Administration of Justice 08/27/2010
Vital Records
AB 1745 (Ammiano) – Enrolled
As Amended on June 10, 2010
Assembly Bill 1745, by Assembly Member Tom Ammiano, would repeal
and recast Health and Safety Code Section 103692 relating to fees
associated with the disposition of human remains. The measure
would permit the local registrar of births and deaths to charge
an additional fee of up to eight dollars (a fee currently capped
at $11). The revenue collected through this fee increase would be
deposited into the county treasury and utilized to support the
disposition of the remains of indigent residents of the
county.
AB 1745 is sponsored by the City and County of San Francisco. It
was enrolled on August 24, 2010 and will now go before the
Governor for his consideration and signature.
Vehicle Code
SB 949 (Oropeza) – Neutral
As Amended on August 20, 2010
SB 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
assessment distribution required for tickets issued 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.
A local government coalition has worked on SB 949 throughout the
legislative session. It has received no “no” votes in either the
Senate or Assembly. The author agreed to amend the measure to
delay implementation until July 1, 2011 to allow local
jurisdictions time to adjust to the change in law. With the most
recent amendment, the local government coalition, including CSAC,
is now neutral on the measure.
SB 949 is awaiting floor action in the Senate before moving to
the Governor for his consideration.
Indemnity
SB 972 (Wolk) – Neutral
As Amended on August 24, 2010
SB 972, by Senator Lois Wolk, addresses the extent of indemnity
agreements between local agencies and design professionals.
Under the provision of related measure by Senator Wolk (AB 573 –
Chapter 455, Statutes of 2006), which CSAC opposed, local
entities are restricted in their indemnity agreements with design
professionals. As such, design professionals can only be tendered
an indemnity duty if the litigation involves the direct actions
of the design profession in a specific project. Following recent
California Supreme Court decisions, the design professional
community believes it needs to strengthen current law and, thus,
put forth SB 972 (Wolk).
CSAC has been working with the Regional Council of Rural Counties
and a number of other local government groups to ensure that SB
972 does not impose additional liabilities and financial
responsibilities onto local agencies when a design professional
continues to have a duty to indemnify. Negotiations have evolved
over the last few weeks that have enabled CSAC and RCRC to remove
our opposition, including making the provisions of the measure
applicable only to those contracts entered into on or after
January 1, 2011 and further clarifying that the duty and cost to
defend is unenforceable in cases where the claim has arisen out
of negligence or the recklessness or willful misconduct of the
design professional. CSAC would like to acknowledge the
leadership and coordinating efforts of the California Special
Districts Association over the past several months.
SB 972 is currently on the Assembly Third Reading File.
Red Light Cameras
AB 909 (Hill) – Enrolled
As Amended on August 3, 2010
Assembly Bill 909, by Assembly Member Jerry Hill, would reduce
the base fine amount on right-turn-on-red violations from $100 to
$35.
According to the author’s office, AB 909 seeks to correct a
drafting error codified in AB 1191 (Chapter 852, Statutes of
1997). According to the author, AB 1191 was intended to increase
the base fine for left turn on red light violations and
inadvertently also extended the increase to right turn on red
violations. The drafting error became evident with the increased
use of red light cameras; in some jurisdictions, the majority of
red light camera violations have been for right turns and not
left turns as had been intended. In the author’s view, the danger
presented by a left turn on red violation – and the severity of
the impacts when accidents occur because of this violation – are
superior to right turn on red violations. As a result, left turn
violations warrant the $100 base fine and not right turn on red
violations.
The measure passed the Assembly yesterday and will soon be before
the Governor for his consideration and action.
Emergency Medical Air Transportation
AB 2173 (Beall) – To Enrollment
As Amended on August 20, 2010
AB 2173, by Assembly Member Jim Beall, would require a new $4 fee
on every Vehicle Code violation (except certain parking
offenses), with revenues dedicated to support emergency medical
air transportation. Counties may recall that Assembly Member
Beall pursued similar legislation last year (AB 1153).
At the request of the Regional Council of Rural Counties, the
bill authorizes counties to offset administrative costs
associated with creating a local an emergency medical air
transportation act fund and transferring revenue to the state on
a quarterly basis. Counties would also be required to produce an
annual report regarding any administrative costs offset from the
revenue produced by the new fee.
The application of the new fee would be subject to the “fifth
bucket” provision as specified in Penal Code Section 1203.1d,
which states that any “new” fee or assessment enacted on or after
January 1, 2009, is distributed only after the four other
priority “buckets” specified in that section are filled.
