BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair S
2005-2006 Regular Session B
5
7
SB 57 (Alarcon)
As Amended April 25, 2005
Hearing date: May 3, 2005
Government Code
MK:br
FINES AND FORFEITURES
HISTORY
Source: California Medical Association
Prior Legislation: SB 635 (Dunn) - Ch. 524, Stats. 2004
SB 807 (Dunn) - vetoed 2002
AB 1398 (Florez) - not heard Senate Public Safety
2002
AB 1685 (Thomson) - failed Senate Public Safety
8-6-02
SB 1489 (Perata) - 2002; to the Governor
SB 776 (Torlakson) - Ch. 857, Stats. 2001 (increase
in DUI fines removed in Senate Public Safety)
AB 2592 (Maddox) - failed Senate Public Safety
6-4-02
AB 2288 (Aguiar) - Ch. 884, Stats. 1996
SB 833 - Ch. 922, Stats. 1995
SB 1738 - Ch. 1221, Stats. 1994
AB 5 - Ch. 3, Stats. 1959
Support: California Nurses Association; California Ambulance
Association; Pacifica Hospital of the Valley; Los
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 2
Angeles Free Clinic; California Hospital Association;
California Professional Firefighters Association;
University of California; County Health Executive
Association of California (if amended)
Opposition:Judicial Council; Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training; California Public Defenders
Association; California Teamsters Public Affairs
Council; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
Coalition of Trial Court Clerk Associations
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD COUNTIES BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE A 20% PENALTY ON ALL CRIMINAL
VIOLATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES?
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, SHOULD COUNTIES BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE A 20%
PENALTY ON SPEED VIOLATIONS, SEAT BELT VIOLTIONS, DUI AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CRIMES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow counties to impose an
additional penalty of 20% on all criminal violations and in
addition to the first 20% an additional 20% on specified
violations.
Existing law provides that a person may not operate a motor
vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16
years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt.
A violation of this provision is an infraction punishable by
a fine of not more than $20, plus penalty assessments, for the
first offense and $50, plus penalty assessments, for a repeat
offense. (Vehicle Code 27135.)
Existing law sets forth the penalties for excessive speed on a
highway and provides in part that no person may drive on a
highway at a speed of more than 65 miles per hour. (Vehicle
Code 22348 et seq.)
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 3
Existing law provides it is unlawful for any person who is
under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under
the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to
drive a vehicle, with specified fines and imprisonment.
(Vehicle Code 23152(a) and 23153.)
Existing law provides that a person who pleads to a misdemeanor
reckless driving after being charged with a DUI (known as a "wet
reckless"), the court shall inform the defendant of specified
consequences of the plea. (Vehicle Code 23103 and 23103.5.)
Existing law defines "abuse" and "domestic violence" for
the purpose of law enforcement agencies adopting policies
and standards for response to domestic violence. (Penal
Code 13700(a) and (b).)
Existing law defines "domestic violence" for the purpose of
a protective order. (Family Code 6211.)
Existing law provides for an additional "state penalty" of $10
for every $10 or fraction thereof levied upon every fine,
penalty or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for
criminal offenses including all offenses, except parking
offenses, involving the Vehicle Code. The money collected from
the penalty is distributed in specified percentages among: the
Fish and Game Preservation Fund; the Restitution Fund; the Peace
Officers Training Fund; the Driver Training Penalty Assessment
Fund; the Corrections Training Fund; the Local Public
Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund; the Victim-Witness
Assistance Fund; and the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund. (Penal
Code 1464.)
Existing law provides that in each county there shall be an
additional penalty of $7 for every $10 thereof upon every fine,
penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for
criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation
of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to
the Vehicle Code except parking offenses. The money collected
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 4
shall be placed in any of the following funds if established by
a County Board of Supervisors: Courthouse Construction Fund; a
Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated
Fingerprint Identification Fund; Emergency Medical Services
Fund; DNA Identification Fund. (Government Code 76000.)
Existing law imposes a state surcharge of 20 percent on every
base fine collected by the court. All the money collected shall
be deposited in the General Fund. (Penal Code 1465.7.)
Existing law establishes a state court construction penalty
assessment in an amount up to $5 for every $10 or fraction
thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and
collected by the courts for criminal offenses. The variation in
the amount is dependant on the amount collected by the county
for deposit into the local Courthouse Construction Fund
established pursuant to Government Code Section 76100. As a
result, the penalty assessment ranges from $0.00 for every $10
in two counties to the full $5 for every $10 in nine counties.
This provision took effect on January 1, 2003. (Government Code
70372.)
