BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 296 (Wright)
Hearing Date: 05/26/2011 Amended: 04/7/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 5-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 296 would establish a process to become
operative on July 1, 2012, for an individual to petition the
court to be exempted from all or part of a gang injunction. This
bill would allow the court to hold an evidentiary hearing in
order to rule on the petition filed, and would allow the court
to require the petitioner to testify at the hearing. The bill
would require a petition form to be developed by the Judicial
Council and would limit individual filings to no more than once
per three-year period.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Evidentiary hearings Unknown, potentially major costsGeneral*
beginning in 2012-13; dependent on
the number and duration of hearings,
offset to a degree by filing fee revenue
Development of petitionMinor, absorbable
General*
form
*Trial Court Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
This bill would provide that an individual may file a petition
with the court to be exempted from all or any part of a gang
injunction. The petition must specify whether the individual is
seeking full or partial exemption from the injunction, and shall
state in the petition all of the following:
The individual has not violated any provisions of an
injunction of which he or she had notice;
The individual is not a member of the criminal street
gang that is subject to the injunction;
The individual is not a member of any other criminal
street gang;
The individual does not have any criminal charges
pending against him or her;
The individual has not been arrested in any jurisdiction
SB 296 (Wright)
Page 3
within three years prior to filing the petition;
The individual has not obtained any gang-related tattoos
within three years prior to filing the petition;
The individual has not, within three years prior to
filing the petition, knowingly been documented by any law
enforcement agency to have been in the company
or association of any other gang member that the individual
knows to be covered by the injunction, other than an
immediate family member;
The individual is not acting, and agrees that he or she
will not act, to promote or assist any activities
prohibited by the injunction.
The bill requires the Judicial Council to develop a petition
form, as specified, by July 1, 2012, to be used by individuals
seeking injunctive relief. Judicial Council has indicated the
development of the form can be accomplished within existing
resources. The bill would also require the petition form to be
attached to the documents that are served on any person at the
time notice of an injunction is served, and would require the
petitioner to notice the prosecuting agency that filed the
action for the injunction.
The increased costs to the courts are unknown, but potentially
significant. Costs would be dependent on the number of petitions
filed and the number and duration of the additional hearings
held. The total number of individuals noticed statewide under
gang injunctions who could potentially file a petition is
unknown at this time. As a reference, in the City and County of
Los Angeles alone there are more than 40 gang injunctions
imposed covering over 10,000 individuals. Judicial Council notes
the potential for additional filings and increased workload
would exacerbate current backlogs, as well as increase the need
for additional judicial officers, courtrooms, and staff.
The bill provides that the court may charge the petitioner an
unspecified fee for the reasonable costs of filing the petition.
However, operating costs to conduct additional hearings would
likely far exceed the revenues collected from filing fees that
may be assessed.
It is unknown how many petitioners would be required to testify
at evidentiary hearings, as it would be subject to the court's
SB 296 (Wright)
Page 4
discretion. To the extent a petitioner is found guilty of
perjury, additional court and incarceration costs of an
indeterminable amount could result.