in providing counties with an additional criminal justice population management tool and the flexibility necessary to adjust to capacity fluctuations specific to each county’s local needs. Unfortunately, without legislative action, the authority permitting these necessary transfers to occur will expire on July 1, 2015.
AB 1512, which extends the provisions under existing law and allows for county inmate transfers to continue until July 1, 2018, is a forward thinking measure that preserves counties’ ability to adequately respond and provide appropriate housing and services to county inmates in a post-realignment world. It should also be noted that, as amended, AB 1512 would limit the transfer authority to specified sentenced populations.
This bill is currently awaiting a full vote on the Senate Floor.
Court Records: Sealing and Destruction
AB 1756 (Skinner) – Oppose
As amended May 1, 2014
CSAC is opposed to Assembly Bill 1756 authored by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, which would prohibit 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.
Under current law, when a petition is ordered for the sealing of a record, an individual, if that person is an adult, or the person responsible for the individual, if that person is a minor, may be required to reimburse the county and court for the costs associated with sealing the record at a rate determined by the county board of supervisors and the court. The fee is not to exceed $150 and the court may order reimbursement in any case in which the petitioner appears to have the ability to pay, without undue hardship, all or a portion of the cost of the service.
While CSAC appreciates the author’s intent to make the record sealing process more affordable for California’s youth, we believe that current law is sufficient in that it already provides that local jurisdictions determine whether petitioners have the ability to pay for services rendered. Further, under existing law, counties may choose not to impose a fee for the destruction of records all together as a matter of policy.
This bill places yet another financial burden on counties by limiting local authority for reimbursement for services at a time when courts and county probation departments are struggling for resources. For these reasons, CSAC must respectfully oppose this measure.
Assembly Bill 1756 has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations committee suspense file.
Counties: Search and Rescue Costs
AB 2151 (Wagner) – Support
As Amended May 13, 2014
CSAC supports Assembly Bill 2151 authored by Assembly Member Don Wagner, which would allow a city or county to seek reimbursement from residents in specified instances when search and rescue costs are incurred.
Specifically, this measure allows 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 require a person who is deemed as having the ability to pay to remit those funds to the city or county within 30 days.
Recent amendments require that a county or city wishing to implement the reimbursement provisions in the bill may only do so if the board of supervisors of that county or city passes a resolution or ordinance consistent with the bill.
Given the amount of staff and resources often involved in complex and time sensitive rescue efforts, in our view, this measure provides a much-needed cost assistance tool to ensure that search and rescue expenses do not greatly exceed a county’s financial capacity. For these reasons, CSAC supports the measure.
Assembly Bill 2151 currently awaits a vote on the Assembly Floor.
Mandatory Supervision
AB 2199 (Muratsuchi) – Support
As introduced February 20, 2014
AB 2199, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, would authorize 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 amends Penal Code Section 1203.1b to allow the court to order payment toward covering the reasonable costs of probation-related services and fees for individuals on mandatory supervision – a status created to give counties needed tools to manage the realigned criminal justice population.
From the county perspective, this bill 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. In addition, the bill does not change any existing provisions regarding the evaluation of a defendant’s capacity to pay or a defendant’s ability to set up a payment plan.
We agree with the author that this statutory correction is needed as a result of the changes in supervision responsibilities brought about by public safety realignment. The bill passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee unanimously and now awaits a vote on the Senate Floor.
Probation
AB 2314 (Hall) – Oppose
As amended May 7, 2014
AB 2314, by Assembly Member Isadore Hall, would 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 — are opposed to the measure, despite recent amendments that eliminate a blanket requirement that all probation officer must be armed.
Under current law, probation officers may be authorized by their employing agency to carry a firearm. It is our understanding that in a vast majority of counties – more than 90 percent – the probation department arms at least some of their officers. Arming decisions are – appropriately, in our view – arrived at locally, based on the needs, preferences and requirements of that particular community as determined by the county. This model works well and allows county boards of supervisors and chief probation officers to evaluate and assess the circumstances, caseload, and risk exposure that might necessitate officer arming on a case-by-case basis. Questions of officer safety; designating the specific personnel or caseload types that may warrant arming; and consideration of the rather significant issues of — among others — liability, cost, and training are all decisions best left at the local level.
AB 2314 would provide that if a chief probation officer has not armed or has not adopted a policy regarding arming probation officers prior to January 1, 2015, the chief probation officer must develop a policy by June 30, 2015. In our view, this measure is 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 may create unnecessary liability for counties.
The bill passed out of Assembly Appropriations unanimously and currently awaits a vote on the Assembly Floor.
