Administration of Justice update 10/18/2013
Prison Population Reduction Plan
SB 105 (Steinberg) – Support
Chapter No. 310, Statutes of 2013
Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 105, the compromise prison population reduction plan, into law on September 12, the day following its passage by the Legislature. The bill’s provisions went into effect immediately, giving the state the ability to work swiftly toward complying with the standing federal court order to additionally reduce the state prison population. As has been reported more recently, the three-judge panel – in a late September ruling – ordered the plaintiffs (inmates’ rights counsel) and the state to immediately meet and confer in an effort to achieve the court’s previously prescribed population cap of 137.5 percent of design capacity. The court enumerated specific elements for consideration during this process, which is being facilitated by California appellate court justice Peter Siggins; Justice Siggins is expected to provide the court with an update on the meet-and-confer program on October 21.
Two other key elements of the panel’s September order (1) prohibit the state from entering into contracts or other arrangements for out-of-state capacity and (2) grant a month extension – to January 27, 2014 – to give the parties time to confer and leave open the opportunity for the parties to jointly request a further extension or for the court to grant additional time on its own authority. In related news, the U.S. Supreme Court this week denied “for want of jurisdiction” the state’s underlying appeal of the federal panel’s prison population reduction order. That appellate effort had been supported by CSAC, individual counties, and a broad coalition of public safety advocates.
SB 105, as signed by the Governor, is intended to assure no early releases from state prison and – if the expenditures authority granted in the bill is not exhausted – directs savings to programs investments that reduce recidivism. The bill does not impose new programmatic responsibilities on counties, nor does it contemplate a sentencing commission. It affords policy makers and key stakeholders additional time to develop long-term, sustainable correctional solutions. There are several key components to SB 105:
Appropriates $315 million in 2013-14 to invest in capacity to
permit the state to comply with the federal court’s order to
reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity;
it assumes a further investment of up to $400 million in capacity
purposes for next fiscal year.
Provides for investment in recidivism reduction programs if the
federal court adjusts its order – either by giving the state more
time to comply with the existing cap or by revisiting the
required population threshold. Should the state come to a new
agreement with the court, then up to $75 million in savings – due
to avoiding capacity expenditures – would go to a new Recidivism
Reduction Fund, which would be appropriated by the Legislature
for services and interventions. Any additional savings
achieved beyond the $75 million would be shared equally between
the state general fund and the Recidivism Reduction Fund.
Improves the existing Community Corrections Performance Incentive
Act (SB 678 – Leno and Benoit of 2009) funding methodology to
ensure more funding certainty and stability for local programs
over the long-term.
Changes the timeline for comprehensive, long-term solutions as
contemplated by SB 105, the Governor’s proposal. An interim
report would be due to the Legislature by April 2014; a final
report would be due by January 10, 2015 – the date the Governor’s
proposed 2015-16 budget is due.
CSAC will continue to report on the progress of meet-and-confer discussions ordered by the court; the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of the state’s appeal, which is still being evaluated; and the state’s efforts to expand capacity as permitted by SB 105 – despite out-of-state contracting limitations subsequently imposed.
Judgment Interest Rate
AB 748 (Eggman) – Support
Chapter No. 424, Statutes of 2013
Governor Brown signed AB 748 into law. This measure, by Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman, amends the current calculation of the judicial interest rate charged to public entities. This bill was sponsored by the Urban Counties Caucus and supported by CSAC, various counties, and other groups.
Today, the interest rate for claims against public entities is 7 percent. By way of comparison, the interest rate on federal judgments is indexed to a Treasury yield, which currently sits at less than 1 percent. At a time of historically low interest rates, CSAC believes it is quite appropriate to revise the mechanism by which interest rates on claims are calculated. We are grateful for the leadership of UCC in sponsoring this measure and for the contributions many individual counties and other groups made in advancing AB 748 through the process.
AB 748 specifies that for any tax or fee claim that results in a judgment against a public entity, the judicial interest rate would be set at the weekly average one-year constant maturity U.S. Treasury yield. Further, the measure provides that for post-interest judgments, the rate on the claim would be the U.S. Treasury yield plus 2 percent. The bill ensures that in no case would the calculation exceed the existing rate of 7 percent annually. AB 748 maintains current law requiring local governments to pay claims promptly. We are gratified that the Governor signed the bill into law.
