Administration of Justice update 5/9/2014
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 will be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on May 13, 2014.
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 will be heard in Senate Public Safety Committee on May 13, 2014.
Probation
AB 2314 (Hall) – Oppose
As amended April 23, 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, your 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 Assembly Public Safety Committee passed AB 2314 on April 28. During the hearing, the committee chair acknowledged the merits of the opponents’ testimony and. The bill next will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
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 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 29 and has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. We encourage counties 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.
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 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 14, 2014.