BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
0
0
AB 1006 (Yamada) 6
As Amended May 8, 2013
Hearing date: June 4, 2013
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:jr
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
SEALING AND DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 337 (Torres) (2009-10) -- vetoed
Support: Judicial Council of California; California Coalition
for Youth; The Alliance for Children's Rights;
California Coalition for Youth; First Place for Youth;
Woodland Community College Foster and Kinship Care
Education Program; National Association of Social
Workers, California Chapter; one individual
Opposition:
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association; Peace
Officers Research Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageB
SHOULD JUVENILE COURTS AND PROBATION DEPARTMENTS BE REQUIRED TO
ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ABOUT THE SEALING AND DESTRUCTION OF
JUVENILE RECORDS IS PROVIDED TO PERSONS WITH JUVENILE RECORDS ON
OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2015, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require courts and probation
departments to ensure that information about the sealing of
juvenile records are provided to a minor against whom a juvenile
proceeding has been initiated or who has been brought before a
probation officer, as specified.
Current law provides that five years or more after the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court has terminated over a person
adjudged a ward of the court or after a minor appeared before a
probation officer, or, in any case, at any time after the person
has reached the age of 18, the person or county probation
officer, with specified exceptions, may petition the juvenile
court for sealing of the records, including arrest records,
relating to the person's case, in the custody of the juvenile
court, the probation officer, or any other agency or public
official. [Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") Section
781(a).]
Current law states that once the court has ordered the person's
records sealed, the proceedings in the case shall be deemed
never to have occurred, and the person may reply accordingly to
any inquiry about the events. [WIC Section 781(a).]
Current law prohibits the sealing or destruction of juvenile
records in any case in which the person has been found by the
juvenile court to have committed a moral turpitude offense when
the person was 14 years of age or older at the time of the
offense or if the case was transferred to a criminal court.
[WIC Section 781(a), (d), and (f).]
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageC
Current law allows a peace officer to take a minor into
temporary custody without a warrant when the officer has
reasonable cause to believe that the minor is habitually
disobedient or truant or has committed a crime; is a ward of the
juvenile court and the officer believes that the minor violated
an order of the court or has escaped from a commitment ordered
by the court; or is found in any public place suffering from a
sickness or injury requiring care. [WIC Section 625.]
Current law allows an officer to bring a minor who was taken
into custody before the probation officer of the county in which
the minor was taken into custody or resides in the area where
the acts took place resulting in the minor being taken into
custody. [WIC Section 626.]
This bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2015, each
court and probation department would be required to ensure that
information regarding the eligibility for and the procedures to
request the sealing and destruction of records . . . shall be
provided to each person who is either of the following:
(A) A person for whom a petition has been filed on or after
January 1, 2015, to adjudge the person a ward of the juvenile
court.
(B) A person who is brought before a probation officer
pursuant to Section 626.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to develop
informational materials for these purposes, and develop a form
to petition the court for the sealing and destruction of records
pursuant to this section, on or before January 1, 2015.
This bill would require that the informational materials and the
form shall be provided when jurisdiction is terminated or when
the case is dismissed, as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageD
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageE
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013." The ongoing litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in
reducing the prison population that have been made, although
even greater reductions are required by the court, the Committee
will review each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration.
The following questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Current law (Welfare and Institutions Code Sections
389 and 781) allows a juvenile who has not received an
adult felony conviction or committed a serious felony
after the age of 14 to request that their records be
reviewed and sealed by the court. This prevents minor
juvenile offenses from inhibiting career plans,
educational goals, credit establishment, professional
licensure, and access to housing and employment
opportunities. Vulnerable youth populations such as
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageF
foster and homeless youth especially benefit from this
process because they often possess juvenile records
and already face numerous disadvantages as they enter
adulthood.
A 2008 Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment project
conducted by the Center for Families, Children and the
Courts, noted problems with the process of informing
juveniles about sealing their records:
The procedures for sealing a record vary by
county. In survey data in which defense attorneys
and probation officers selected which types of
information are conveyed well to the youth, few
respondents chose record-sealing information. (p.
36).
As a result, many youth do not know how to petition
the court or even know that the option exists. Adding
to the confusion and delay, many youth, parents, and
case managers are under the mistaken impression that
juvenile records are sealed automatically when the
youth turns 18.
The State does not require courts or probation
departments to provide standardized written
information about the petition process or to provide a
standardized form to petition the court that may
remedy this problem. AB 1006 seeks to remedy that by
requiring the development of the informational
material and the petition and requiring the courts and
probation officers to provide them when the
jurisdiction of the court ends or when the case is
dismissed.