Identity Theft / Breach of Personal Information
AB 1149 (Campos) – Oppose
Chapter No. 395, Statutes of 2013
AB 1149, by Assembly Member Nora Campos, imposes notification requirements on local agencies if unauthorized persons access specified personal information. The bill, signed into law by Governor Brown, was amended late in the legislative session to avoid chaptering out provisions – meaning it now also incorporates changes to the same section of law made by another bill (SB 46, by Senator Ellen Corbett, also recently signed into law).
CSAC – as part of a broad coalition of public agency advocacy groups – opposed AB 1149 for fiscal and operational reasons, primarily related to (1) associated workload and expenditures and (2) a concern over the precedent that local governments – after some 35 years of being expressly exempt from its provisions – would be subject to a portion of the Information Practices Act (IPA).
The practical effect of double joining AB 1149 to SB 46 is that it may increase the scope of potential workload associated with the breach notification requirements in AB 1149. SB 46 on its own does not impose any new duties on local governments; it merely expands the definition of “personally identifiable information” to include the user name, password, and security questions – meaning that notification requirements apply to a slightly expanded universe of possible breaches.
Public Finance Trailer Bill
SB 100 – Watch
Chapter No. 360, Statutes of 2013
The public finance trailer bill signed by the Governor contains a number of clarifying and corrective changes. As it relates to public safety matters, we highlight three provisions of interest to counties in SB 100, summarized below. Please note in particular the discussion of ELEAS funds.
Distribution of ELEAS funds – An issue associated with the distribution of the various local law enforcement subventions funded out of 2011 Realignment (specifically the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount (ELEAS)) was recently identified. Modifications to relevant sections were needed to ensure that a fixed funding level for the booking fee replacement revenue ($35 million) and to subsequently ensure that all remaining funds can be appropriately disbursed out of the account. Since the amendments contained in SB 100 affect the 2012-13 ELEAS allocations, the State Controller’s Office held back a portion of 2012-13 ELEAS funding in order to true-up allocations in anticipation of this language being enacted. The holdback was necessary in order to ensure that 2012-13 allocations would be consistent with 2013-14, as well as the original intent of the language.
Counties should be aware that SB 100 is meant to correct the distribution mechanism and all funds (ELEAS has a guaranteed funding level of $489.9 million annually) are distributed as intended. Perhaps more importantly, counties should be aware that once all 2012-13 ELEAS funds are distributed, the $35 million in booking fee revenue will be reached, meaning that no county should be charging booking fees to their municipalities for 2012-13.
SB 678 Data Collection – SB 100 removes the requirement for counties to collect and report information on the number of felons who would have been subject to an 1170(h) sentence had felony probation not been granted. SB 75, the judiciary trailer bill enacted along with the budget, added this reporting requirement, but in several jurisdictions the information was not attainable. The data collection requirement related to that element has been eliminated.
Juvenile Interstate Compact Sunset Extension – The sunset date for the Juvenile Interstate Compact will be extended from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2016.
Vehicle Registration Fees: Vehicle Theft Prevention
AB 767 (Levine) – Support
Chapter No. 241, Statutes of 2013
AB 767, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, authorizes counties to increase vehicle registration fee from $1 to $2 for motor vehicles and from $2 to $4 for commercial vehicles. Proceeds would support vehicle theft efforts. This authority can be exercised only after adoption of a resolution by the board of supervisors. The Governor signed the measure into law on September 6.
By way of background, AB 1404 (Chapter 775, Statutes of 2012) authorized these increases for three specified counties. AB 767 expands the authority across all 58 counties and deletes the existing sunset on the vehicle registration surcharge. The revenues derived from the surcharge are dedicated to vehicle theft abatement programs. The bill maintains existing requirements regarding expenditure and programmatic reporting, and it specifies the vehicle-theft related purposes for the funds in counties. The bill also authorizes jurisdictions that may not yet have exercised the original $1 surcharge to approve a $2 surcharge, in accordance with procedures outlined in the bill.
Court-Related Issues
AB 566 (Wieckowski) – Watch
Vetoed
AB 566, by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski, would have limited trial courts’ ability to contract out for services. To ensure that the measure would not affect county-operated court-ordered debt programs, CSAC requested a letter to the journal, which enters into the legislative record the author’s intent regarding a measure.