Existing law provides for a flat fee of $20 on every conviction
for a criminal offense to ensure adequate funding for court
security. (Penal Code 1465.8.)
Existing law levies a $1 penalty assessment on every $10 in
fines and forfeitures resulting from criminal and traffic
offenses and dedicates these revenues to state and local
governments for Proposition 69, DNA Databank, implementation
purposes. (Government Code 76104.6.)
This bill provides that for the purpose of supporting emergency
medical services, a county board of supervisors may elect to
levy an additional penalty of $2 on every $10, or fraction
thereof, upon every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and
collected by the courts for criminal offenses including Vehicle
Code offenses, violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act
and local ordinances but not including parking violations.
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 5
This bill further provides that a county board of supervisors
may elect to levy an additional penalty of $2 on every 10 for
seatbelt violation, speed violations, DUI or "wet reckless," or
domestic violence offense.
This bill provides that in addition to any other funding
provided to a trauma center under this chapter, counties that
have pediatric trauma units shall be allowed to spend up to 15
percent of the funds collected under this section for equipping
and reimbursing trauma care facilities that provide pediatric
trauma care.
This bill provides that no more than 5 percent of funds
collected shall be spent for administrative purposes.
Existing law authorizes a county to establish a Maddy Emergency
Medical Services Fund (EMS Fund) to be used to reimburse
physicians and hospitals for patients who do not make payment for
emergency medical services and for other emergency medical
services purposes as determined by each county. Existing law
requires each county establishing the fund to report to the
Legislature annually on the implementation and status of the
fund. (Health and Safety Code 1797.98a et seq.; Government
Code 76104.)
This bill amends the Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund to
provide that of the money deposited into the EMS Fund pursuant
to this bill, 15% shall be utilized to provide funding for
pediatric trauma centers.
This bill further provides that expenditure of money deposited
in a Maddy Fund pursuant to this bill shall be limited to
reimbursement to physicians and surgeons, and hospitals for
patients who do not make payment for services, or for expanding
the services provided at pediatric trauma centers, including the
purchase of equipment.
This bill provides that the costs of administering money
deposited in a Maddy Fund under this bill should not exceed 5%.
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 6
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Senate Bill 57 seeks to increase revenues to the local
Emergency Medical Services Funds (Maddy Funds) and
establish Pediatric Trauma Dollars for reimbursements
and expansion of services. This bill would increase
funding for Emergency and Trauma Care by $60-$100
million per year, but more importantly, this increase
will help the states economy by helping protect the
existence of businesses and jobs that currently offer
emergency and trauma care throughout California. SB 57
would allow counties to increase the average total fine
of $320 per violation by $20-$40 dollars. These
additional funds would also be instrumental in
maintaining the financial stability of the emergency and
trauma centers, decreasing the diversion time and
patient wait time, and improving services overall.
2. Existing Penalty Assessments
Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine, the current penalty
assessments are up to 250%. The existing penalty assessments
are:
State Penalty Assessment: Existing law provides for an
additional "state penalty" of $10 for every $10 or fraction
thereof, upon every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and
collected by the courts for criminal offenses including all
offenses, except parking offenses, involving the Vehicle Code.
Of the money collected, 70% is transmitted to the state and
30% remains with the county. The state portion of the money
collected from the penalty is distributed in specified
percentages among: the Fish and Game Preservation Fund
(0.33%); the Restitution Fund (32.02%); the Peace Officers
Training Fund (23.99%); the Driver Training Penalty Assessment
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 7
Fund (25.70%); the Corrections Training Fund (7.88%); the
Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund (0.78%, not
to exceed $850,000 per year); the Victim-Witness Assistance
Fund (8.64%); and the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund (0.66%).
(Penal Code 1464.)
County Penalty Assessment: Existing law provides for an
additional county penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 or
fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture
imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses,
including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle
Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle
Code except parking offenses. The money collected shall be
placed in any of the following funds if established by a
County Board of Supervisors: Courthouse Construction Fund; a
Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated
Fingerprint Identification Fund; Emergency Medical Services
Fund; DNA Identification Fund. (Government Code 76000 et
seq.)
State Surcharge: As a part of the 2002-03 Budget Act, the
Legislature imposed a temporary state surcharge of 20% on
every base fine collected by the court. The surcharge took
effect on September 30, 2002 and sunsets on July 1, 2007. All
money collected shall be deposited in the General Fund.
(Penal Code 1465.7.)
State Court Facilities Construction: Two years ago, as a part
of the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (AB 1732 - Escutia),
the Legislature established the "State Court Facilities
Construction Fund" and added a state court construction
penalty assessment in an amount up to $5 for every $10 or
fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture
imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses.