An unsealed record can impede a former offender's
progress toward self-sufficiency by acting as a
barrier to job and educational opportunities,
professional licensure, applying for credit and
leasing a house. Individuals may be disqualified from
public housing or federal loans for college. The lack
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageG
of a formalized process to inform these individuals
undermines the state's rehabilitative efforts for
juveniles and impedes California's explicit goal of
promoting the successful reintegration of youthful
offenders into society.
(More)
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would require that on and after
January 1, 2015, persons who have been detained or subjected to
a delinquency petition in the juvenile court would be entitled
to information about how to have their juvenile records sealed.
The bill would require Judicial Council to develop a form and
informational materials to be provided to persons who have been
the subject of a delinquency petition, or temporarily detained
by a peace officer, once the court's jurisdiction is terminated
or a petition is dismissed.
Under current law juvenile court records generally must be
destroyed when the person of record reaches the age of 38 unless
good cause is shown for maintaining those records. The person
of record may also petition to destroy records retained by other
agencies. The request shall be granted unless good cause is
shown for retention of the records. (WIC § 826.) When records
are destroyed under this section, the proceedings "shall be
deemed never to have occurred, and the person may reply
accordingly to an inquiry." (WIC § 826(a) and (b).)
Courts have held that the phrase "never to have occurred" means
that the juvenile proceeding is deemed not to have existed.
[ Parmett v. Superior Court (Chrystal B.) (1989) 212 CA3d 1261,
at 1267.]
To seal a juvenile court record, a petition must be filed by
either the subject or the probation department. (WIC § 781.)
Juvenile court jurisdiction must have lapsed five years
previously or the person must be age 18. The records are not
sealed if the person of record has been convicted of a felony or
a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. No offenses listed in
Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b) may be sealed if
the juvenile was 14 years age or older if at the time of the
(More)
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageI
offense. <1>
Additionally, there can be no pending civil litigation involving
the incident.
3. Opposition
The California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
opposes this bill, submitting in part:
We certainly appreciate the intent of the bill . . . ,
but believe existing law addresses this issue and sets
----------------------
<1> WIC Section 707 (b) offenses are the following: (1)
murder; (2) arson, as specified; (3) robbery; (4) rape with
force or violence or threat of great bodily harm; (5) sodomy by
force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm;
(6) lewd or lascivious act with a child under 14, as specified;
(7) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or
threat of great bodily harm; (8) forcible sexual penetration, as
specified; (9) kidnapping for ransom; (10) kidnapping for
purpose of robbery; (11) kidnapping with bodily harm; (12)
attempted murder; (13) assault with a firearm or destructive
device; (14) assault by any means of force likely to produce
great bodily injury; (15) discharge of a firearm into an
inhabited or occupied building; (16) specified crimes against
older or physically disabled persons, as specified; (17)
specified firearm offenses; (18) any felony offense in which the
minor personally used a weapon, as specified; (19) specified
felonies involving victim intimidation; (20) manufacturing,
compounding, or selling one-half ounce or more of any salt or
solution of a controlled substance, as specified; (21) any
violent felony, as specified; (22) escape, by the use of force
or violence, from any county juvenile hall, home, ranch, camp,
or forestry camp, as specified, where great bodily injury is
intentionally inflicted upon an employee of the juvenile
facility during the commission of the escape; (23) torture, as
specified; (24) aggravated mayhem, as specified; (25)
carjacking, as specified, while armed with a dangerous or deadly
weapon; (26) kidnapping, as specified; (27) kidnapping relating
to carjacking, as specified; (28) specified offenses involving
firearms in vehicles; (29) specified crimes involving explosive
devices; and (30) voluntary manslaughter, as specified.
AB 1006 (Yamada)
PageJ
up a process for informing juveniles. Existing law .
. . authorizes a person who is the subject of a
juvenile court record, or the county probation
officer, to petition the court for the sealing of the
records. Juveniles are advised upon termination of
probation as a matter of practice or upon turning 18
years of age.
4. Prior Legislation Vetoed
As noted above, this Committee heard a similar bill in 2009.
That measure, AB 337 (Torres) passed this Committee (6-1) but
was vetoed. Governor Schwarzenegger stated:
This measure would require each court and probation
department to ensure that information regarding the
sealing and destruction of juvenile records is
provided to each person for whom a petition has been
filed, on or after January 1, 2011. While this
information could be helpful to those individuals that
qualify, competent counsel should already be providing
this information. Since this measure would place an
additional burden on government entities that are
already facing deep cuts to court programs and
probation departments due to the continuing fiscal
crisis, I am unable to sign this bill.
***************