The measure sought to establish various due diligence standards before a trial court could privatize a service. AB 566 would have expressly exempted certain enumerated contracts from the due diligence standards set out in the bill, including those between a trial court and other government entities. The letter to the journal requested by CSAC spelled out that the measure was not intended to affect county-operated enhanced collection programs or other collection services carried out by a county on behalf of a court.
Governor Brown vetoed this measure, citing that while he supports the notion that courts should carefully evaluate the most effective service delivery models this bill was overly detailed and restrictive.
AB 1293 (Bloom) – Opposition Removed
Chapter No. 382, Statutes of 2013
AB 1293, by Assembly Member Richard Bloom, is a Judicial Council-sponsored measure that, as introduced, sought to enact a variety of court efficiencies and revenue enhancements. After CSAC raised strong opposition to two key provisions in the bill, the measure was significantly pared back – and in its amended form – was enacted.
CSAC’s early opposition to AB 1293 was tied to proposed amendments to Government Code Section 76000 and to Penal Code Section 1463.001, as outlined below. Note that these provisions were eliminated from the bill April, which permitted CSAC to remove its opposition to the bill. AB 1293, as enacted, increases resources for the courts by creating a new probate fee. Specifically, it authorizes, until January 1, 2019, a new $40 fee for filing a request for special notice in a decedent’s estate, guardianship, conservatorship or trust proceeding.
Government Code Section 76000
Under the negotiated agreement that governed the transfer of
court facilities, courts and counties agreed – and the
Legislature approved – a policy that the counties would be
obligated to continue collecting and transmitting local
courthouse construction funds (CCF) to the state until all court
facilities were transferred and associated debt was retired. The
proceeds help the judicial branch provide the necessary support
for its assumed court facility responsibilities. As introduced,
AS 1293 would have required counties with a local CCF to continue
collecting that revenue even after court facility related debt
obligations have been met. Depending on a county’s circumstance,
this requirement means that counties would either have had to
re-establish the collection and remittance function or continue
the collection and remittance requirement in perpetuity. Proposed
amendments to this section were dropped from the bill.
Penal Code Section 1463.001
Under the negotiated agreement codified in AB 233, the Trial
Court Funding Act of 1997, courts and counties agreed – and the
Legislature approved – certain provisions that gave counties
revenue streams to permit payment of ongoing financial
obligations to the courts. Two such obligations are (1) for the
20 largest counties, an operations maintenance of effort (MOE)
and (2) for all 58 counties, a fine and forfeiture MOE. These
ongoing financial contributions (Government Code Section 77201)
support statewide trial court operations and represent a critical
feature of trial court funding reforms agreement – that the state
assumed responsibility for the growth in costs of court
operations, and counties’ responsibilities were capped at 1994-95
levels. Under the earlier version of AB 1293, courts would have
be permitted to keep deposits and benefit from the interest
associated with these revenue streams; had that provision been
enacted, counties would be given no choice but to find other
resources to make up the difference to meet our ongoing court MOE
obligations. CSAC was unalterably opposed to this provision,
which ultimately was stripped from the bill.
There is a long history of collaboration between courts and counties, and we were quite gratified that AB 1293 was amended to addresses county concerns. We appreciate the efforts of the author, his staff, and the Administrative Office of the Courts for their efforts in resolving counties’ concerns.
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva) – Opposition Removed
Two-Year Bill
AB 655, by Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva, sought to authorize the creation of a court reporters’ salary fund at the local level. CSAC had opposed a previous version of the bill that – while not mandating county contributions to the fund — set an expectation that counties would renew their financial obligation to support court operations. CSAC requested amendments to the bill, which permitted us to remove our opposition.
The concept of AB 655 is based on a local court reporters’ fund model that has been in place since 1945 and was codified statutorily in the 1950s. That program pre-dates the implementation of trial court funding reforms that, at their core, separated court and county functions; centralized financial responsibility for court operations with the state; and capped county responsibility at 1994-95 levels.
