BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
2
6
AB 2264 (Levine) 4
As Amended June 15, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Government; Penal Codes
AL/JM:mc
VICTIM COMPENSATION:
GUIDE, SIGNAL, OR SERVICE DOGS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1801 (Pavley) - Ch. 322, Stats. 2004
Support: Guide Dogs for the Blind; Canine Companions for
Independence; one individual
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: N/A
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEATH OR INJURY OF A GUIDE,
SIGNAL, OR SERVICE DOG EITHER INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR PERMITTED BY A
PERSON BE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THE VICTIM COMPENSATION
PROGRAM, AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to extend eligibility for
reimbursement under the Victim Compensation Program to cover
costs associated with the injury or death of a guide, signal, or
service dog as a result of a crime, as specified.
Restitution for Losses Associated with Guide, Signal, or Service
Dogs
Existing provisions in the California Constitution state that
all crime victims have the right to seek and secure restitution
from the perpetrators of these crimes. Restitution must be
ordered in every case without exception. Where a defendant has
been ordered to pay restitution, all money, or property
collected from the defendant must be first applied to satisfy
restitution orders. (California Constitution Article 1 §
28(b)(13)(A)-(C).)
Existing law requires the court to order a defendant to make
restitution to the victim or victims of the defendant's crime,
based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or
any other showing to the court. The court shall order full
restitution for the losses caused by the defendant's crime
unless the court finds and states compelling and extraordinary
reasons for not doing so. (Penal Code § 1202.4(f).)
Existing law provides that it is an infraction for any person to
permit any dog owned, harbored, or controlled by him or her to
cause injury to, or the death of any guide, signal, or service
dog, as defined. (Penal Code § 600.2(a).)
Existing law provides that a violation of the above section is
an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 if the
injury or death to the guide, signal, or service dog was caused
by the person's failure to exercise ordinary care in the control
of his or her dog. (Penal Code
§ 600.2(b).)
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 3
Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor if the injury or
death of any guide, signal, or service dog was caused by the
person's reckless disregard in the exercise of control over his
or her dog under circumstances that constitute such a departure
from the conduct of a reasonable person as to be incompatible
with a proper regard for the safety and life of any guide,
signal, or service dog. The penalty is up to one year in county
jail and/or a fine of 2,500-$5,000. (Penal Code § 600.2(c).)
Existing law provides that a person convicted of causing injury
or death to any guide, signal or service dog may also be ordered
to make restitution to the person who had ownership or custody
of the guide, signal, or service dog and may be liable for any
veterinary bills and replacement costs, or other reasonable
costs deemed appropriate by the court. (Penal Code § 600.2(d).)
Existing law states that any person who intentionally causes
injury to, or the death of any guide, signal or service dog, as
defined, while the dog is in the discharge of its duties is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail up to one year and/or a fine not to exceed $10,000.
(Penal Code § 600.5(a).)
Existing law provides that any defendant convicted of a
violation of injuring or killing a guide, signal or service dog
shall be ordered to make restitution to the disabled person if
it is disabled or killed for any veterinary bills and
replacement costs of the dog, or other reasonable costs deemed
appropriate by the court. (Penal Code § 600.5(b).)
This bill provides that when 1) a person causes injury or death
of any guide, signal, or service dog through the failure or
reckless disregard to exercise control over his or her dog or
through his or her intentional actions and 2) the defendant is
unable to pay restitution for specified costs associated with
the injury or death of the guide, signal, or service dog, the
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 4
person with the disability may apply for compensation by the
California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
(board).
Restitution Fund: Eligible Individuals
Existing law establishes within the Government Operations Agency
the board to operate the Victim Compensation Program (VCP), to
reimburse victims of crime for the pecuniary losses they suffer
as a direct result of criminal acts. Indemnification is made
from the Restitution Fund, which is continuously appropriated to
the board. (Penal Code §§ 13901 and 13950 et. seq.)
Existing law requires that a victim or derivative victim seeking
compensation from the board must sustain one or more of the
following:
a) Physical injury, as specified.
b) Emotional injury and a threat of physical injury.
c) Emotional injury, as specified.
