BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
5
1
4
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
As Amended April 23, 2013
Hearing date: April 30, 2013
Penal and Welfare and Institutions Codes
MK:mc
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY: CRIMES
HISTORY
Source: California District Attorneys Association
Prior Legislation: SB 1144 (Strickland) - Ch. 867, Stats. 2012
SB 428 (Strickland) - Ch. 304, Stats. 2011
SB 1062 (Strickland) - Ch. 708, Stats. 2010
SB 174 (Strickland) - Ch. 35, Stats. 2009
SB 1241 (Margett) - Ch. 699, Stats. 2008
SB 425 (Margett) - Ch. 302, Stats. 2007
SB 1422 (Margett) - Ch. 901, Stats. 2006
SB 1107 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 279,
Stats. 2005
SB 1796 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 405,
Stats. 2004
SB 851 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 468,
Stats. 2003
SB 1852 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 545,
Stats. 2002
SB 485 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 473,
Stats. 2001
SB 832 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 853,
Stats. 1999
SB 1880 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 606,
Stats. 1998
(More)
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
Page 2
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD TECHNICAL AND CORRECTIVE CHANGES BE MADE IN VARIOUS CODE
SECTIONS RELATING GENERALLY TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAWS, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make technical and corrective
changes to various code sections relating generally to criminal
justice laws, as specified.
Existing law provides that restitution fines and orders may not
be satisfied by the time a defendant is incarcerated. (Penal
Code § 1205(f).) However, there is a conflicting statute where
this prohibition is not clear. (Penal Code § 2900.5.)
This bill clarifies that term of imprisonment cannot satisfy a
restitution fine.
Existing law provides that any city, county, city and county or
district which desires to receive state aid from the Peace
Officers' Training Fund shall apply to the Commission on Peace
Officers Standards and Training for the aid. (Penal Code §
13522.)
This bill clarifies that a joint powers agency may also apply
for such aid and defines joint power agency.
This bill makes a number of cross-reference and technical
changes in the Penal Code and Welfare and Institutions Code.
(More)
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
Page 3
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 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
(More)
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
Page 4
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
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. Purpose of This Bill
This is the annual omnibus bill. In past years, the omnibus
bill has been introduced by all members of the Committee on
(More)
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
Page 5
Public Safety. This bill is similar to the ones introduced as
Committee bills in the past in that it has been introduced with
the following understanding:
The bill's provisions make only technical or minor
changes to the law; and
There is no opposition by any member of the Legislature
or recognized group to the proposal.
This procedure has allowed for introduction of fewer minor bills
and has saved the Legislature time and expense over the years.
(More)
2. Clarification That Jail Time Does Not Satisfy Restitution
Penal Code section 1205(f), which was added in the 2012
legislative session by Senate Bill 1371 (Anderson) states that
restitution fines and orders may not be satisfied by the time a
defendant is confined. In contrast, Penal Code section 2900.5
states that confinement time shall satisfy any fine, "including?
restitution fines."
SB 1371, which was passed without opposition, amended Penal Code
section 1205 by adding (f). Newly enacted 1205(f) appears to be
in direct and unintentional conflict with Penal Code section
2900.5. It is apparent that the author of SB 1371 was unaware
of Penal Code section 2900.5 when the bill language was drafted
to amend Penal Code section 1205. Legislative Council also
believes this was a drafting oversight.
Under general rules of statutory interpretation, if two statutes
conflict, the specific and more recently enacted statute usually
controls over the general statute. Thus, new Penal Code section
1205(f) would likely be considered controlling law. Practically
speaking, however, it is possible that prosecutors, defense
attorneys, and/or judicial officers may not be aware of the
conflict. It is further possible that Penal Code section 2900.5
might be used rather than Penal Code section 1205 for purposes
of "time served" calculations. Invariably, this will lead to
inconsistent and contrary results. Therefore, this bill amends
Penal Code 2900.5 to be consistent with Penal Code section 1205.
3. Joint Powers Authority Can Apply for POST Funds
On January 30, 1980, the Town of Corte Madera and the City of
Larkspur executed a joint powers agreement (JPA) creating the
Twin Cities Police Authority (TCPA) to provide consolidated
police services to Larkspur and Corte Madera.
During 2009, the San Anselmo Police Department (SAPD) agreed to
temporarily house the dispatch unit of the TCPA during the
construction of a new TCPA headquarters (2010-2113). During
(More)
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
Page 7
this period, SAPD and TCPA entered into multiple agreements
under which they shared services which led to even greater
cooperation, coordination, cost savings and higher levels of
police services to their services.
San Anselmo, Larkspur, and Corte Madera are "like" public
entities. All three municipalities are in close geographical
proximity, have similar police protection needs and a history of
coordination and cooperation for the provision of police
services. The City of Larkspur, the Town of Corte Madera, and
the Town of San Anselmo agreed to amend their 1-30-1980 joint
powers agreement to add the Town of San Anselmo as a member, and
to provide consolidated police services to the City of Larkspur,
the Town of Corte Madera, and the Town of San Anselmo.
To reflect the expanded jurisdiction of the JPA and to
incorporate a geographical reference into the name of the JPA,
the amended agreement changes the name of the agency from TCPA
to the Central Marin Police Authority (CMPA).
The Town Council of San Anselmo has delegated to the
newly-created Central Marin Police Authority its power to
appoint sworn peace officers under Penal Code section 830.1, and
all other powers necessary to provide services to the citizens
of the San Anselmo. The amended joint powers agreement became
effective January 1, 2013.
Current law does not explicitly convey the intent of the
Legislature to recognize that joint power authorities for the
purposes of this chapter, formed pursuant to Government Code
section 6500, et seq., be entitled to receive funding from the
Peace Officers' Training fund.
This bill will clarify that it is the intent of the Legislature
in adding this section that effect be given to amendments made
by Chapter 950 of the Statutes of 1989. The Legislature
recognized those amendments were intended to make joint power
agencies entitled to allocations from the Peace Officers'
Training Fund for state aid pursuant to this chapter,
SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety)
Page 8
notwithstanding the amendments made by Chapter 1165 of the
Statutes of 1989, which will added section 13526 to this Code.
The proposed amendments are declaratory of existing law.
4. Technical Changes
This bill also makes a number of technical and cross-reference
changes.
***************