Administration of Justice 07/09/2010
Medical Parole
SB 1399 (Leno) – Request for Comment
As Amended June 23, 2010
Senate Bill 1399, by Senator Mark Leno, would establish a medical
parole program for physically or cognitively incapacitated or
debilitated state prison inmates. According to information
provided by the sponsor – the federal healthcare receiver over
the state’s medical and mental health delivery systems – 32
inmates alone (who are either in a California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) treatment bed or in an
outside hospital) cost the state $42.6 million annually. This
figure includes costs for both medical care and guarding.
CSAC – along with a number of county affiliates – continues to
work with the author’s office and sponsors of SB 1399, both of
whom appreciate and understand the county perspective on the
bill. There appears to be a joint commitment to ensure that a
medical parole program is designed in such a way as to avoid a
shift of the state’s expenses and responsibilities to county
governments. The measure was amended on June 23 to include
language that makes the state the payer of last resort for
medical parolees who do not have public or private coverage.
Additionally, there is an amendment to cover the costs of the
county public guardian if their services are needed by a medical
parolee.
SB 1399 was heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June
29 and passed out of committee on a 4-2 vote. It will be heard
next in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
DNA Labs
AB 2007 (Logue) – Support
As Amended on June 16, 2010
Assembly Bill 2009, by Assembly Member Dan Logue, is intended to
give local governments more flexibility in spending the local
share of penalty assessments on criminal offenses collected
pursuant to Government Code Section 76104.6.
Government Code Section 76104.6 was enacted in 2004 by the voters
as part of Proposition 69 — the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime
and Innocence Protection Act. Proposition 69 levied a $1 penalty
for every $10 imposed and collected by the courts for all
criminal offenses to fund the forensic analysis program outlined
in the voter-approved initiative. As of 2008, 75 percent of
the revenues collected through this fee are deposited into county
DNA Identification Funds. AB 2009 seeks to allow a county to
expend a portion of these funds for expenses using a
non-Department of Justice (DOJ) DNA crime lab to solve criminal
cases. Currently, there is a one-year backlog at DOJ crime labs,
and it is the author’s intent through this measure to give local
governments the option of accessing private labs for DNA analysis
to expedite cases.
This measure is being sponsored by Yuba County. AB 2009 passed
out of the Senate Public Safety Committee as part of its consent
file on June 29.
Vehicle Code
SB 949 (Oropeza) – Oppose
As Amended on June 30, 2010
Senate Bill 949, by Senator Jenny Oropeza, seeks to amend
Sections 21 and 21100 of the Vehicle Code to require that local
public safety officers issue moving violations under the
California Vehicle Code and not under local municipal codes, as
currently permitted under Section 21100.
SB 949 is attempting to address a practice employed by local
governments that makes use of existing authority to regulate
certain traffic violations through local ordinance. In these
instances, when a ticket is issued under the local municipal
codes, the fines inure solely to the benefit of the jurisdiction
issuing the violation and are not subject to the fees and penalty
assessments that attach to tickets given under the Vehicle Code.
Further, a violation issued under a local ordinance is not
reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles or to the driver’s
insurance company, and the fine is much lower than a driver would
pay under the Vehicle Code.
CSAC is part of a joint opposition effort along with the Urban
Counties Caucus, the League of California Cities, the California
State Sheriffs Association and other public safety affiliates.
The coalition is opposing the measure on the grounds that it is
attempting to usurp local control and take away a tool –
municipal codes – utilized by local jurisdictions to regulate
traffic safety. The most recent amendment to the measure protects
local jurisdictions authority to enact parking ordinances
pursuant to Chapter 9, Division 11 of the Vehicle Code.
SB 949 was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on June
28 and passed out of committee on an 11-0 vote.
Indemnity
SB 972 (Wolk) –Neutral
As Proposed to be Amended
Senate Bill 972, by Senator Lois Wolk, addresses the extent of
indemnity agreements between local agencies and design
professionals.
Currently, counties can include clauses into public construction
contracts that require a party to indemnify the county when
litigation arises involving that contract. In some instances,
counties require the design professional – the architect or
engineering firm – to fully indemnify the public agency for any
liability issue that arises during the construction and
subsequent use of the facility. SB 972 would limit the exposure
of that indemnity to only issues directly surrounding the work
performed by the design professional.
CSAC was jointly opposing this measure with the Regional Council
of Rural Counties (RCRC) because of the measure’s unintended
consequences that could result in counties and other local
agencies having to cover the up-front legal costs of a dispute
where the design professional has exposure and/or the design
professional has some responsibility to defend. Further, counties
feared that it could lead to local agencies having to
substantiate that the design professional must reimburse the
county or local agency for the share of legal costs when there is
clearly a shared duty to defend.
When the measure was heard in committee last week, the author
agreed to take amendments that would basically delete the
measure’s June 23 language and add the words “duty and” prior to
“cost and defend” in Section 2782.8(a) of the Civil Code. The
measure – as proposed to be amended – will not change existing
law but merely clarify it. CSAC and RCRC joined a coalition to
remove our opposition acknowledging the commitment of the author
to revise the measure and take the new amendments. We will be
monitoring the measure closely throughout the remainder of the
legislative session.
SB 972 was heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 29
and passed on a 9-1 vote.