BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 896|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 896
Author: Wagner (R)
Amended: 8/18/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/15/15
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-1, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Counties: search or rescue: costs
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill allows counties to seek reimbursement from
residents age 16 or older for search and rescue costs under
specified conditions.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/18/15 require that a person's
actions leading to the emergency must have resulted in a
criminal conviction in order to be billed by a county for his or
her search or rescue, rather than a violation of the law, and
not simply "wanton and reckless misconduct."
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Allows a county board of supervisors to authorize the sheriff
to search for and rescue persons who are lost or are in danger
AB 896
Page 2
of their lives within or in the immediate vicinity of the
county.
2)Permits the county or city and county that performed the
search and rescue to bill the county or city and county of
residence of the person searched for or rescued for all the
reasonable expenses exceeding $100.
3)Authorizes public agencies to recover up to $12,000 from the
driver of a motor vehicle, boat, or plane under the influence
of alcohol or drugs whose negligent operation of the vehicle
resulted in an emergency response.
4)Makes any person who intentionally enters into an area that is
closed to the public resulting in a search and rescue liable
for search and rescue costs up to $12,000.
5)Allows counties and public agencies to charge a person who
negligently or in violation of the law sets a fire or allows a
fire to be set, for the cost of providing rescue or emergency
medical services.
This bill:
1)Allows a county or city and county that is billed by another
county or city and county, for a search and rescue of one of
its residents who is 16 years or age or older, to seek
reimbursement from that resident for the actual costs
incurred, if the need for the search or rescue necessitated
the use of extraordinary methods and was caused by any act in
knowing violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance
that results in a criminal conviction.
2)Requires a person 16 years of age or older living within a
county or city and county, who is searched for or rescued, to
pay the county or city and county conducting the search or
rescue for the actual cost incurred within 30 days, of the
need for the search and rescue necessitated the use of
extraordinary methods and was caused an act in knowing
violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance that
results in a criminal conviction.
3)Prohibits the county or city and county from collecting
charges from those persons who the county or city and county
AB 896
Page 3
determine are unable to pay.
4)Prohibits a county or city and county from billing a resident
more than $12,000, adjusted annually for inflation as
determined by the Department of Industrial Relations, for a
search or rescue, unless the search or rescue is was caused by
an act that resulted in a felony conviction of that resident
under federal or state law.
5)Provides that a county or a city and county may only seek
reimbursement as authorized by the bill if the board of
supervisors adopts an ordinance consistent with this bill.
Background
From 1995 to 1999, state law allowed a county or city and county
that is billed by another county or city and county for a search
and rescue of one of its residents who is 16 years of age or
older to seek reimbursement from that resident for the cost
incurred by the county. The law also required a person 16 years
of age or older living within a county or city and county who is
searched for or rescued to pay the county or city and county for
the actual cost incurred for the search or rescue within 30 days
after being billed for those charges. In order to recover the
costs, the need for the search and rescue had to necessitate the
use of extraordinary methods and be caused by one of the
following factors:
Any intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or
state law or local ordinance.
Any act or omission by the person searched for or rescued that
shows wanton and reckless misconduct in disregard for his or
her safety.
The law prohibited the county or city and county from collecting
charges from those persons who the county or city and county
determined were unable to pay. The city and county also could
not bill a resident more than $5,000 for a search and rescue.
According to the courts, "wanton misconduct is intentional
wrongful conduct, done either with a knowledge that serious
injury to another will probably result, or with a wanton and
reckless disregard of the possible results." The courts have
found that three essential elements must be present to raise a
AB 896
Page 4
negligent act to the level of willful or wanton misconduct: (1)
actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended,
(2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable,
as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3)
conscious failure to act to avoid the peril.
Some local officials want to reinstate the statutory authority
to allow counties to recover costs of search and rescue from
residents that break the law and raise the liability cap from
$5,000 to $12,000.
Comments
1)Purpose of the bill. In 2013, two teenagers became lost while
hiking in Orange County, resulting in an extensive search that
cost the responding agencies more than $160,000. The hikers
later admitted to being under the influence of drugs, which
led them to become disoriented and lost. Counties find it
difficult to bear the financial burdens of extraordinary
search and rescue costs. AB 896 would hold individuals who
break the law accountable for the costs of an extraordinary
search and rescue effort to aid them.
2)Stuck with the bill. Several states use methods other than
billing their citizens to recoup some of their search and
rescue costs. For example, Colorado and New Hampshire offer
voluntary "hike safe" cards to hikers, ranging in price from
$3-25 per year per person, the revenue from which is used to
help offset state agencies' search and rescue costs. In New
Hampshire, which enacted a law similar to AB 896 in 1999,
"hike safe" cardholders are indemnified from liability for any
search and rescue costs brought about by their own negligence.
As of last month, New Hampshire had sold approximately 1,400
"hike safe" cards, which generated about $36,000 in revenue.
While indemnifying irresponsible hiking may be controversial,
recovering search and rescue costs from hikers after the fact
can prove difficult and time consuming for counties.
Furthermore, the prospect of being billed thousands of dollars
after being rescued could deter people in need from calling
for help. It is unclear that billing hikers for their own
search and rescue after the fact is an optimal way to of
offset counties' search and rescue costs.
Prior Legislation
AB 896
Page 5
This bill is virtually identical to AB 2151 (Wagner, 2014),
which the Senate Governance and Finance Committee passed on June
18, 2014. Governor Brown eventually vetoed AB 2151, citing the
bill's "vague language that may create an incentive for counties
to abuse the authority" granted by the bill, and the fact that
"current law already allows counties to recover costs for search
and rescue through a civil lawsuit if they can prove 'gross
negligence' on behalf of the rescued individual." In his veto
message, the Governor expressed concern that charging
individuals up to $12,000 without filing a civil suit could
deprive citizens of their right to due process. This bill is
indistinguishable from the legislation the Governor vetoed.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/15)
California State Sheriff's Association
Rural County Representatives of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-1, 5/28/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla,
Bonta, Brough, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey,
Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell,
AB 896
Page 6
Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond,
Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Gonzalez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Burke, Eduardo Garcia, Grove, Mayes,
Weber
Prepared by:Toren Lewis / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
8/19/15 20:42:52
*** END ****