BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 989 Hearing Date: June 23, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooper |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 16, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juveniles: Sealed Records
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California; State
Coalition of Probation Organizations
Prior Legislation:SB 1038 (Leno), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2014
Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; Association of Probation Supervisors;
California District Attorneys Association; California
Probation, Parole and Correctional Association;
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police;
County of San Diego; Fraternal Order of Police; Kern
County Probation Officers Association; Long Beach
Police Officers Association; Los Angeles County
Professional Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles
County Probation Officers Union; Los Angeles Police
Protective League; Monterey County Probation
Association; Orange County Employees Association;
Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Sacramento County
Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Sacramento County
Probation Association; San Francisco Deputy Probation
Officers' Association; San Joaquin Probation Officers
Association; San Mateo County Probation and Detention
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
2 of ?
Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association;
Santa Clara County Probation Peace Officers' Union;
Shasta County Professional Peace Officers Association;
Ventura County Professional Peace Officers'
Association
Opposition:Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide limited access to
otherwise sealed juvenile records to district attorneys and
probation departments, as specified.
Current law provides that five years or more after the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court has terminated over a person
adjudged a ward of the court or after a minor appeared before a
probation officer, or, in any case, at any time after the person
has reached the age of 18, the person or county probation
officer, with specified exceptions, may petition the juvenile
court for sealing of the records, including arrest records,
relating to the person's case, in the custody of the juvenile
court, the probation officer, or any other agency or public
official. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781, subd. (a).)
Current law states that once the court has ordered the person's
records sealed, the proceedings in the case shall be deemed
never to have occurred, and the person may reply accordingly to
any inquiry about the events. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781, subd.
(a).)
Current law prohibits, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the court from ordering a person's records sealed in any
case in which the person has been found to have committed an
offense listed in section 707(b), which are offenses for which
certain minors could be tried in adult court under specified
circumstances. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781, subd. (a).)
Current law permits the court to access a file that has been
sealed for the limited purpose of verifying the prior
jurisdictional status of the ward who is petitioning the court
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
3 of ?
to resume its jurisdiction, as specified. This access is not to
be deemed an unsealing of the records. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
781, subd. (e).)
Current law allows a judge of the juvenile court in which a
petition was filed to dismiss the petition, or to set aside the
findings and dismiss the petition, if the court finds that the
interests of justice and the welfare of the person who is the
subject of the petition require that dismissal, or if it finds
that he or she is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation.
The court has jurisdiction to order dismissal or setting aside
of the findings and dismissal regardless of whether the person
who is the subject of the petition is, at the time of the order,
a ward or dependent child of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
782.)
Current law states that any person who was under the age of 18
when he or she was arrested for a misdemeanor may petition the
court in which the proceedings occurred or, if there were no
court proceedings, the court in whose jurisdiction the arrest
occurred, for an order sealing the records in the case,
including any records of arrest and detention, in certain
circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 851.7.)
Current law provides that a person who was under the age of 18
at the time of commission of a misdemeanor and is eligible for,
or has previously received expungement relief, may petition the
court for an order sealing the record of conviction and other
official records in the case, including arrest records and
records relating to other offenses charged in the accusatory
pleading, whether the defendant was acquitted, or the charges
dismissed. Thereafter the conviction, arrest, or other
proceeding shall be deemed not to have occurred, and the
petitioner may answer accordingly any question relating to their
occurrence. (Pen. Code, § 1203.45, subd. (a).)
Current law provides that, if a minor satisfactorily completes
an informal program of supervision, probation as specified, or a
term of probation for any offense other than a specified
serious, sexual, or violent offense, then the court shall order
sealed all records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the
custody of the juvenile court, except that the prosecuting
attorney and the probation department of any county shall have
access to these records after they are sealed for the limited
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
4 of ?
purpose of determining whether the minor is eligible for
deferred entry of judgment. The court may access a file that
has been sealed pursuant to this section for the limited purpose
of verifying the prior jurisdictional status of a ward who is
petitioning the court to resume its jurisdiction. This access
shall not be deemed an unsealing of the record and shall not
require notice to any other entity. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786.)
This bill would recast this statute, and add the following
provisions:
Authorize the prosecuting attorney and the probation
department of any county access to the records to determine
if the minor is eligible for informal supervision, as
specified;
Provide that if "a new petition has been filed against
the minor for a felony offense, the probation department of
any county shall have access to the records for the limited
purpose of identifying the minor's previous court-ordered
programs or placements, and in that event solely to
determine the individual's eligibility or suitability for
remedial programs or services. The information obtained
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be disseminated to
other agencies or individuals, except as necessary to
implement a referral to a remedial program or service, and
shall not be used to support the imposition of penalties,
detention, or other sanctions upon the minor."; and
Provide that the probation department of any county may
access the records for the limited purpose of meeting
federal Title IV-E compliance.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
5 of ?
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
" 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
" 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
" 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
" Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
" Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
" Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
" Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
" Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
6 of ?
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
In 2014, SB 1038 (Leno) regarding juvenile records
sealing was signed into law. The bill provided for the
automatic dismissal of juvenile petitions and sealing
of records in cases where a juvenile offender
successfully completes probation. The intent was to
provide incentives for youth to successfully complete
probation and foster employment, housing, and
education opportunities by setting forth a process to
have juvenile records sealed.
Upon implementation there have been varying legal
opinions as to whether probation records such as
program referrals and risk/needs assessments are
considered part of the court record and would
therefore be required to be sealed under the
provisions of SB 1038.
