BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) - Criminal procedure: arraignment pilot
program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 16, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 3 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2013 would establish a five-year pilot project in
six counties that would require a court, upon request by a
defendant charged with a misdemeanor who is not in custody, to
make a finding at the arraignment as to whether probable cause
exists to believe that a public offense has been committed and
that the defendant is guilty thereof. This bill would require
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to submit a report to the
Legislature no later than July 1, 2021, regarding the
implementation of the pilot project, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact:
Courts : Potentially significant increase in court workload
and costs, potentially in excess of the low millions of
dollars (General Fund*), including Los Angeles County which is
a required pilot participant, for new probable cause
determinations for non-custodial misdemeanor defendants. The
overall costs of the pilot project would be dependent on the
counties selected for the project, which, aside from Los
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 1 of
?
Angeles County, are not specified.
DOJ report : One-time costs potentially in excess of $50,000
(General Fund) to collect the required information, including
but not limited to the number of instances that a prompt
probable cause determination made to a non-custodial
misdemeanor defendant resulted in the defendant's early
dismissal, from the pilot counties and report to the specified
Legislative committees. Staff notes the Judicial Council,
rather than the DOJ, may be the more appropriate agency to
submit the report.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: Existing law provides that upon motion by an in-custody
defendant at the time he or she appears before a magistrate for
arraignment and the offense is a misdemeanor to which the
defendant has pleaded not guilty, the magistrate is required to
determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a
public offense has been committed and that the defendant is
guilty thereof. (Penal Code (PC) § 991(a).)
Under existing law, the determination of probable cause is
required to be made immediately unless the court grants a
continuance for good cause not to exceed three court days. In
determining the existence of probable cause, the magistrate is
required to consider any warrant of arrest with supporting
affidavits, and the sworn complaint together with any documents
or reports incorporated by reference which, if based on
information and belief, state the basis for that information, or
any other documents of similar reliability. If, after examining
these documents, the court determines that there exists probable
cause to believe that the defendant has committed the offense
charged in the complaint, it shall set the matter for trial. If
the court determines that no such probable cause exists, it
shall dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendant. (PC §
991(b)-(d).)
According to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Los Angeles decision in
People v. McGowan (filed 3/27/15 BR 051696; Airport Trial Court
No. 4WA22795):
It was for good reason that the Legislature
implemented a procedure to ensure a confined
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 2 of
?
misdemeanant is held for trial only if there is
probable cause to believe he or she committed a
crime charged in the complaint. The constitutional
right to a judicial determination of probable
cause following arrest has its roots in Gerstein
v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103. In that case, the
United States Supreme Court held the Fourth
Amendment vests an in-custody defendant with the
right to have a prompt post-arrest determination
of whether there is probable cause to believe he
or she committed "a crime." (Id. at pp. 114,
119-120.) The California Supreme Court ultimately
applied the Gerstein rule to California
misdemeanants held in custody. (In re Walters
(1975) 15 Cal.3d 738, 747 (Walters).) Section 991
did not exist at the time Walters was decided.
Thus, "California procedures governing the
pretrial detention of those charged with
misdemeanors . . . [did] not . . . comport with .
. . constitutional requirements . . . since the
defendant [was] not afforded a post-arrest
judicial determination that probable cause
exist[ed] for his continued detention." (Id. at p.
747.) This led to Walters' holding that, "unless
waived, a judicial determination of probable cause
is required in every case where a defendant
charged with a misdemeanor is detained awaiting
trial." (Ibid.) In response to the requirements of
Walters, section 991 was enacted "to be a
safeguard against the hardship suffered by a
misdemeanant who is detained in custody, by
providing that a probable cause hearing will be
held immediately, at the time of arraignment, . .
." (People v. Ward (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11,
15, 17.)
This bill seeks to provide the same judicial process provided to
in-custody misdemeanor defendants to out-of-custody misdemeanor
defendants.
Proposed Law:
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 3 of
?
