BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 514 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 18, 2013 Counsel: Stella Choe ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Tom Ammiano, Chair SB 514 (Committee on Public Safety) - As Amended: April 23, 2013 SUMMARY : Makes technical and corrective changes, as well as non-controversial substantive changes, to various code sections relating to criminal justice laws. Specifically, this bill : 1)Clarifies that a term of imprisonment cannot satisfy a restitution fine. 2)Defines a "joint powers agency" as any agency, entity, or authority formed pursuant Government Code sections relating to joint powers agreements. 3)Clarifies that a joint powers agency may apply to the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to receive state aid from the Peace Officers' Training Fund. 4)Makes technical corrections to various other sections in the Penal Code and Welfare and Institutions Code. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that all days of a defendant's custody, including days served as a condition of probation in compliance with a court order, shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment, or credited to any fine on a proportional basis, including, but not limited to, base fines and restitution fines, which may be imposed, at the rate of not less than $30 per day, or more, in the discretion of the court imposing the sentence. [Penal Code Section 2900.5(a).] 2)Entitles a defendant held in custody for nonpayment of a fine to be credited on the fine for each day he or she is held in custody, at the rate specified in the judgment. Specifies that this custody credit does not apply to nonpayment of restitution fines. [Penal Code Section 1205(a) and (f).] SB 514 Page 2 3)Requires POST to annually allocate, and the State Treasurer to periodically pay, from the Peace Officers' Training Fund, at intervals specified by POST, to each city, county, and district which has applied and qualified for aid pursuant to this chapter an amount determined by the commission pursuant to standards set forth in its regulations. POST shall grant aid only on a basis that is equally proportionate among cities, counties, and districts. State aid shall only be provided for training expenses of full-time regularly paid employees, as defined by POST, of eligible agencies from cities, counties, or districts. In no event shall any allocation be made to any city, county, or district which is not adhering to the standards established by the commission as applicable to such city, county, or district. (Penal Code Section 13523.) 4)States if authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies by agreement may jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, even though one or more of the contracting agencies may be located outside this state. (Government Code Section 6502.) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 514 is the annual public safety omnibus bill. It makes technical and minor changes to the law affecting public safety. There is no opposition by any member of the Legislature or recognized group to any of the proposals." 2)Clarification That Jail Time Does Not Satisfy Restitution : This clarification was suggested by the Office of Governmental Affairs of the Judicial Council. According to the background materials provided by the sponsor of this bill, "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 SB 514 Page 3 Code section 1205 by adding (f). Newly enacted 1205(f) appears to be in direct and unintentional conflict with Penal Code section 2900.5. The author of SB 1371, Senator Joel Anderson, was unaware of Penal Code section 2900.5 when his 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, it is recommended that Penal Code 2900.5 be amended to be consistent with Penal Code section 1205." 3)Authorizing Joint Powers Authority to Apply for POST Funds : This change was suggested by POST. The sponsor of this bill provides the following justification for this amendment: "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 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 SB 514 Page 4 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 change clarifies 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, 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)Argument in Support : The California District Attorneys Office (the sponsor of this bill), states, "[w]e are pleased to be the sponsor of . . . SB 514, which is the annual public safety omnibus bill. "As you know, the utility of this measure is to make minor and technical changes to various statutes relating to relating to crime and criminal procedure in a way that results in no opposition. We continue to abide by the custom and practice SB 514 Page 5 that requires the removal of any provision that draws opposition in order to ensure that this bill remains completely non-controversial." 5)Prior Legislation : a) SB 1144 (Strickland), Chapter 867, Statutes of 2012, was the annual 2012 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. b) SB 428 (Strickland), Chapter 304, Statutes of 2011, was the annual 2011 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. c) SB 1062 (Strickland), Chapter 708, Statutes of 2010, was the annual 2010 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. d) SB 174 (Strickland), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2009, was the annual 2009 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. e) SB 1241 (Margett), Chapter 699, Statutes of 2008, was the annual 2008 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. f) SB 425 (Margett), Chapter 302, Statutes of 2007, was the annual 2007 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. g) SB 1422 (Margett), Chapter 901, Statutes of 2006, was the annual 2006 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. h) SB 1107 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 279, Statutes of 2005, was the annual 2005 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. i) SB 1796 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2004, was the annual 2004 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. j) SB 851 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 468, Statutes of 2003, was the annual 2003 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. aa) SB 1852 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 545, Statutes of 2002, was the annual 2002 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. bb) SB 485 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 473, Statutes of 2001, was the annual 2001 Public Safety SB 514 Page 6 Committee's omnibus bill. cc) SB 832 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 853, Statutes of 1999, was the annual 1999 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill dd) SB 1880 (Senate Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 606, Statutes of 1998, was the annual 1998 Public Safety Committee's omnibus bill. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California District Attorneys Association (Sponsor) San Diego District Attorney Opposition None Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744