Therefore, there are cases when a youth comes back
into the custody of the juvenile court and probation
is unable to view their previous program referrals and
other information relative to eligibility for programs
to make the most appropriate determination on getting
them connected to services. Further, it is important
that probation be able to access records on a limited
basis for the purposes of determining AB 12 extended
foster care eligibility, eligibility for informal
probation, and Federal Title IV-E purposes. In order
to achieve the best outcomes for these minors, it is
important that probation have access to this
information to make the most effective case plan
determinations for the minor's treatment.
AB 989 would continue the practice and original intent
of SB 1038 to ensure that minors' records are
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
7 of ?
automatically sealed upon successful completion and
would clarify that in cases where a juvenile record
has been sealed pursuant to Welfare & Institutions
Code 786, if a youth subsequently comes back into the
custody of the juvenile court, probation may access
limited information as it pertains to determining AB
12 extended foster care eligibility, informal
probation eligibility, Federal Title IV-E purposes and
prior program and service referrals in order to most
appropriately develop a case plan to address the
treatment needs of the minor.
2.Sealing and Destruction of Records
Minors adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court proceedings
may petition the court to have their records sealed unless
they were found to have committed certain serious offenses.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781.) A person may have his or her
juvenile court records sealed by petitioning the court
"five years or more after the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court has terminated over [the] person adjudged a ward of
the court or after [the] minor appeared before a probation
officer, or, in any case, at any time after the person has
reached the age of 18." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781, subd.
(a).) Once the court has ordered the records sealed, the
proceedings in the case shall be deemed never to have
occurred, and the person may properly reply accordingly to
any inquiry about the events. (Ibid.) The relief consists
of sealing all of the records related to the case,
including the arrest record, court records, entries on
dockets, and any other papers and exhibits. The court must
send a copy of the order to each agency and official named
in the petition for sealing records, directing the agency
to seal its records and stating the date thereafter to
destroy the sealed records. (Ibid.)
A minor's juvenile court case is dismissed and court
records sealed without a petition from the minor if the
minor has been found to have satisfactorily completed an
informal program of supervision or probation, except in
specified cases. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786.) Upon sealing
of the record, the arrest upon which the judgment was
deferred shall be deemed to have never occurred. (Ibid.)
The court shall order sealed all records in its custody
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
8 of ?
pertaining to a petition dismissed. (Ibid.) The prosecuting
attorney and the probation department of any county shall
have access to these records after they are sealed for the
limited purpose of determining whether the minor is
eligible for deferred entry of judgment. The court may
access the sealed file for the limited purpose of verifying
the prior jurisdictional status of a ward who is
petitioning the court to resume its jurisdiction. (Ibid.)
3.Support
The State Coalition of Probation Organizations, a
co-sponsor of this bill, submits in part:
(Under current law), if a juvenile has completed
his/her term of probation, and is subsequently
arrested as a minor, probation officers are prohibited
from accessing all files, including their own
department's files, for any purpose. As a result,
without access to earlier files, the probation officer
has no ability to determine the proper course of
action as it pertains to placement and/or
rehabilitative placement. This prohibition also
inhibits the probation officer's ability to provide a
comprehensive dispositional report to the court.
This bill will grant probation officers limited access
to juvenile files, in case of a subsequent arrest of a
juvenile, in order to inform the probation officer's
recommendation for rehabilitation program referral,
risk-needs assessments, and other placements.
This clean up legislation is vital for the proper
performance of probation officer duties as it pertains
to re-offender juveniles. . . .
4.Opposition
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, which opposes
this bill, states in part:
California's confidentiality laws are intended to
protect children from present and future adverse
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
9 of ?
consequences and unnecessary emotional harm. Juvenile
courts are intended to have exclusive authority in
determining whether a juvenile record is to be shared.
Under current law, entities must petition the court
to obtain someone's confidential juvenile records.
This process gives the defending party an opportunity
to contest the sharing of information that may be
detrimental to his or her rehabilitation and best
interests.
AB 989 would add a new subsection (b)(3) to Welfare
and Institutions Code Section 786 to grant probation
departments access to sealed juvenile records, for the
limited purpose of determining program referrals.
This proposal is unnecessary because district
attorneys already make informed decisions to refer
young defendants to programs, regardless of probation
records. District attorneys already have access to
sealed juvenile records to decide eligibility for
deferred entry of judgment. Additionally, we are
concerned that it will be difficult to limit access to
this stated 'limited purpose,' and difficult to know
whether access was limited in this fashion or whether
probation officers used this information for other
purposes.
5.Related Bills
This Committee heard and passed SB 504 (Lara) earlier this
year (5-2). That bill has been narrowed since leaving this
Committee to limiting fees associated with sealing juvenile
records and other potential liabilities, and to prohibiting
an unfulfilled order of restitution that has been converted
to a civil judgment from barring the sealing of a juvenile
record. The bill would also prohibit outstanding
restitution fines and court-ordered fees from being
considered when assessing whether a petitioner's
rehabilitation has been attained to the satisfaction of the
court and from barring the sealing of a record. SB 504 is
now in the Assembly.
AB 666 (Stone), also before the Committee, amends the same
statute as this bill concerning the dismissal of juvenile
petitions. As now in print AB 989 is more narrow than AB
AB 989 (Cooper ) Page
10 of ?
666, but the bills are not in conflict with respect to
their substantive changes to the law. The authors of these
bills may wish to add chaptering amendments to harmonize
these provisions.
-- END -