AB 2373 (Hernández) – Oppose
As amended April 24, 2014
AB 2373, by Assembly Member Roger Hernández’s, relates to county probation department funding. Despite recent amendments that improve the content of the bill, CSAC remains opposed.
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, remains objectionable. It would create 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 set a precedent for other constituencies to seek a similar process. As drafted, AB 2373 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 is unacceptable. It sets up an adversarial and one-sided process that will not result in the desired outcomes that may be 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.
While we appreciate the fact that the proposed amendments to AB 2373 eliminate other problematic requirements – such as the duty to perform a full financial accounting, this bill still presents structural and operational problems. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. We encourage counties to review the measure and weigh in with opposition.
Community Corrections Partnership Composition
AB 2526 (Gonzalez) – Oppose
As amended March 20, 2014
CSAC opposes yet another attempt to change the membership composition of the Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs) which comes in the form of Assembly Bill 2526 by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez.
Under the bill, the structure of local CCPs and their executive committee would be forced to expand to accommodate two additional members: a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police officer and a rank-and-file probation officer.
CSAC fears that allowing the passage of this bill would be just the beginning of additional legislation aimed at changing the composition of the CCP and its executive committee. CSAC, along with the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC) believes that successful implementation of realignment requires that these bodies do not become too large or unwieldy given their enormous public safety responsibilities under AB 109.
For these reasons, both CSAC and UCC oppose this measure. Unfortunately, the bill continues to move forward. AB 2526 was approved on the Assembly Floor and now awaits a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee. Counties are encouraged to review the measure and weigh in with opposition.
Vehicle Registration Fees
AB 2393 (Levine) – Support
As introduced February 21, 2014
AB 2393, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, would allow 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.
AB 2393 would amend Vehicle Code Section 9250.19 to allow 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 that were not previously imposing a vehicle registration fee to fund fingerprint identification programs, AB 2393 also allows these counties to opt-in to the program and begin charging the increased fee of $2 for non-commercial vehicles and $4 for commercial vehicles.
Please note that the bill contains a provision requiring a county to submit a resolution to increase fees to the Department of Motor Vehicles at least 6 months prior to the operative date of the fee increase. We have checked in with the author’s office as well as the sponsor of the bill – the California State Sheriffs’ Association – and it appears this provision is necessary to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles sufficient time to implement the fee increase.
Given the current – and continuing – fiscal challenges facing counties and local law enforcement, CSAC believes the additional authority to levy an increased vehicle registration fee will go a long way towards enhancing local efforts to enforce vehicle code violations and keep our roadways safe.
This bill was heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and now awaits a full vote on the Assembly Floor.
Collection of Court-Ordered Debt
AOC Issues Several Key Updates
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) recently announced the establishment of a trial court revenue distribution guideline page on the California Courts website. This page is designed to serve as a centralized resource for trial courts and justice partner stakeholders to access important information on trial court revenue distribution, including the Appendix C issued by the State Controller’s Office (SCO); revenue distribution worksheets; uniform bail and penalty schedules; upcoming and past training programs; and other related resources. This site is intended to complement the existing SCO revenue distribution page.
The AOC also announced that the SCO has issued Revisions 23 and 24 to Appendix C. Both can be accessed on the courts’ page and the SCO’s site. Revision 23 includes legislation effective January 1, 2013 with newly added or modified code sections in bold and a new table (Table 10) which covers the historical changes to code sections between the release of Revisions 22 and 23. Revision 24 of Appendix C includes legislation effective January 1, 2014. We also expect the SCO to release responses to the frequently asked questions received at the revenue distribution training held last year. The SCO has indicated that Revision 25, slated for release in January 2015, will address many of the survey requests resulting from the aforementioned training.
Finally, the AOC will be working with the SCO and trial court subject matter experts to provide a one-day training in June in Sacramento on the various changes reported in Revisions 23 and 24. Please stay tuned for further details with meeting and program specifics. Questions about these matters should be directed to AOC staff Bob Fleshman.
Judicial Council Legislative Proposals
Public Comment Due June 18
The Judicial Council has posted five new legislative proposals that would amend various sections of the Penal Code. Counties are asked to review the proposals, some of which relate to ongoing implementation of 2011 Public Safety Realignment, and provide comment by the June 18 deadline. A list of proposals – as well as links to language and details on the submission of comments – is provided below.
LEG14-04: Proposed Legislation (Jurors): Monetary Sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5
Leg14-07: Proposed Legislation (Criminal Justice Realignment): Sentencing Report Deadlines
Questions regarding these proposals and the process for submitting comment should be directed to Camilla Kieliger by email or phone (415-865-7681). The comment deadline is 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 18, 2014.