BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2492|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2492
Author: Jones-Sawyer (D)
Amended: 5/28/14 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/24/14
AYES: Hancock, De León, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Knight
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-23, 5/29/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Controlled substances: mandatory 90-day jail
sentence
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill repeals the provision mandating a 90-day
jail term for a first-time conviction of being under the
influence of one of a list of specified controlled substances.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Classifies controlled substances in five schedules according
to their danger and potential for abuse. Schedule I
controlled substances have the greatest restrictions and
penalties, including prohibiting the prescribing of a Schedule
I controlled substance.
CONTINUED
AB 2492
Page
2
2.Provides that no person shall use, or be under the influence
of specified controlled substances contained in Schedule I, or
II of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act, or a narcotic
classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, except pursuant to
authorized administration or valid prescription. Violation
of this statute is a misdemeanor and the defendant shall be
sentenced to a term of not less than 90 days or more than one
year in a county jail. The court may place a person convicted
under these provisions on probation for a period not to exceed
five years and, except as specified, shall in all cases in
which probation is granted require the defendant to be
confined in a county jail for at least 90 days. Other than as
specified, they may not relieve the defendant of the jail
obligation.
3.States that any person that is convicted of using or being
under the influence of a specified controlled substance when
the offense occurred within seven years of the person being
convicted of two or more separate violations of that
provision, and refuses to complete a licensed drug
rehabilitation program offered by the court, as specified, be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than
180 days nor more than one year. The court may not absolve
the defendant from the obligation of spending at least180 days
in a county jail, unless, there are no licensed drug
rehabilitation programs reasonably available. A drug
rehabilitation program shall not be considered reasonably
available unless the defendant is required to pay no more than
he/she is able to pay.
4.Provides that the court may, when it would be in the interest
of justice, permit any person convicted of using or being
under the influence of a specified controlled substance to
complete a licensed drug rehabilitation program in lieu of
part or all of the imprisonment in the county jail. As a
condition of sentencing, the court may require the offender to
pay all or a portion of the drug rehabilitation program.
5.States that any person convicted of the sale of cocaine or
heroin, who is eligible for probation, and is granted
probation shall, as a condition thereof, be confined in a
county jail for at least 180 days. The imposition of the
minimum 180-day sentence shall be imposed in every case where
probation has been granted, except that the court may, in an
AB 2492
Page
3
unusual case where the interest of justice would best be
served, absolve a person from spending the 180-day sentence in
the county jail if the court specifies on the record and
enters into the minutes, the circumstances indicating that the
interests of justice would best be served by that disposition.
This bill deletes the requirement that a person convicted of
using or being under the influence of specified controlled
substances serve at least 90 days in a county jail, and deletes
the requirement that as a condition of probation for commission
of the offense, the person serve at least 90 days in a county
jail.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/26/14)
Conference of California Bar Associations
Drug Policy Alliance
Greater Sacramento Urban League
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/26/14)
California District Attorneys Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"Evidence has shown that mandatory minimum sentences are not an
effective deterrent to reducing crime. A Policy Institute study
entitled, 'Treatment Not Incarceration,' reported that drug
offenders sentenced under mandatory minimum guidelines have a
two-thirds chance of recidivating. Additional evidence shows
that investing in drug treatment rather than incarceration saves
tax payer dollars. A RAND Corporation study entitled, 'Are
Mandatory Minimum Sentences Effective,' found that one dollar
spent on drug treatment saves society $7.50 in reduced crime and
regained productivity.
"In this same study individuals who were allowed to complete a
community based drug rehabilitation program instead of county
jail yielded a benefit of $8.87 for every program dollar spent.
Furthermore, offenders who underwent treatment showed a decline
of approximately two-thirds in overall arrests and a reduction
AB 2492
Page
4
in drug possession by more than 50%.
"Consequently, mandatory minimum sentencing is an outdated
approach to addressing drug violations. Moreover, arbitrary
sentencing requirements for a minor offense are not necessary
for a situation where people do no harm to others. AB 2492 will
give judges the discretion they need to sentence people
according to both previous offenses as well as the circumstances
surrounding their crime."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys
Association states:
"While existing law does require a minimum 90-day sentence for
these violations, H&S 11550(c) allows a court to permit an H&S
11550(a) defendant to complete a licensed drug rehabilitation
program in lieu of all or a part of the mandatory jail sentence.
This encourages counties to augment drug rehabilitation
programs in order to alleviate jail overcrowding.
"Eliminating the 90-day minimum creates inconsistency in
sentencing by permitting courts to require drug treatment
programs of less than 90 days. While we appreciate that drug
offenders would prefer to seek treatment rather than serve time
in jail, it is important that there be some minimum requirement
for their treatment. The 90-day minimum provides uniformity and
encourages meaningful rehabilitation efforts."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-23, 5/29/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Daly,
Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Hagman, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer,
Levine, Lowenthal, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande,
Olsen, Pan, John A. Pérez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh, Fox,
Frazier, Gatto, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Harkey, Logue,
Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Patterson, Perea, Quirk-Silva,
Salas, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Chávez, Dahle, Fong, Beth Gaines,
Linder, Mansoor, V. Manuel Pérez, Vacancy
AB 2492
Page
5
JG:e 6/26/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****