CSAC has been monitoring AB 2173 to ensure that it was structured
in a way consistent with the intent of the “fifth bucket”
provision. The measure has been enrolled and will soon be before
the Governor for his review and action.
Inmates: Incentive Credits
SB 76 (Committee on Public Safety) – To Enrollment
As Amended on August 20, 2010
SB 76, by the Senate Committee on Public Safety, seeks to clarify
existing law codified by SBX3 18 (Ducheny – Chapter 28, Statutes
of 2009). Counties will recall that SBX3 18 was enacted last year
to provide policy direction to enable the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation to achieve a significant ($1.2
billion) unallocated reduction approved in the 2009-10 budget.
Among the provisions, which became effective in January 2010,
were those amending the state’s good-time credit policy.
Although it was believed that SBX3 18 was only intended to
accelerate good time credits for specified state prison inmates
(related to good behavior or participation in educational or
vocational programs while incarcerated), the measure also
inadvertently amended good-time credits for county jail inmates.
SB 76 merely returns the local jail good-time credit policy to
what it was prior to the passage of SBX3 18.
SB 76 is being sponsored by the California State Sheriffs
Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California. The
measure was enrolled on August 25 and is currently on its way to
the Governor for his consideration and action.
Trial Court Restructuring: Technical Clean-Up
California Law Revision Commission Issues Tentative
Recommendations; Public Comment Due October 25, 2010
As noted in previous Bulletins, the California Law Revision
Commission (CLRC) is charged with, among other duties, revising
codes to reflect changes resulting from the significant
restructuring of trial court financing and governance that has
taken place over the last decade. Recently, the Commission issued
a tentative recommendation on Trial Court Restructuring: Rights
and Responsibilities of the County as Compared to the Superior
Court (Part 1), available online here.
As counties are aware, the CLRC is keenly interested in public
comment on its recommendations. Indeed, the Commission often
substantially revises its recommendations as a result of
stakeholder input. To receive timely consideration, comments
should be submitted by October 25, 2010.
The tentative recommendation proposes revisions relating to the
following topics:
- Funding of court operations.
- Management of courts and employment of court personnel.
- Accounting by the courts.
- References to a judicial district.
- Fines, forfeitures, and deposits relating to a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Bus. & Prof. Code § 25762).
- Money collected relating to a failure to provide proof of responsibility for a vehicle (Penal Code § 1463.22).
CSAC urges counties to review and provide comment on the suggested changes.
Managing Offenders with Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System
Public Comment Period on Task Force Report Closes September 17,
2010
As reported in a previous Bulletin, the Judicial Council’s Task
Force for Criminal Justice Collaboration on Mental Health Issues
began meeting in April 2008 and in late July 2010 released its
draft policy recommendations, which at their foundation seek to
improve outcomes for persons with mental illness in the criminal
justice system. The Judicial Council is now circulating the draft
report for public comment.
The multiagency, interbranch task force drew participation from
across the criminal justice, consumer, and supportive service
spectrums. In addition to judicial officers and court executives,
other task force members included a county supervisor, county
counsel, chief probation officers, mental health directors,
consumer advocates, state mental health and correctional
officials, public defenders, local law enforcement leaders, and
legislators or their designees. The task force was asked to
explore ways to improve case practices and procedures involving
both adult and juvenile offenders with mental illness, to ensure
fair and expeditious administration of justice, and to promote
improved access to treatment for defendants in the criminal
justice system. Supervisor Susan Adams of Marin County was CSAC’s
appointee to the task force.
In its draft report, the task force is advancing 135 specific
recommendations, grouped in the following broad topic areas:
- Prevention, Early Intervention, and Diversion Programs
- Court Responses
- Incarceration
- Probation and Parole
- Community Reentry
- Juvenile Offenders
- Education, Training, and Research
- Implementation (Recommendations 133-135)
It is important to note that the report acknowledges that some of
its recommendations may require additional funding, legislative
changes, and/or shifts in both culture and practices in the
criminal justice system. Other recommendations can be implemented
more immediately, without new funding or statutory changes.
Further, the task force made the decision to remove language that
qualified recommendations with such statements as “to the extent
possible” or “as funding permits,” given an overarching desire to
advance what the task force terms “aspirational recommendations”
that are intended to serve as a blueprint for the best and most
effective system response to offenders with mental health
issues.
It should also be noted that the CSAC AOJ Committee will hear a
formal presentation on the report – and what by that time should
be its close-to-final recommendations – at its November 2010
meeting. We urge counties to review the report and take advantage
of the opportunity to comment prior to close-of-business on
Friday, September 17, 2010. The draft report and
instructions on offering comments are available at this link.