As revised, AB 655 authorizes the creation of a revolving fund and specifies that any proceeds are to be used exclusively for court reporter salaries and benefits. More importantly, it gives flexibility going forward to exercise this authority at the local level pursuant to opt-in, cooperative agreements among willing parties – without setting an expectation that counties or cities would be making deposits from collection of court-ordered debt or other sources. For these reasons, CSAC took a neutral position on the bill. We appreciate the willingness of Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, her staff, and the sponsors to work with us on our concerns.
The bill remains in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 139 (Holden) – Watch
Chapter No. 144, Statutes of 2013
AB 139, by Assembly Member Chris Holden, seeks to clarify that the $500 payment ordered by the court to an offender convicted of a domestic violence offense and given probation is an administrative fee and not a punitive fine.
The Bureau of State Audits (BSA) released a report in September 2012 regarding its review of 135 domestic violence cases in four California counties, which revealed that individual courts and county agencies use varying methods for collecting the payments made by individuals convicted of crimes of domestic violence and sentenced to probation. Further, the audit determined that there appeared to be varying interpretations as to whether the payment ordered by the court was a fine or a fee, which can affect the proper distribution of funds to local domestic violence shelters.
Among other provisions of the bill, AB 194: (1) ensures the fee is not subject to a reduction for time served; (2) permits the board of supervisors to request an accounting of special funds quarterly; and (3) authorizes collection of the fee even after the person’s probation supervision is terminated.
SB 366 (Wright) – Concerns
Two-Year Bill
SB 366, by Senator Roderick Wright, would have amended the way in which civil assessments are imposed and processed. As counties are aware, a civil assessment of $300 can be imposed – in addition to other fines associated with the underlying violation – on a person who fails to a pay a court-ordered fine or fails to or appear in court. The bill sought to give courts direction and authority to consider a person’s ability to pay civil assessment and give additional options for a person to resolve civil assessment by completing community service, if so ordered by the court.
CSAC identified a range of fiscal and operational concerns regarding SB 366. The author amended the measure, with a view toward refining its focus and mitigating workload concerns. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee identified significant costs associated with SB 366, and the bill was held on the committee’s suspense file on May 23.
California Institute for Criminal Justice Policy
SB 466 (DeSaulnier) – Watch
Two-Year Bill
SB 466, by Senator Mark DeSaulnier, sought to create a California Institute for Criminal Justice Policy with three main objectives:
- Facilitate a comprehensive and coordinated approach to delineate effective public policy and justice systems through the use of evidence-based practices;
- Undertake cost-benefit analyses of criminal justice legislation to develop and publicize a statewide plan for public safety; and
- Develop public safety strategies based on data and science that reduce recidivism and hold offenders accountable.
The intent of the measure was to create an institute modeled after the Washington State Institute of Public Policy, which would serve as a nonpartisan institution to implement sound criminal justice policy in California.
This measure was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Electronic Filing of Statements of Economic Interest
AB 409 (Quirk-Silva) – Watch
Chapter No. 643, Statutes of 2013
AB 409, by Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva, authorizes the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to establish an online filing system for statements of economic interest. The measure does not specify a timeframe for implementation, but requires the FPPC to conduct public hearings and solicit input about the implementation of the online system.
The enacted version of AB 409 reflects the substantive input of county clerks and elections officials, which is meant to clarify roles and responsibilities, ensure a smooth and orderly transition to an online filing system, and put in place necessary and ongoing coordination and communication with local filing officers as needed when the statewide online filing system is implemented. The bill also permits the FPPC to take a category of filers from a filing officer only if the officer authorizes the Commission to do so.
State Hospital Reimbursement
AB 610 (Achadjian) – Watch
Chapter No. 705, Statutes of 2013
AB 610, by Assembly Member Katcho Achadjian, seeks to ensure that host state hospital counties are not financially burdened with the cost of conducting involuntary medication hearings. The measure, signed into law by Governor Brown this week, was sponsored by San Luis Obispo County.
As counties are aware, there are five state hospitals in California. As part of their treatment, patients treated in state hospitals often are required to take medication. When a patient refuses, the state has the authority to involuntarily administer the medication. However, in the California Supreme Court Kanuri Surgery Qawi decision, the high court held that a superior court must rule that a patient is incompetent or incapable of making decisions or is a danger to themselves or others before the person is involuntarily medicated.