This bill would provide that on or before July 1, 2017, six
counties shall be selected to participate in a five-year pilot
project that would require a court, upon request by an
out-of-custody misdemeanor defendant, to make a finding at the
arraignment as to whether probable cause exists to believe that
a public offense has been committed and that the defendant is
guilty thereof. This bill:
Provides that the pilot counties shall be selected by a five
member committee. One member of the committee shall be
selected by the California Public Defenders Association, one
member of the committee shall be selected by the California
District Attorneys Association, one member of the committee
shall be selected by the Judicial Council, and two members of
the committee shall be selected by the Governor. The committee
shall select the six counties that will participate in the
pilot project, provided, however, that the County of Los
Angeles shall be included in the pilot project.
Requires the following arraignment procedure to apply in the
pilot project counties:
o When the defendant is out of custody at the time he
or she appears before the magistrate for arraignment and
the public offense is a misdemeanor to which the
defendant has pleaded not guilty, the magistrate, on
motion of counsel for the defendant or the defendant,
shall determine whether there is probable cause to
believe that a public offense has been committed and that
the defendant is guilty thereof.
o The determination of probable cause shall be made
immediately, unless the court grants a continuance for
good cause not to exceed 15 court days.
o In determining the existence of probable cause, the
magistrate shall consider any warrant of arrest with
supporting affidavits, and the sworn complaint together
with any documents or reports incorporated by reference
thereto, which, if based on information and belief, state
the basis for that information, or any other documents of
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 4 of
?
similar reliability.
o If, after examining these documents, the court
determines that there exists probable cause to believe
that the defendant has committed the offense charged in
the complaint, it shall maintain the trial date already
calendared for the defendant.
o If the court determines that no probable cause
exists, it shall dismiss the complaint and discharge the
defendant.
o The prosecution may refile the complaint within 15
days of the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to this
section.
o A second dismissal pursuant to this section is a bar
to any other prosecution for the same offense.
Requires the Department of Justice to, no later than July 1,
2021, provide a report to the Assembly Committee on Budget,
the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the
appropriate policy committees of the Legislature regarding the
implementation of this section, including, but not limited to,
the number of instances that a prompt probable cause
determination made to an Out of Custody defendant facing a
misdemeanor charge resulted in the defendant's early
dismissal.
Provides that the bill's provisions become inoperative on July
1, 2022.
Related
Legislation: AB 1106 (Jones-Sawyer) 2016 would have required
the Judicial Council to select six counties, including the
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 5 of
?
County of Los Angeles, to participate in a five-year pilot
project that would require a court, upon request by an
out-of-custody misdemeanor defendant, to make a finding at the
arraignment as to whether probable cause exists to believe that
a public offense has been committed and that the defendant is
guilty thereof. This bill was not heard in the Assembly
Committee on Public Safety.
AB 696 (Jones-Sawyer) 2015 would have required probable cause
determinations for misdemeanor defendants not in custody to be
made 30 days before the date calendared for trial at the
arraignment unless a later date is requested by the defense, as
specified. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 696 without my signature. This bill
would allow an out-of-custody misdemeanor defendant to ask the
court at arraignment rather than at trial to determine whether
or not probable cause exists.
I understand the potential benefits to a defendant in having the
court make this determination earlier in the process. However,
the impact on the courts is unclear and could well be
significant. I would welcome a small, carefully crafted pilot to
assess the impact of this proposal.
Staff
Comments: The Judicial Council has indicated a potentially
significant increase in workload for courts should the
provisions of this bill become law. By requiring courts to
provide in-court probable cause determinations for up to 90
percent of a county's charged misdemeanants (as it is estimated
10 percent are held in custody), costs for the six-county pilot,
which includes Los Angeles County, could potentially exceed
several million dollars annually, based on an estimate of three
minutes of court time per defendant to complete an uncontested
probable cause determination.
Recommended
AB 2013 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 6 of
?
Amendments: To reduce the potential fiscal impact of this
measure, the author may wish to consider (1) reducing the
duration of the pilot program from five years to three years,
and (2) reducing the number of pilot counties. Additionally, the
author may wish to consider an amendment to require the Judicial
Council, rather than the DOJ, to provide the legislative report.
-- END --