BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session AB 696 (Jones-Sawyer) - Defendants: arraignment ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: May 18, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 3 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: No | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: July 6, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: AB 696 would require probable cause determinations for misdemeanor defendants not in custody to be made 30 days before the date calendared for trial at the arraignment unless a later date is requested by the defense, as specified. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing increase in court workload and costs, potentially in the millions of dollars (General Fund*), for new probable cause determinations for non-custodial misdemeanor defendants. For every 10 percent of non-custodial defendants charged with a misdemeanor who request such a determination of probable cause, annual costs are estimated at $2.5 million. *Trial Court Trust Fund Background: Existing law provides that upon motion by an in custody defendant at the time he or she appears before a magistrate for AB 696 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 1 of ? arraignment and the offense is a misdemeanor to which the defendant has pleaded not guilty, the magistrate is required to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a public offense has been committed and that the defendant is guilty thereof. (Penal Code (PC) § 991(a).) Under existing law, the determination of probable cause is required to be made immediately unless the court grants a continuance for good cause not to exceed three court days. In determining the existence of probable cause, the magistrate is required to consider any warrant of arrest with supporting affidavits, and the sworn complaint together with any documents or reports incorporated by reference which, if based on information and belief, state the basis for that information, or any other documents of similar reliability. If, after examining these documents, the court determines that there exists probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the offense charged in the complaint, it shall set the matter for trial. If the court determines that no such probable cause exists, it shall dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendant. (PC § 991(b)-(d).) According to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles decision in People v. McGowan (filed 3/27/15 BR 051696; Airport Trial Court No. 4WA22795): It was for good reason that the Legislature implemented a procedure to ensure a confined misdemeanant is held for trial only if there is probable cause to believe he or she committed a crime charged in the complaint. The constitutional right to a judicial determination of probable cause following arrest has its roots in Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment vests an in-custody defendant with the right to have a prompt postarrest determination of whether there is probable cause to believe he or she committed "a crime." (Id. at pp. 114, 119-120.) The California Supreme Court ultimately applied the Gerstein rule to California misdemeanants held in custody. (In re Walters (1975) 15 Cal.3d 738, 747 (Walters).) Section 991 did not exist at the time Walters was decided. Thus, "California procedures governing the pretrial detention of those charged with misdemeanors . . . AB 696 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 2 of ? [did] not . . . comport with . . . constitutional requirements . . . since the defendant [was] not afforded a post-arrest judicial determination that probable cause exist[ed] for his continued detention." (Id. at p. 747.) This led to Walters' holding that, "unless waived, a judicial determination of probable cause is required in every case where a defendant charged with a misdemeanor is detained awaiting trial." (Ibid.) In response to the requirements of Walters, section 991 was enacted "to be a safeguard against the hardship suffered by a misdemeanant who is detained in custody, by providing that a probable cause hearing will be held immediately, at the time of arraignment, . . ." (People v. Ward (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11, 15, 17.) Proposed Law: This bill would provide that when a defendant is not in custody at the time he or she appears before the magistrate for arraignment and the public offense is a misdemeanor to which the defendant has pleaded not guilty, the magistrate, on motion of counsel for the defendant or the defendant, shall determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a public offense has been committed and that the defendant is guilty thereof. This bill requires the determination to be made 30 days before the date calendared for trial at the arraignment, unless a later date is requested by the defense in order to allow the prosecution to supplement specified materials with the discovery that it is required to provide. Related Legislation: None applicable. Staff Comments: The Judicial Council has indicated a potentially significant increase in workload for courts should the provisions of this bill become law. By requiring courts to provide in-court probable cause determinations for up to 90 percent of a county's charged misdemeanants (as it is estimated AB 696 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 3 of ? 10 percent are held in custody), statewide costs could potentially exceed several million dollars annually, based on an estimate of three minutes of court time per defendant to complete an uncontested probable cause determination . For every 10 percent of non-custodial defendants charged with a misdemeanor who request such a determination of probable cause, annual costs are estimated at $2.5 million. Specifically, the Judicial Council has indicated the following: "The implementation of probable cause determinations for non-custodial misdemeanants would add significant time to already impacted court calendars, and the expenditure of court resources (most significantly court personnel costs). It is reasonable to assume that a simple, uncontested probable cause determination requires about three minutes of court time. In Fresno, a court serving a county of under one million people, there are 800 misdemeanor arraignments in a week. Subtracting 10 percent (representing the in-custody population) leaves 720 out-of-custody misdemeanor defendants each week entitled to a probable cause determination should AB 696 be signed into law. At three minutes per defendant, 36 additional hours would be required to process the same number of defendants, without, according to the court in McGowan, the advancement or protection of any constitutional right or protection. In dollars, 36 hours of court time is $21,600 per week. Extrapolated to a 50-week year (due to budget cuts, Fresno is closed over the course of a year by about two full weeks), the cost is $1,080,000. According to the most recent filings data, there were 926,169 misdemeanors filed in California. (Fresno accounted for 38,431 of those filings, representing 4.1% of statewide total.) Using the same ratio of in-custody to not-in-custody misdemeanants (10% to 90%), the total number of probable cause determinations that would be required in California per the terms of AB 696 would be 833,553. The cost to California's courts would be an estimated $25 million every year. It is also worth noting that Prop. 47 will add thousands of misdemeanants to the courts' calendars, which may result in even greater costs to the courts should AB 696 be enacted. This calculation represents revenues that courts currently spend on access to justice, for example self-help centers, counter clerks, clerks to answer telephones, filing clerks, research staff, and other court operations. Diverting this funding from court operations for probable cause determinations for misdemeanor defendants would have significant AB 696 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 4 of ? impacts on court operations." -- END --