Last year – for patients housed at Atascadero State Hospital alone – approximately 100 petitions seeking orders for involuntary treatment with psychotropic medication were filed. San Luis Obispo County’s Public Defender office represented patients’ interests at these hearings, incurring significant cost for the county. Although host counties are not statutorily required to represent patients during involuntary treatment hearings, the state has determined that, in order to minimize disruption to the patient and reduce related security and transportation issues, it is in the best interest of the patient for hearings to be held in the host county rather than in the patient’s home county. Nothing in this measure compels a host county to provide representation; rather, it sets up a mechanism to reimburse counties that do so.
Given that existing law does not make clear who is responsible for non-treatment costs associated with involuntary medical hearings for these patients, AB 610 clarifies that, in addition to the state, the county where a patient committed the original crime is also responsible for all non-treatment costs associated with involuntary medication hearings required by law. Although the initial costs for the attorneys and related expenses of the hearings will be paid by the county providing the proceedings, the county where the individual originally committed will now be required to reimburse the host county a flat fee of $250 per case.
Probation
AB 36 (Dahle) – Support
Two-Year Bill
AB 36, by Assembly Member Brian Dahle, would have revised the appointment and removal process for the chief probation officer. It proposed to amend two code sections – Penal Code Section 1203.6 and Welfare and Institutions Code Section 270 – that currently govern the appointment of the probation chief. The bill would have conferred to county boards of supervisors — in conjunction with the court’s presiding judge or, in jurisdictions with more than two judges, in conjunction with a majority of the bench — the authority to appoint and remove the probation chief.
As detailed previously, CSAC supported AB 36. Under current law and practice, the superior court appoints the chief probation officer in the majority of jurisdictions. The board of supervisors already appoints in several large, populous counties. An 18-member the Probation Services Task Force — with representatives from the counties, courts, and probation — studied the probation chief governance issue during its comprehensive assessment of the probation system more than 10 years ago. One of the task force’s stated foundational principles was that responsibility and authority must be linked in the context of the probation chief appointment process. AB 36 is clearly consistent with this principle and CSAC’s long-standing position on this matter.
Before the bill was heard in its first policy committee, the author opted to hold the measure to permit counties and courts to continue working on collaborative efforts on the question of probation chief appointment.
AB 1040 (Wieckowski) – Oppose
Two-Year Bill
AB 1040, by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski, would have eliminated local discretion in determining whether and under what circumstances probation officers should be armed.
Under AB 1040, counties would have been required to arm and train probation officers even if just one individual on their caseload was deemed to be high-risk. CSAC viewed the provisions of AB 1040 as a blanket requirement that — taking into account but one factor — would have required the arming of virtually every probation officer in the state. CSAC, as it had with a similar bill in 2012, opposed this bill due to local control and cost issues. 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.
The author decided to hold the bill prior to its first policy committee hearing.
2011 Realignment
SB 199 (DeLeon) – Oppose
Two-Year Bill
SB 199, by Senator Kevin DeLeon, would have added two members to both the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and its executive committee: a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police officer and a rank-and-file probation officer.
This measure is similar to AB 2031 (2012), by former Assembly Member Felipe Fuentes. CSAC and many other public safety stakeholders opposed SB 199 and AB 2031 before it. Counties remain in the early stages of implementing realignment. Given the breadth and magnitude of this shift, we believe it is premature to begin making changes to the underlying statutory construct that supports the realignment planning and implementation process and are concerned that, if enacted, this bill could have been but the first in a line of changes that would make these bodies too large and unwieldy. It is also important to recall that the work of the CCP and its executive committee is open and transparent, so any and all stakeholder groups are permitted to participate in the process and offer input and perspectives.
The author opted not to move this measure.
SB 225 (Emmerson) – Support in Concept
Two-Year Bill
SB 225, by Senator Bill Emmerson, would have established – as it was proposed to be amended – a structure by which counties and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) could exchange inmates. CSAC took a position of conceptual support on SB 225
With amendments, SB 225 would have authorized a needed and practical tool that would give counties the ability to move its long-term jail population – defined as inmates with more than three years remaining to be served – to a state prison facility. In exchange, recognizing the state’s own capacity limitations, CDCR could transfer state prison inmates who have six months or less remaining to county jail. This one-for-one inmate “swap” would involve only those inmates who have been screened with a validated risk assessment tool and deemed low-risk.
