BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1672
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2016
Consultant: Matt Dean
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
1672 (Mathis) - As Amended March 8, 2016
SUMMARY: Requires the Judicial Council to study the impact of
veterans' courts, or the lack thereof, on veterans involved in
the criminal justice system, the availability of technology to
increase access to veterans' courts, and the utility of
community courts as a substitute. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Judicial Council to study the impact of veterans'
courts, or the lack thereof, on veterans involved in the
criminal justice system. The study will begin January 1, 2017
and end January 1, 2018.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to study the availability of
technology to deliver veterans' courts services to counties
without such courts. The study will begin January 1, 2017 and
end January 1, 2018.
3)Requires the Judicial Council to study the utility of
community courts as a substitute for veterans' courts in those
counties that do not have veterans' courts. The study will
begin January 1, 2017 and end January 1, 2018.
4)Requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature the
results of their studies on the impact of veterans' courts and
AB 1672
Page 2
the feasibility of technology to deliver veterans' courts
services that have no such courts by June 1, 2019.
5)States that 50% of the cost of this study shall be paid by
private funds and 50% shall be paid by public funds.
6)Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2020.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Vests in the superior courts the judicial power of California.
(Cal. Const. art. VI, § 1.)
2)Establishes the Judicial Council and authorizes them to make
rules and recommendations regarding the operation of the
courts. (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 6(d).)
3)Allows courts to make rules for the administration of the
courts so long as they are not otherwise prohibited by the
Constitution, statute or rules adopted by the Judicial
Council. (Gov. Code, § 68070; Wisniewski v. Clary (1975) 46
Cal.App.3d 499.)
4)Requires judges to identify veteran defendants suffering from
sexual trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result
of his or her service and use this status as a factor in favor
of granting probation and/or ordering participation in
approved treatment programs. (Pen. Code, § 1170.9.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Every veteran
deserves access to courts specifically designed to assist them
through our complex justice system. These courts also provide
vital information on mental health and substance abuse
recovery programs. As such, counties with veterans' courts
should support counties without them. AB 1672 will commission
a study on the costs associated with permitting counties with
AB 1672
Page 3
veterans courts to provide services to counties without the
courts. This simple measure will ensure that no veteran is
left without the representation they deserve."
2)Background: Under California law, every court has the
authority to make rules for its own government. This is an
inherent power of the courts, but this power has also been
codified in the Government Code. This power is limited only
by any conflict with the California Constitution, statute or
rules adopted by the Judicial Council of California.
Nothing in California's Constitution or statutes prohibits or
requires the development of veterans' courts. However, under
the Penal Code, courts are required to identify veteran
defendants suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder,
traumatic brain injury, and other issues for purposes of
sentencing. For this and other reasons, the Judicial Council
has encouraged the development of veterans' courts.
The Judicial Council has authority under the California
Constitution to make rules governing California courts and to
make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor regarding
the operation of the courts. Under this authority, the
Judicial Council created the Collaborative Justice Court
Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Judicial
Council on criteria for identifying and evaluating
collaborative justice courts and for improving the processing
of cases in these courts, which include drug courts, domestic
violence courts, youth courts, community courts, veterans'
courts and other collaborative justice courts. Currently, at
least 12 counties in California have established veterans'
courts and two have established community courts.
Collaborative justice courts primary purpose is to connect
criminal defendants with mental health, drug treatment and
other rehabilitative services to reduce recidivism. In
general, community courts have similar aims -in terms of
connecting defendants with rehabilitative services- with the
additional aims of promoting principles of community
involvement, balanced and restorative justice, and
accountability. Community courts can channel required
community service hours to help meet community needs. In
AB 1672
Page 4
practice, community courts may differ little or not at all
from other collaborative justice courts. For example, in
Orange County the Community Court is the umbrella court for
all of Orange County's collaborative justice courts, including
their veterans' court.
Veterans' courts are hybrid drug and mental health courts that
use the drug court model to serve veterans struggling with
addiction, serious mental illness and/or co-occurring
disorders. They promote sobriety, recovery and stability
through a coordinated response that involves cooperation and
collaboration with the traditional partners found in drug and
mental health courts in addition to the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs health care networks, the Veterans' Benefits
Administration, and, in some programs, volunteer veteran
mentors and veterans' family support organizations.
Veterans' Treatment Courts are responses to the growing trend
of veterans appearing before the courts to face charges
stemming from substance abuse or mental illness. Drug and
mental health courts frequently serve veteran populations.
Research has shown that traditional services do not always
adequately meet the needs of veterans. Many veterans are
entitled to treatment through the Veterans' Administration and
veterans treatment courts help connect them with these
benefits.
According to government reports, there are 23,440,000 veterans
in the United States and approximately 1.7 million veterans of
Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
estimates that as many as one third of the adult homeless
population have served in the military and that at any given
time there are as many as 130,000 homeless veterans. This
population mirrors the general homeless population in that 45%
suffer mental illness and 75% suffer from substance abuse
problems. Veterans are not more likely to be arrested than
the general population. But there are significant numbers of
veterans involved with the criminal justice system, many of
whom struggle with mental health and/or substance abuse
illnesses. A 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics Report found
that 81% of all justice involved veterans had a substance
abuse problem prior to incarceration, 35% were identified as
AB 1672
Page 5
suffering from alcohol dependency, 23% were homeless at some
point in the prior year, and 25% were identified as mentally
ill.
While there have been studies on the benefits of many
collaborative justice courts, as well as studies on best
practices for those courts, there has not been an extensive
study on the impact of veterans' courts. However, the studies
conducted on other collaborative justice courts have been
encouraging. For example, drug courts have seen recidivism
reductions of 85% and annual savings of $90 million among
participating counties. This bill would determine if similar
positive impacts can be extended to veterans involved in the
criminal justice system.
3)Argument in Support: The California Public Defenders
Association states, "This bill would implement a pilot program
whose purpose is to establish veterans' courts in "counties
adjacent to the County of San Luis Obispo" that do not have
veterans courts or veterans treatment courts in operation as
of January 1, 2017. The bill would empower the Chief Justice
to assign an active or retired judge to sit in such veterans'
courts, and would establish a special fund in the state
treasury that could accept public or private moneys in support
of veterans courts in the region.
"The goal of veterans courts is to promote sobriety, recovery,
and stability for former service members charged with criminal
offenses. Currently, only 12 of 58 California counties have
established veterans courts, which are a critical means for
connecting veterans to Veterans Administration services for
which they are eligible.
"This bill presents a possibility for expansion of this
collaborative justice project into new areas of the state, and
could provide a model for the establishment of such courts in
other regions."
4)Prior Legislation:
a) AB 2098 (Levine), Chapter 163, Statutes of 2014,
requires the court to consider a defendant's status as a
AB 1672
Page 6
veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) or other forms of trauma when making specified
sentencing determinations.
b) AB 201 (Butler) of the 2011-12 Legislative Session,
would have authorized superior courts to develop and
implement veterans' courts. This bill would have
established standards and procedures for veterans' courts
and would have specified that county participation in the
veterans' courts program is voluntary. AB 201 was vetoed.
c) AB 1925 (Salas), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have authorized superior courts to develop and
implement veterans' courts for eligible veterans of the
United States (U.S.) military. AB 1925 was vetoed. The
Governor's veto message stated "authorizing legislation is
not required for the superior courts to establish
specialized courts with dedicated calendars. I would urge
the Judicial Council to examine the need for veterans'
courts, however, and establish appropriate guidelines for
the superior courts to follow."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support:
California Public Defenders Association
Opposition:
None
Analysis Prepared
by: Matt Dean / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
AB 1672
Page 7