This bill adds to the list of eligibility criteria above the
injury or death of a guide, signal, or service dog either
intentionally caused or permitted by an individual.
Restitution Fund: Eligible Pecuniary Losses
Existing law authorizes the board to reimburse for pecuniary
loss, as follows:
a) The amount of medical or medical-related expenses
incurred by the victim, subject to specified limitations.
b) The amount of out-patient psychiatric, psychological or
other mental health counseling-related expenses incurred by
the victim, as specified, including peer counseling
services provided by a rape crisis center.
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 5
c) The expenses of non-medical remedial care and treatment
rendered in accordance with a religious method of healing
recognized by state law.
d) Compensation equal to the loss of income or loss of
support, or both, that a victim or derivative victim incurs
as a direct result of the victim's injury or the victim's
death, subject to specified limitations.
e) Cash payment to, or on behalf of, the victim for job
retraining or similar employment-oriented services.
f) The expense of installing or increasing residential
security, not to exceed $1,000, with respect to a crime
that occurred in the victim's residence, upon verification
by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety
of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider to
be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim.
g) The expense of renovating or retrofitting a victim's
residence or a vehicle to make them accessible or
operational, if it is medically necessary.
h) Expenses incurred in relocating, as specified, if the
expenses are determined by law enforcement to be necessary
for the personal safety or by a mental health treatment
provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of
the victim.
i) In the case of a victim's death, medical, funeral, and
burial expenses, up to specified limits, may be reimbursed
by the board.
j) Reasonable costs to clean the scene of the crime, up to
$1,000, may reimbursed by the board. (Government Code §
13957(a).)
This bill would extend eligibility criteria for reimbursement
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 6
from the board to include the expense of veterinary services,
replacement costs, or other reasonable expenses, as ordered by
the court, incurred when the injury or death of a guide, signal,
or service dog either permitted or intentionally caused by a
person and the defendant is unable to make restitution to the
victim.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
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 that 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.
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 requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 7
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 opposed the
state's motion, arguing 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 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, 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." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014, and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013, Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 8
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
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.
(More)
COMMENTS
1.Recent Amendments
This bill was gutted and amended in the Senate on June 15, 2014.
Prior to its current content and as passed by the Assembly, the
bill pertained to the licensure of clinics by the State
Department of Public Health. On June 17th, the bill was
withdrawn from Senate Health Committee and re-referred to this
Committee on June 18th.
2.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Guide, service, and signal dogs are highly trained
animals that make a healthy, fulfilling and
independent life possible for people with a variety
of physical challenges. Current law states that it
is a criminal offence to cause injury, whether
intentional or unintentional, to a guide, signal or
service dog. A defendant that is convicted in these
attacks is required to provide restitution for the
harm caused to the dog.
However, if the defendant is fiscally unable to
provide compensation, the victim is left unable to
obtain funds to care for the injuries sustained to
their dog. This bill would state that if the
defendant is unable to make restitution, the victim
is eligible to apply for compensation under the
Victim's Compensation Fund as the dog is an extension
of the person and a vital component to their
independence.
Without this bill, existing law is deficient in that
in these types of cases the victim is not made whole.
It is expected that there will be very few such
(More)
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 10
reimbursement cases in California. Therefore, it
does not seem that this bill will create a
substantial demand on the Fund. However, to the
individual, this bill means freedom and independence
to the person being served by the dog.
This bill is being pursued this year late in the
process because this issue has just come to our
attention and the Legislature still has the
opportunity to address it this year. Without this
change, it may take until January 2016 to correct
this law.
3.Effect of This Bill
This bill allows a person with a disability who has ownership or
custody of a guide, signal, or service dog that has been injured
or killed due to the intentional actions of another individual,
as specified, to seek reimbursement from the board for
veterinary bills, replacement costs, or other costs deemed
reasonable by the court, if the defendant is unable to pay
restitution. Current law requires the court to order restitution
for pecuniary loss suffered by a victim, including costs
associated with the death or injury of a guide, signal, or
service dog as a result of the offense, but if a defendant is
unable to pay, the expenses included in the restitution order
are ineligible for compensation through the VCP.
***************