The variation in the amount is dependant on the amount
collected by the county for deposit into the local Courthouse
Construction Fund established pursuant to Government Code
Section 76100. As a result, the penalty assessment ranges
from $0.00 for every $10 in two counties to the full $5 for
every $10 in nine counties. This provision took effect on
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 8
January 1, 2003. (Government Code 70372.)
Court Security: As part of the 2003-04 Budget, the
Legislature approved a flat fee of $20 on every conviction for
a criminal offense to ensure adequate funding for court
security. This provision took effect immediately. (Penal
Code 1465.8.)
DNA Databank: Prop 69, Nov. 2004 - The initiative levies a $1
penalty assessment on every $10 in fines and forfeitures
resulting from criminal and traffic offenses and dedicates
these revenues to state and local governments for
implementation purposes - the state will receive 70% of these
funds in the first two years, 50% in the third year and 25%
annually thereafter. The remainder will go to local
governments. (Government Code 76104.6.)
3. The Maddy EMS Fund
The Emergency Medical Services fund was created (SB
12/Maddy/1987) to provide supplemental financing for local
emergency services. The law permits, but does not require, each
county to levy a $2 penalty assessment to each $10 of traffic
fines, with the sums raised to be deposited in the EMS fund.
Ten percent of the total revenue is annually deducted for
administration and the remaining EMS revenues are divided 58% to
physicians for uncompensated ER costs, 25% to trauma centers and
hospitals, and 17% for county emergency medical services.
As amended by SB 623 (Speier) - Chapter 679, Statutes of 1999 -
additionally requires that in those counties that have
established a Maddy Fund, an amount equal to a specified sum is
to be deposited by the county treasurer in the Maddy Fund.
4. Additional Assessments in This Bill
a. 20% on every criminal fine
This bill provides that a county board of supervisors may
elect to levy an additional penalty of $2 for every $10 on
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 9
every fine, penalty, forfeiture for criminal offenses
including those relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act
and all offenses dealing with the Vehicle Code except parking
offenses. The additional assessment is for "the purposes of
supporting emergency medical services" in addition to the
existing 20% penalty assessment for these purposes.
b. 40 % on specified fines
In addition to the above penalty assessment a county board of
supervisors may also elect to levy an additional penalty of $2
for every $10 on seatbelt violations, speed violations, DUI or
"wet reckless," or domestic violence offenses. This
additional assessment would be on top of the other $2 added by
this bill and is for "the purposes of supporting emergency
medical services."
c. Total of $6 on every $10 for EMS fund
With the additional assessments under this bill, a person who
had a seatbelt violation would pay $6 for every $10 of the
fine to support the EMS fund in a county. Below are some
examples of how the fines would change under this bill:
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Violation | Base fine |Before July | Today | After this |
| | | 2002 | | bill |
|-------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------|
|Seat belt | $20 | $54 | $70 | $78 |
|violation | | | | |
|-------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------|
|Speeding 16 | $50 | $135 | $175 | $195 |
|mph over | | | | |
|speed limit | | | | |
|-------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------|
|1st time DUI | $390 | $663 | $975 |$1131 |
|(lowest | | | | |
|fine) | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 10
SHOULD THERE BE AN ADDITIONAL 40% SURCHARGE ON FINES, IN
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 20% SURCHARGE, TO SUPPORT EMS FUNDS
IN COUNTIES?
WITH THE RECENT INCREASES IN PENALTY ASSESSMENTS, IS ANOTHER
INCREASE APPROPRIATE?
5. Use of Money Collected by This Bill
This bill provides that the money collected under this bill
shall be deposited with the County Treasurer. Of the money
deposited into the EMS fund under this bill, 15% shall be
utilized to provide funding for pediatric trauma centers,
although in another section of the bill it refers to trauma care
facilities providing trauma care. The bill provides that
expenditures shall be limited to reimbursement to physicians,
and surgeons, and hospitals for patients who do not make payment
for services, or for expanding the services provided at
pediatric trauma centers, including the purchase of equipment.
If a county does not have a pediatric trauma center then the
money shall be deposited with the county treasurer.
While this bill expresses its purpose as supporting emergency
medical services pursuant to the EMS funds, it is not clear that
it actually requires the money to be deposited in the EMS fund.
Other than the 15% that is to go to either a pediatric trauma
center or trauma care facility providing trauma care (see
Comment #6 below), the rest of the money, or the money if no
pediatric center exists, is only clearly directed to the county
treasurer. There is no language to direct the treasurer to
deposit the money into the EMS Fund, and it is not clear that a
mere declaration of purpose is enough to make that happen.
