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