BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1375 Hearing Date: June 16, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Thurmond |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Penalties: Nonpayment of Fines
HISTORY
Source: Conference of California Bar Associations
Prior Legislation:SB 1371 (Anderson), Chapter 49, Statutes of
2012
Support: American Civil Liberties Union of California;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; Ella Baker Center for Human
Rights
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the statutory rate for
payment of fines by incarceration from not less than $30 per day
to not less than $125 per day.
Existing law authorizes the court to incarcerate a defendant
AB 1375 (Thurmond ) PageB
of?
until an imposed criminal fine is satisfied, but limits such
imprisonment to the maximum term permitted for the particular
offense of conviction. (Penal Code § 1205(a).)
Existing law requires that the time of imprisonment for failure
to pay a fine be calculated as no more than one day for every
$30 of the fine. (Penal Code § 1205(a).)
Existing law states that this provision applies to any violation
of any of the codes or statutes of the state which are
punishable by a fine or by a fine and imprisonment, but that it
does not apply to restitution fines or restitution orders.
(Penal Code § 1205(c) and (f).)
Existing law provides that all days spent in custody by the
defendant must first be applied to the term of imprisonment and
then to any fine including, but not limited to, base fines at
the rate of not less than $30 per day, or more, in the
discretion of the trial court. (Penal Code § 2900.5(a).)
This bill requires that the time of imprisonment for failure to
pay a fine be calculated as no more than one day for every $125
of the fine.
This bill provides that all days spent in custody by the
defendant must first be applied to the term of imprisonment and
then to any fine including, but not limited to, base fines at
the rate of not less than $125 per day.
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
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
AB 1375 (Thurmond ) PageC
of?
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
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
AB 1375 (Thurmond ) PageD
of?
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Legislation
According to the author:
Under existing law, a criminal defendant may choose or
be ordered to serve jail time in lieu of paying a
criminal fine, or he or she may be allowed to credit
time spent incarcerated against the payment of a fine.
The minimum rate of credit is $30.00 per day of
incarceration - an amount that was set 39 years ago in
1976 and has not been adjusted since. In almost all
California counties, this "minimum" has since become
the actual amount credited. At the same time, while
base fines have not increased substantially since 1976,
the total amount offenders are required to pay has
skyrocketed due to added penalties and assessments.
The total fine for running a red light increased from
$103 in 1993 to $490 today - a 475% increase in just 20
years, compared to the proposed 416% increase in the
credit proposed by AB 1375. Speeding up to 15 mph over
the limit also comes with a $238 price tag - more than
800% above what it cost in 1993.
It is not fiscally responsible to credit defendants
only $30 per day in lieu of fine payments. At an
average cost of $100 per day to house somebody in a
California county jail, it would take 10 days and cost
$1000 to house a person paying off a $300 fine. At
the more equitable rate of $125 per day, it would only
take 3 days and cost about $300. The cost savings
alone justify the increase to $125 per day.
This failure to adjust the rate of credit hurts poor
defendants far more than better-off defendants,
increasing anger and resentment at the inequity. Poor
defendants are less likely to be able to post bail and
will spend more time incarcerated awaiting a hearing or
"working off" their fine. The inability of an
AB 1375 (Thurmond ) PageE
of?
increasing number of defendants to pay the fine
outright also increases jail overcrowding.
2. Effect of Legislation
Penal Code section 1205 gives the court power to enforce payment
of fine in criminal case by imprisonment.<1> Penal Code section
1205 also allows defendants to request that the trial court
exercise its discretion to convert fines to jail time. The
statute, however, cannot be used to pay off restitution fines or
victim restitution orders. (Penal Code § 1205(f).)
Criminal fines and penalties have climbed steadily in recent
decades. Government entities tasked with collecting these fines
have realized diminishing returns from collection efforts. A
recent San Francisco Daily Journal article noted, "California
courts and counties collect nearly $2 billion in fines and fees
every year. Nevertheless, the state still has a more than $10.2
billion balance of uncollected debt from prior years, according
to the most recent date from 2012." (See Jones & Sugarman,
State Judges Bemoan Fee Collection Process, San Francisco Daily
Journal, (January 5, 2015).) "Felons convicted to prison time
usually can't pay their debts at all. The annual growth in
delinquent debt partly reflects a supply of money that doesn't
exist to be collected." (Id.) In the same article, the
Presiding Judge of San Bernardino County was quoted as saying
"the whole concept is getting blood out of a turnip." (Id.)
By raising the daily rate at which defendants can pay off fines
and fees by converting them to jail time, this bill may help
incentivize defendants to address delinquent debt.
3. Argument in Support
According to the Conference of California Bar Associations, the
sponsor of this bill:
Under existing law, a criminal defendant may choose or
be ordered to serve jail time in lieu of paying a
criminal fine, or he or she may be allowed to credit
-----------------------
<1> However, imprisonment pending payment of a fine is
unconstitutional as applied to a convicted indigent defendant if
the failure to pay is due to indigence and not to willfulness.
(In re Antazo (1970) 3 Cal.3d 100, 103-104.)
AB 1375 (Thurmond ) PageF
of?
time spent incarcerated against the payment of a fine.
The minimum rate of credit is $30.00 per day of
incarceration - an amount that was set in 1976 and has
not been adjusted since. In almost all California
counties, this "minimum" has since become the actual
amount credited.
When this law was enacted, $30.00 was equivalent to
working 12 hours at a minimum wage job ($1.50/hour).
On January 1, 2016, the minimum wage in California will
increase to be $10.00/hour, meaning that the same
12-hour day should be worth $120 - essentially the
amount provided by AB 1375. By another measure, $30.00
in 1976 had the same buying power as $125.00 in 2014,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Further, while base fines have not increased
substantially in the 39 years since 1976, the total
amount offenders are required to pay has skyrocketed
due to added penalties and assessments. The total fine
for running a red light increased from $103 in 1993 to
$490 today - a 475% increase in just 20 years, compared
to the proposed 416% increase in the credit proposed by
AB 1375. Speeding up to 15 mph over the limit also
comes with a $238 price tag - more than 800% above what
it cost in 1993. By almost any standard, the proposed
increase in the credit for jail time in lieu of a fine
is very reasonable, modest even, when it is compared to
the rise in inflation, the increased minimum wage, and
the vast inflation of court fines and fees.
This failure to adjust the rate of credit hurts poor
defendants far more than better-off defendants,
increasing anger and resentment at the inequity. Poor
defendants are less likely to be able to post bail and
will spend more time incarcerated awaiting a hearing or
"working off" their fine. The inability of an
increasing number of defendants to pay the fine
outright also increases jail overcrowding.
Finally, it is not fiscally responsible to credit
defendants only $30 per day in lieu of fine payments.
At an average cost of $100 per day to house somebody in
a California county jail, it would take 10 days and
AB 1375 (Thurmond ) PageG
of?
cost $1000 to house a person paying off a $300 fine.
At the more equitable rate of $125 per day, it would
only take 3 days and cost about $300. The cost savings
alone justify the increase to $125 per day.
-- END -