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