BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2485
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas) - As Introduced:
February 21, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : UNLAWFUL DETAINER: NUISANCE: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
PILOT PROGRAM
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, WHICH PARTICIPATED IN
THE EXISTING DRUG-RELATED EVICTION PILOT PROGRAM UNTIL LAST YEAR
WHEN ITS AUTHORITY INADVERTENTLY SUNSET, BE REAUTHORIZED TO
CONTINUE ITS PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2019,
AS SPECIFIED?
SYNOPSIS
This district bill seeks to re-establish pilot authority for the
City of Sacramento to continue to participate in the controlled
substances-related eviction program pursuant to Civil Code
Section 3486. Authority for Sacramento's participation in the
program was first established in 2009 by AB 530 (Krekorian), but
that authority lapsed on December 31, 2013 pursuant to the
sunset date in AB 530 when no statute was subsequently enacted
to continue Sacramento's participation without interruption.
According to the bill's sponsor, the City of Sacramento, this
bill is needed to correct that unfortunate legislative oversight
and ensure continued implementation and evaluation of the
program by the California Research Bureau (CRB). To avoid
redundancy or conflict with AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas), which
already seeks to renew Sacramento's participation in the Section
3485 weapons-related eviction program that also sunset at the
end of last year, proposed amendments to this bill limit its
scope to renewing Sacramento's participation in the Section 3486
program that authorizes controlled-substance related evictions,
but not the Section 3485 program. The proposed amendments also
incorporate CRB-recommended revisions to the data items that
must be reported to the Bureau, and establishes a January 1,
2019 sunset date for Sacramento's participation. Several
apartment associations oppose the bill unless amended to require
the city to refund the fee paid by a landlord in assigning the
AB 2485
Page 2
case to the city if a court finds in favor of the tenant, or
where the city fails to otherwise bring an eviction action. It
should be noted that opponents' expressed objections are with
respect to provisions of existing law (Civil Code Section
3486(a), codified in 2007) and not to bill language simply
seeking to restore Sacramento's lapsed authority to participate
in the controlled-substances pilot program.
SUMMARY : Re-establishes pilot authority, which sunset last
year, for the City of Sacramento to continue to participate in
the controlled substances-related eviction program pursuant to
Civil Code Section 3486. Specifically, this bill :
1)Re-establishes pilot authority, which sunset last year, for
the City of Sacramento to continue to participate in the
Section 3486 program that conditionally allows the city
attorney and prosecutors in participating cities to bring
eviction proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance
violations involving unlawful drugs or controlled substances,
as specified.
2)Establishes a January 1, 2019 sunset date for Sacramento's
participation in the pilot program.
3)Revises specified information and data required to be reported
annually by Sacramento to the California Research Bureau
(CRB), and requires the CRB to submit a brief report
evaluating the merits of the pilot program to the Senate
Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary Committees by specified dates
in 2016 and 2018.
4)Finds and declares that a special law is necessary to limit
application of the law to the City of Sacramento because of
its unique and historic role in reporting data to the
California Research Bureau through its past program
participation.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the city attorney or prosecutor in Los Angeles to
file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful
detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations
involving the illegally possession or sale of a controlled
substance on the premises or using the premises to further
AB 2485
Page 3
that purpose. (Civil Code Section 3486.)
2)Specifies language to appear in the initial notice to a tenant
that signals the city's intent to begin eviction proceedings
pursuant to either pilot program, and requires the city
attorney or prosecutor to provide this notice to the tenant in
English and the five languages named in Civil Code Section
1632(a). (Civil Code Section 3486.)
3)Provides that a tenant who maintains, commits or permits a
nuisance upon the premises or who uses the premises for an
unlawful purpose thereby terminates the lease, entitling the
landlord to restitution of the premises under unlawful
detainer. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(4).)
4)Specifies that a person who illegally possesses certain
firearms or ammunition on the premises, or who illegally
possesses or sells a controlled substance on the premises, or
who uses the premises to further either purpose, as defined,
shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises
for the purpose of determining unlawful detainer against that
person. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(4).)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to re-establish pilot authority for
the City of Sacramento to continue to participate in the
controlled substances-related eviction program pursuant to Civil
Code Section 3486. Authority for Sacramento's participation in
the program was first established by AB 530 (Krekorian), Ch.
244, Stats. 2009, but that authority lapsed on December 31, 2013
pursuant to the sunset date in AB 530 when no statute was
subsequently enacted to continue Sacramento's participation
without interruption. According to the bill's sponsor, the City
of Sacramento, this bill is needed to correct that unfortunate
legislative oversight and ensure continued implementation and
evaluation of the program-which Sacramento plays a key role in
by virtue of its active participation and reporting of data.
Author's statement. According to the author, the pilot
authority under the Section 3486 program has been and continues
to be an important tool needed by the City of Sacramento to
protect public safety. The author states:
AB 2485
Page 4
Persons who use their residential premises for illegal
activity involving firearms, ammunition and controlled
substances threaten the health and safety of their
neighbors, and create conditions which are deleterious
to the neighborhood within which they live. In some
instances, a landlord is unwilling or unable to take
action to evict a tenant who is committing an illegal
controlled substance or firearm related crime on
his/her property. In those cases, the crime continues
to occur and the harms the crime causes persist.
