BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 896
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
896 (Wagner)
As Amended August 18, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 73-1 | (May 28, |SENATE: | 40-0 |(August 31, |
| | |2015) | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY: Allows counties to seek reimbursement from residents
age 16 or older for search or rescue costs under specified
conditions.
The Senate amendments:
1)Remove a provision that would have allowed counties to seek
reimbursement if the need for a search or rescue was caused by
any act or omission by the person searched for or rescued that
shows wanton and reckless misconduct in disregard for his or
her safety.
2)Specify that, in order for a county to seek reimbursement, the
AB 896
Page 2
need for a search or rescue must have been caused by an
intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or state
law or local ordinance that resulted in a criminal conviction
of the person searched for or rescued.
3)Specify that a county shall not bill a resident more than
$12,000 unless the search or rescue was caused by an act
described in 2) above, that resulted in a felony conviction of
that resident under any federal or state law.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a county board of supervisors may authorize the
sheriff to search for and rescue persons who are lost or are
in danger of their lives within or in the immediate vicinity
of the county, and that the consequent expense incurred by the
sheriff is a proper county charge.
2)Requires the county or city and county of residence of a
person searched for or rescued by a sheriff to pay to the
county or city and county conducting the search or rescue all
of the reasonable search or rescue expenses in excess of $100
within 30 days, as specified.
3)Provides that any person whose intentionally wrongful conduct
proximately causes an incident resulting in an appropriate
emergency response is liable for the expenses of an emergency
response by a public agency, up to $12,000 per incident.
"Intentionally wrongful conduct" means conduct intended to
injure another person or property.
4)Provides that any person who is under the influence of an
AB 896
Page 3
alcoholic beverage or any drug, as specified, whose negligent
operation of a motor vehicle, boat or vessel, or civil
aircraft proximately causes any incident resulting in an
appropriate emergency response, is liable for the expense of
an emergency response by a public agency to the incident, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill allows counties to seek reimbursement
for costs incurred in search or rescue efforts by billing any
resident age 16 or older, who must pay within 30 days, if the
need for a search for, or rescue of, that person necessitated
the use of extraordinary methods and was caused by an
intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or state
law or local ordinance that resulted in a criminal conviction
of that person for that act.
A county is not allowed to collect charges from a person who
the county determines is unable to pay, nor is a county
allowed to bill a resident more than $12,000 unless the search
or rescue was caused by an act described above that resulted
in a felony conviction of that resident under any federal or
state law. A county must adopt an ordinance in order to
exercise this bill's authority to seek reimbursement for
search or rescue costs. This bill is sponsored by the author.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "California law
does not allow a county to recover the actual cost of search
or rescue of a resident who is 16 years of age or older if the
AB 896
Page 4
need for the search or rescue of that resident was
necessitated by the use of extraordinary methods and if any of
the following was a contributing factor to the need for the
search or rescue: a) any act in violation of any federal or
state law or local ordinance; or b) any act or omission by the
person searched for or rescued that shows wanton and reckless
misconduct in disregard for his or her safety."
3)Background. In March of 2013, Nicholas Cendoya and Kyndall
Jack became lost while hiking in Trabuco Canyon, resulting in
an extensive search that cost responding agencies more than
$160,000. For the Orange County agencies, the Orange County
Sheriff's Department's costs were $32,273.23; the Orange
County Fire Authority's costs were $55,000; and, Orange County
Parks' costs were $6,421. The hikers admitted to being under
the influence of drugs when they became disoriented and lost
their way. Methamphetamine was recovered from Cendoya's
backpack in a car that the two hikers drove to the location.
This bill is modeled after former Government Code Sections
26614.6 and 26614.7. Under former Government Code Section
26614.6, whenever a county was billed for a search or rescue
of one of its residents 16 years of age or older by another
county, the county receiving the bill could in turn seek
reimbursement for the actual cost incurred from that resident
if the need for the search or rescue necessitated the use of
extraordinary methods and was caused by any of the following:
a) Any intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or
state law or local ordinance; or b) Any act or omission by the
person searched for or rescued that shows wanton and reckless
misconduct in disregard for his or her safety.
Under former Government Code Section 26614.7, a county could
bill the search and rescue costs, up to $5,000, to a resident
16 years of age or older if the need for that resident's
search or rescue necessitated the use of extraordinary methods
and was caused by any of the following: a) Any intentional
act in knowing violation of any federal or state law or local
ordinance; or, b) 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 prior statutes sunsetted
AB 896
Page 5
on January 1, 1999.
4)Policy Considerations. This bill presents a number of policy
considerations:
a) Liability Cap. Existing law limits liability for any
person whose intentionally wrongful conduct proximately
causes an incident resulting in an appropriate emergency
response to $12,000 per incident. The provisions of prior
law this bill seeks to reinstate also contained a cap of
$5,000. This bill contains a limited cap of $12,000, but
leaves unrestricted the amount a county can bill for a
search or rescue that is caused by an intentional act in
knowing violation of any federal or state law that results
in a felony conviction.
b) Age. This bill would allow charges against anyone age
16 and above, with no explanation for this age limit aside
from referring to the now-sunsetted provisions of prior
law.
c) County Determination. This bill allows a county to
determine whether a person subject to its provisions is
able to pay for search or rescue costs, even though the
county would have a financial interest in that
determination.
5)Previous Legislation. AB 2151 (Wagner) of 2014 was similar to
this bill. AB 2151 was vetoed with the following message:
While I agree with the author's intent to discourage
unlawful actions that can place persons and rescue
personnel in danger, this bill contains vague language
that may create an incentive for counties to abuse the
AB 896
Page 6
authority granted by this bill. 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. This
bill would allow counties to bypass that due process
completely and serve an individual with a bill for up to
$12,000. I encourage the author to craft a bill that
strikes the right balance between appropriate due process
and cost recovery for reckless misconduct.
6)Arguments in Support. The California State Sheriffs'
Association, in support, states, "Currently, California law
does not provide for a county to recover costs from
individuals for search and rescue operations that require the
use of extraordinary methods and/or extensive search efforts
and result in exorbitant costs to responding agencies. When
these efforts are necessitated by a willful act of negligence,
misconduct, or disregard for personal safety by a resident,
the law should provide recourse for a public agency to collect
on the resources expended."
7)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0001401