IF IT IS INTENDED THAT THIS MONEY BE DEPOSITED IN THE EMS FUND,
SHOULD THE BILL CLEARLY REQUIRE THAT THE COUNTY TREASURER DO SO?
6. Pediatric Trauma Center or Trauma Care Facility Providing
Pediatric Trauma Care
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 11
On page 3, lines 20-24 this bill refers to trauma centers with
"pediatric trauma units" and "trauma care facilities that
provide pediatric trauma care" when discussing where 15% of the
funds go. On page 5, line 16, it provides that 15% of the funds
shall go to funding "pediatric trauma centers." It seems that
there could be trauma centers with "pediatric trauma units" that
might not be the same as a "pediatric trauma center" which would
imply the whole center is devoted to pediatrics. It would make
more sense to have the language in this bill consistent.
SHOULD THE REFERENCE TO "PEDIATRIC TRAUMA CARE" BE CONSISTENT?
7. 5% for Administrative Costs
This bill provides that 5% of the funds collected can be used
for administrative costs. Under existing law the EMS fund
allows for 10% and according to the County Health Executives
this does not cover their costs. The County Health Executives
state:
The County Health Executives Association of California
(CHEAC) is in support of additional revenue for the
Maddy Funds. However, the language that limits the
reimbursement for administration to 5% for the new
revenue collected will make it extremely difficult for a
county to manage the Fund. The administrative cap for
the rest of the Maddy Fund revenue is set at 10%. Many
counties, especially smaller counties, already have
difficulty administering this Fund under the current 10%
cap.
In addition, the 5% restriction on the new revenues
would create an added layer of bureaucratic complexity
to administering the Fund. It would appear that the
only way to ensure that the two separate administrative
reimbursement caps are maintained would be to set up two
separate Maddy Funds, one for each of the revenue
streams. This would create an administrative burden and
would likely discourage counties from implementing the
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 12
additional penalty.
We are requesting amendments that would allow counties
to be reimbursed for costs of administering the Fund up
to 10 % of the amount of new revenues collected,
consistent with current law.
(More)
If the costs to the county can't be collected it seems unlikely
that the county would vote to impose the surcharge.
SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL COSTS TO THE
COUNTY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE FUND?
8. Opposition
Judicial Council also opposes this bill stating:
The new penalty assessments authorized by SB 57 will
impose significant burdens on court administration. In
counties that adopt the assessments, courts will be
forced to reprogram their case management systems (CMS)
to perform the new fine calculations. Unfortunately,
some of the older CMS systems used by the courts are not
even capable of reprogramming. Consequently, courts
utilizing these older CMS will either have to perform
the new fine calculations by hand, or completely abandon
their systems. In either circumstance, courts will
incur substantial costs in their efforts to comply.
Despite Judicial Council's concern regarding the costs of this
bill to the courts, this bill is non-fiscal.
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is
concerned about the impact this bill will have on peace officer
training. POST notes that they do not "object to funding
pediatric trauma care units proposed by the bill" but:
POST derives its revenue from the Peace Officer Training
Fund, which is one of the eight entities in the State
Penalty Fund (Penal Code 1464). The new penalties
that counties could add to criminal fines, as proposed
by SB 57, are the basis of the Commission's concern. It
appears from the language of the bill that most of the
revenue of the bill that would be generated would go to
counties to be used for unspecified purposes.
(More)
SB 57 (Alarcon)
Page 14
Since 1991, it has been our experience that each time an
entity is added to the State Penalty Fund or penalties
assessed against fines are increased, the revenue from
the fund actually decreases. This occurs because the
pool of convicted offenders who pay fines does not
increase; offenders may be unable to pay the increased
penalties, and judges believe the penalty assessments
are excessive and adversely impact those individuals who
can least afford the cost of fines and penalties. In a
large number of cases, judges appropriately exercise
their discretion by determining what a criminal offender
can afford and then impose reduced fines and penalties
they believe are appropriate to the individuals.
The Commission has consistently opposed legislative
efforts to add other recipients or expand the fines and
penalties to the State Penalty Fund. The Peace
Officers' Training Fund is the revenue source that
allows the Commission to develop and provide critical
training and other resources to California law
enforcement agencies to help them serve the public
safety needs of their respective communities.
WHAT EFFECT DOES ADDING ANOTHER PENALTY ASSESSMENT HAVE ON
FUNDS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS THAT RELY ON EXISTING
ASSESSMENTS?
***************