In recognition of this fact the Legislature granted
the Office of the Sacramento City Attorney and several
other city attorneys the authority to file an action
for unlawful detainer against any person who was in
violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose
provision, with respect to controlled substances or
unlawful weapons or ammunition. The Office of the
Sacramento City Attorney has successfully implemented
the pilot program to remove persons that were found to
be in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose
provisions of the unlawful detainer provision . . .
well over 100 times since the (drug and weapons
eviction pilot programs) began.
This bill will allow the Office of the Sacramento City
Attorney to assist landlords who are intimidated from
bringing eviction proceedings against tenants engaged in
drug-related crimes and illegal possession of weapons or
ammunition on the premises. Participating cities have had
tremendous success prosecuting evictions against persons
possessing controlled substances and illegal weapons.
These measures are important components of cities' efforts
to improve neighborhood safety. Many cities have found
this program helpful in making their neighborhoods safer
and this program should be renewed for an additional four
years so that further information can be gathered to
evaluate its overall effectiveness.
As proposed to be amended, the bill reflects an agreement with
the author of AB 2310 to separately restore Sacramento's
participation in the weapons-related eviction pilot program in
AB 2310, rather than in this bill. As introduced, this bill
sought to restore Sacramento's participation in two eviction
AB 2485
Page 5
pilot programs--weapons-related evictions (pursuant to Civil
Code Section 3485) and drug-related evictions (pursuant to Civil
Code Section 3486)-both of which were allowed to sunset at the
end of 2013 without legislation to ensure Sacramento's
uninterrupted participation. As a result, Sacramento currently
lacks any statutory authority to bring either type of eviction,
and can contribute no information to the CRB's ongoing efforts
to evaluate the pilot programs.
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas) seeks to re-enact Section 3485, which
was entirely repealed on December 31, 2013, cutting off
statutory authority for weapons-related evictions in all of the
participating cities. As introduced, AB 2310 contains
provisions to restore Sacramento's participation in the
weapons-eviction pilot program (as well as that of Los Angeles
and Long Beach), making the identical provisions in this bill
redundant. After fruitful discussion between the authors of
both bills, the author of this bill now proposes to amend this
bill to limit its scope to renewing Sacramento's participation
in the Section 3486 program that authorizes controlled-substance
related evictions, but not the Section 3485 program for
weapons-related evictions. It is not necessary for this bill to
reciprocally restore authority for Los Angeles or Long Beach
because existing Section 3486, operative as of January 1, 2014,
already provides such authority.
Short summary of pilot program authority. The Section 3486
pilot program authorizes city attorneys and prosecutors in
participating jurisdictions, rather than the landlord or
property owner, to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants
for committing nuisance violations involving controlled
substances. This special statutory authority is unusual because
traditionally only the landlord has authority to file an
unlawful detainer against a tenant for recovery of possession of
the property.
Under the pilot programs, a city attorney or city prosecutor may
file an unlawful detainer action against any person for creating
a nuisance on the property by using or allowing the premises to
be used for a controlled substance purpose. The city's action
would be predicated on its belief that a specified controlled
substance offense has occurred on the subject real property
based upon an arrest report or other law enforcement report.
AB 2485
Page 6
In any unlawful detainer action brought by the city prosecutor
or city attorney under the pilot programs, the public prosecutor
must first give 30-calendar days of written notice documenting
the alleged nuisance or illegal activity to the landlord and the
offending tenant. This notice is designed to give the landlord
the first opportunity to file an unlawful detainer action
against the offending tenant. The landlord may then either file
the action or assign the right to bring the unlawful detainer
action to the public prosecutor. If the landlord fails to file
an unlawful detainer action, or fails to prosecute such an
action diligently and in good faith, the city attorney or city
prosecutor may file the action and may join both the landlord
and the offending tenant as co-defendants.
Participation in the program also requires the city attorney to
report specified information to the California Research Bureau
about city attorney involvement, property owner response, court
processing, and tenant reaction. The law requires CRB, in turn,
to evaluate and report the merits of the program to the
Legislature.
Summary of reporting and sunset date provisions. This district
bill reauthorizes Sacramento's participation in the controlled
substance-related eviction pilot program until January 1, 2019,
and requires continued reporting of specified data by Sacramento
to CRB as a condition of its participation.
Reporting Requirements: To allow for better study and
evaluation of the program, the author proposes a number of
amendments, recommended by CRB staff, to revise the data items
currently required to be reported. According to the CRB, these
revisions are intended to facilitate information reported at the
individual case level (i.e. for each time a notice is provided
to the tenant) rather than at an aggregate level, and to also
make reporting less burdensome by requiring data to be uniformly
reported in a template designed and provided by CRB.
