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 --