Administration of Justice update 5/30/2014
Resolution Needed to Participate in Residential Squatting Pilot Program
AB 1513 (Fox) – Request for Review
As amended on May 6, 2014
AB 1513, by Assembly Member Steve Fox, would enact a pilot program that seeks to facilitate enforcement of trespassing laws against persons who are “squatting.” Under the current version of the bill, the pilot program is currently limited to the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County. This program, which would be in place through December 2017, is to “test the waters” for a system intended to curtail squatting in vacant homes on a permanent basis. AB 1513 is not “authorizing legislation” that local governments can adopt, but rather is legislatively enacting a program for local jurisdictions that can only benefit from the bill’s provision by requesting specific inclusion in the pilot program, which must be codified in the bill. Local agencies would be barred from participating in the program unless they are expressly authorized by the bill. Each local jurisdiction interested in being included in the pilot program needs to affirmatively so indicate using the following process: A resolution is needed fromeach local government entity that wishes to be listed in the legislation as an authorized participant in the AB 1513 Pilot Program.
The California Association of Realtors, sponsors of AB 1513, has asked for CSAC’s assistance in identifying any counties that may have an interest in benefiting from the pilot program targeting squatting. To be included in this measure, please communicate directly with Jaspreet Johl, Legislative Director for Assembly Member Steve Fox, who can be reached as follows:
Office of Assembly Member Steve Fox
Attn: Ms. Jaspreet Johl
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036
AB 1513 was recently approved by the Assembly and now awaits a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
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, 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.
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 (Stone) would extend the provisions under existing law and allow for county inmate transfers to continue until July 1, 2018. This forward thinking measure 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, the provisions of the bill would only apply to sentenced inmates and not those awaiting trial.
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.
AB 1756 would permit the charging of a fee only for persons aged 26 or older, regardless of ability to pay. While CSAC appreciates the bill’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 an unnecessary financial burden on counties by limiting local fee authority for reimbursement when it is deemed that the petitioner has the financial ability to pay for the services rendered. For this reason, CSAC must respectfully oppose AB 1756 and we urge counties to review this measure and weigh-in with any concerns.
AB 1756 was approved by the Assembly and now awaits a committee referral in the Senate.
San Diego County Regional Communication System
AB 2149 (Atkins) – Support
As amended May 20, 2014
AB 2149, by Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins, would authorize 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 would permit 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 will permit 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 is pleased to support AB 2149 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.
AB 2149 currently awaits a vote on the Senate Floor.
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 passed off of the Assembly Floor without a dissenting vote and now awaits a hearing in the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance.
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 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. AB 2199 is a necessary and reasonable statutory correction. All existing provisions regarding the ability to set up payment plans and evaluate a defendant’s ability to pay remain. For these reasons, CSAC supports AB 2199.
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 off of the Assembly Floor without a dissenting vote and now awaits a hearing in Senate Public Safety Committee.
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.
Specifically, 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 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.
A fiscal analysis of these county-imposed registration fees performed in 2011 found that the surcharge generates approximately $29 million annually for the 45 participating counties. Further, the analysis concluded that all costs to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the State Controller’s Office are fully recovered from fee revenues.
Given the current – and continuing – fiscal challenges facing counties and local law enforcement, CSAC believes the increased vehicle registration fee provided for in AB 2393 will go a long way towards enhancing local efforts to enforce vehicle code violations and keep our roadways safe.
This bill was approved by the Assembly and now awaits a committee referral in the Senate.
Criminal Procedure: Video Appearances
AB 2397 (Frazier) – Support
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.
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. For these reasons CSAC is pleased to support the measure.
This bill passed unanimously off of the Assembly Floor and now awaits a hearing in Senate Public Safety Committee.