Sunset Date: The bill establishes a sunset date of January 1,
2019 for Sacramento's participation in the program, which allows
the CRB three more years to collect data and analyze unresolved
research questions that remain about effectiveness and
implementation of the program.
Reported data from the pilot program. According to the most
AB 2485
Page 7
recent CRB report to the Legislature, which analyzed only year
2011 data, the Sacramento City Attorney's office used its
Section 3486 authority on 26 occasions to send notices of intent
to evict to landlords and nuisance tenants (a rate of 5.5
notices per 100,000 residents). By contrast, in that time
period the Long Beach City Attorney sent 62 notices for
weapons-related evictions (a rate of 13.3 notices per 100,000
residents), and the Los Angeles City Attorney sent 106 such
notices (a rate of 2.8 notices per 100,000 residents.) The
percentage of cases in which the property owner responded by
filing an unlawful detainer directly ranged from 12% in Los
Angeles, to 15% in Sacramento, to 24% in Long Beach. CRB
hypothesizes that property owners may see drug-related issues as
less immediately dangerous than weapons-related issues to
explain data indicating that property owners act directly to
evict the tenant a smaller proportion of the time.
Among other things, the CRB report also concludes that landlords
directly respond to the initial notice from the city attorney
(i.e., they file the action and proceed in good faith) at a
higher rate for weapon-related actions (41.5%) as compared to
drug-related actions (16.5%). Also, a larger percentage of
weapon-related actions (42%) made it to court than drug-related
actions (21%) did. Drug-related UD actions (pursuant to Section
3485) had the highest rate of tenants vacating prior to being
noticed (19.1%), while weapons-related UD actions (pursuant to
Section 3486) had the higher rate of tenants who vacated after
being noticed (29.3%).
The entire CRB report, containing more detailed analysis of both
the weapons and drug-related eviction pilot programs, is
available at: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/13/13-001.pdf .
Current/Previous Related Legislation. AB 1384 (Havice) Ch. 613,
Stats. 1998, created a pilot project in five specified Los
Angeles Municipal Court districts to allow city attorneys and
district attorneys to seek the eviction of any person who is in
violation of nuisance or controlled substance law, with an
operative sunset date of January 1, 2002. Subsequent
legislation has extended the sunset date on several occasions
for three to four years at a time.
AB 530 (Krekorian) Ch. 244, Stats. 2009, extended the sunset
date to January 1, 2014 for two pilot programs permitting city
AB 2485
Page 8
attorneys or prosecutors in specified cities to bring an
unlawful detainer action against a tenant for unlawful
activities regarding both weapons and controlled substances. AB
530 also added the city of Sacramento to the controlled
substances pilot program.
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2014 seeks to re-establish the pilot
program for unlawful weapons-related evictions, which sunset at
the end of last year, and would continue participation for the
cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento. This bill is
currently being heard in Assembly Judiciary Committee at the
same time as this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The bill is opposed by several
apartment associations, who now voice concerns with aspects of
the controlled substances pilot program that were first codified
by AB 1013 (2007) and have remained unchanged for over five
years without respect to Sacramento's authority to participate
in the program. Furthermore, it should be noted that opponents'
objections as described below are to existing law , Civil Code
Section 3486(a), and not to any provisions sought to be amended
by this bill.
Nevertheless, among other things, these opponents state their
concern that the Section 3486 pilot program may unfairly require
landlords "to pay thousands of dollars to evict a tenant where
the only evidence is a police report, and where no other
financial help is provided to the landlord to file and proceed
on the city's behalf with an unlawful detainer action against an
accused tenant." These apartment associations oppose the bill
unless amended to require the city to refund money paid by a
landlord to the city to evict a tenant if a court finds in favor
of the tenant, or where the city fails to otherwise bring an
eviction action. They state:
Under this bill, landlords have no control over the
decision to evict, the allegations, or the evidence.
Yet, they will be required to pay money to the city
when the city believes a tenant should be evicted.
What if the government has little evidence that a
crime was committed? What if the city does not use
its best efforts at trial to evict? As a safeguard,
to ensure that eviction actions by the city are
pursued in good faith and with best efforts, the city
AB 2485
Page 9
attorney or prosecutor should refund the landlord's
money if a court finds insufficient evidence to evict.
The Committee notes that opponents' above reference to the
"landlord's money" paid to the city refers more specifically to
the "costs of investigation, discovery, and reasonable
attorney's fees, in an amount not to exceed $600" (Section
3486(a)(1)(E)) that are associated with assignment to the city
attorney of the landlord's right to bring an eviction action.
Accordingly, the assignment fee is meant to cover the time and
resources spent by the city preparing the case voluntarily
assigned to the city by the landlord, and those costs are
incurred by the city whether or not the city prevails in court
or a particular outcome results. Although assignment of the
case assuredly extinguishes the assigning party's right to bring
an action in the first place, opponents apparently believe it
does not extinguish any right to recover associated financial
costs in the case once it has concluded.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Office of the Sacramento City Attorney
Opposition
Apartment Association of California Southern Cities; East Bay
Rental
Housing Association; Nor Cal Rental Property Association
(joint letter)
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334