Given the impacts of the long-term jail population on counties, CSAC appreciates the efforts of the author and the bill’s sponsor, the Riverside County district attorney, to craft a workable solution. Our conceptual support acknowledges the likely complexity of drafting the population swap mechanism, particularly given the state’s prison population cap.
The bill remains in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Medical Parole: Notification to Counties
AB 68 (Maienschein) – Support
Chapter No. 764, Statutes of 2013
AB 68, Assembly Member Brian Maienschein, requires the transmittal of information relative to medical parole hearings and releases to counties, as specified.
As counties may recall, CSAC and an array of county groups were actively involved in SB 1399 (Leno, 2010) that established California’s medical parole program. We provided technical input into the bill to ensure that the measure was operationally feasible at the local level, recognized the potential impacts and interactions with county governments, and maximized the use of federal funds for covering the medical costs of individuals released onto this new status.
AB 68, sponsored by San Diego County, seeks to enhance communication associated with the hearing process for medical parole candidates as well as the subsequent release process. These details were not specified in the original measure but will be helpful to counties, particularly in instances where the recipient county may not be the county of commitment. The bill is narrowly crafted and seeks to help ensure that pertinent information about the inmate and plans for his or her post-release care are transmitted on a timely basis to affected jurisdictions.
Mentally Disordered Offenders
AB 1065 (Holden) – Support
Two-Year Bill
AB 1065, by Assembly Member Chris Holden, sought to clarify that any offender who has been designated a mentally disordered offender (MDO) – even if the person’s MDO status changes – would be subject to parole rather than probation jurisdiction when released into the community.
Given the particularly acute needs of this population, CSAC supported AB 1065 in that it maintains consistency with the framework of 2011 public safety realignment that designated parole responsibility for the MDO population. To ensure appropriate continuity of care, we share the view that existing and those previously designated as MDOs are best served by remaining under the supervision of state parole.
AB 1065 remains in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Local Government Liability
AB 265 (Gatto) – Support
Chapter No. 74, Statutes of 2012
AB 265, by Assembly Member Mike Gatto, relates to dog parks and local governmental liability. Specifically, the measure – in new Government Code Section 831.7.5 – provides that local governments that own or operate a dog park have civil immunity from harm or death that result solely from the actions of a dog in the dog park. CSAC supported this measure. Governor Brown signed the measure into law.
Non-Homicide Trials Cost Assistance
SB 16 (Gaines) – Support
Two-Year Bill
SB 16, by Senator Ted Gaines, seeks to address cost assistance in non-homicide criminal cases. CSAC and RCRC jointly support this measure.
SB 16 would create a cost assistance program largely modeled after the homicide reimbursement program in which state financial assistance may be available when costs greatly exceed a county’s financial capacity. Under this measure, counties could apply to the State Controller’s Office if costs in a non-homicide trial exceed a specified threshold of the county’s assessed property value. The program would be subject to an appropriation by the Legislature.
In our view, SB 16 is narrowly crafted and seeks to address only the most complex and costly cases that threaten to overwhelm a county’s ability to provide an appropriate defense. The reimbursement program only would apply to cases in which the Attorney General is handling the prosecution due to the matter’s scope and complexity. The bill stems from a case in the author’s jurisdiction where a case involving a complex financial scheme is severely taxing the county’s resources.
The bill remains in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Victim Restitution
AB 934 (Cooley) – Watch
Chapter No. 457, Statutes of 2013
AB 934, by Assembly Member Ken Cooley, requires a local agency to document that it has made a reasonable effort to locate a victim who is owed restitution before any unclaimed funds are distributed. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office sponsored the measure.
The measure does all of the following:
- Requires local agencies that elect to use unclaimed restitution money for victim services to first document that it has made a reasonable effort to notify the victim to whom the restitution is owed;
- Deletes a requirement that victim notification and location described above be performed before unclaimed restitution moneys are deposited into the Restitution Fund; and
- Allows the local agency to offset the reasonable cost of locating and notifying the victim to whom restitution is owed by utilizing fees collected pursuant to current law, which allows agencies that collect restitution to charge an associated fee for administration.
AB 934 is intended to complement the provisions of SB 1210 (Lieu, 2012), which sought to ensure that the proper administrative structure and authority were in place to promote local victim restitution efforts associated with the offender population transferred to counties under AB 109.