BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 405 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hertzberg |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Vehicles: Infraction and Misdemeanor Violations:
Amnesty
HISTORY
Source: Western Center on Law and Poverty
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
East Bay Community Law Center
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Prior Legislation:SB 366 (Wright) held Senate Appropriations
2014
AB 2724 (Bradford) held in Assembly
Appropriations 2014
AB 1358 (Fuentes) Ch. 662, Stats. 2011
SB 857 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal
Review) Ch. 720, Stats. 2010
Support: ACLU; American Friends Service Committee; Ella Baker
Center for Human Rights; California Association of
Highway Patrolmen; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; California Catholic Conference, Inc.;
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
2 of ?
California Immigrant Policy Center; California In-Home
Supportive Services Consumer Alliance; California
Partnership; Courage Campaign; California Public
Defenders Association; Los Angeles Community Action
Network; Personal Insurance Federation of California;
PICO California; Rubicon Programs; St. Mary's Center;
Western Regional Advocacy Project
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow people who participate in
an amnesty program to pay off existing fines and have their
driver's licenses reinstated.
Existing law provides that an infraction is not punishable by
imprisonment and that a person charged with an infraction is not
entitled to a jury trial or a public defender. (Penal Code §
19.6.)
Existing law sets forth the duties of the court, probation
officers, and probationers in determining the terms and
conditions of probation including providing that the court shall
determine if there are any facts in mitigation that would be
served by granting probation. (Penal Code § 1203.)
Existing law provides that any person convicted of an infraction
may, upon a showing that payment of the total fine would pose a
hardship on the defendant, be sentenced to perform community
service in lieu of the total fine that would be otherwise
imposed. (Penal Code § 1209.5.)
Existing law provides that in addition to any other penalty in
an infraction, misdemeanor or felony the court may impose a
civil penalty up to $300 against any defendant who fails to
appear in court for any proceeding or fails to pay any portion
of the fine ordered by the court. (Penal Code § 1214.1.)
Existing law provides that the assessment shall not become
effective until at least 10 calendar days after the court mails
a warning to the defendant and the court shall vacate the order
for the assessment if the person appears in time. (Penal Code §
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
3 of ?
1214.1(b).)
Existing law provides that the assessment imposed shall be
subject to the due process requirements governing defense and
collection of civil money judgments generally. (Penal Code §
1214.1)
Existing law provides that if any person has failed to pay a
fine within the time authorized by the court to pay a fine, the
magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice to DMV for any
violation. If the fine is later fully paid then the court shall
inform DMV. (Vehicle Code §§ 40509(b) and 40509.5(b).)
Existing law provides that in any case when a person appears
before a traffic referee or judge of the superior court for
adjudication of a violation of the Vehicle Code, the court, upon
request of the defendant shall consider the defendant's ability
to pay and sets forth the process for making that determination.
If the court determines that the defendant has the ability to
pay all or part of the costs, the court shall set the amount to
be reimbursed and order the defendant to pay that sum to the
county in the manner in which the court believes reasonable and
compatible with the defendant's financial ability, or if the
defendant is placed on probation the court shall order the
probation officer to set the amount. In making a determination
of whether a defendant has the ability to pay, the court shall
take into account the amount of any fine imposed up on the
defendant and any amount the defendant has been ordered to pay
in restitution. (Vehicle Code
§ 42003(c).)
Existing law allows a person owing a fine or bail that is
eligible for amnesty under this program to pay to the superior
or juvenile court 70 percent of the total fine or bail, or $100
for an infraction or $500 for a misdemeanor, either amount of
which must be accepted by the court in full satisfaction of the
delinquent fine or bail. The one-time, voluntary amnesty
program is to be conducted in accordance with Judicial Council
guidelines for a period of not less than 120 days, and not
longer than six months from the date the court initiated the
program. (Vehicle Code
§ 42008.5.)
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
4 of ?
Existing law requires each county to establish a one-time
infraction amnesty program for fines and bail providing relief
to individuals who are financially unable to pay traffic bail or
fines with due dates prior to January 1, 2009, thereby allowing
courts and counties to resolve older delinquent cases and focus
limited resources on collecting on more recent cases. Fifty
percent of the fine or bail shall be paid under the amnesty
program. Payment of a fine or bail under these amnesty programs
shall be accepted beginning January 1, 2012, and ending June 30,
2012. The Judicial Council shall adopt guidelines for the
amnesty program no later than November 1, 2011, and each program
shall be conducted in accordance with Judicial Council
guidelines. (Vehicle Code § 42008.7.)
This bill provides that a county that establishes a one-time
amnesty program for fines and bail shall conduct the program in
accordance with guidelines provided by the Judicial Council
which shall be adopted by March 1, 2016. Prior to the adoption
of those guidelines each program shall be initially conducted in
accordance with the Judicial Council guidelines created in
accordance with Vehicle Code § 42008.7)
This bill provides that unless agreed otherwise by the court and
the county, the government entities that are responsible for the
collection of delinquent court-ordered debt shall be responsible
for the implementation of the amnesty program as to that debt.
This bill provides that commencing January 1, 2016, until
January 1, 2018, each amnesty program shall accept in full
satisfaction of any eligible fine or bail, of which the due date
for payment was on or before January 1, 2013, the following
amounts:
80% of the fine or bail if the person has income that
exceeds 200% of the federal poverty level.
50% of the fine or bail if the person has income that is
greater than 150% of, but not more than 200% of the federal
poverty level.
20% of the fine or bail if the person has income that is
not more than 150% of the federal poverty level.
This bill provides that nothing shall limit the court's ability
to issue an earnings withholding order or to order the person to
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
5 of ?
perform community services in lieu of paying the amounts
specified.
This bill provides that DMV shall restore the driving privilege
of a participant in the amnesty program whose driver's license
was suspended due to failure to pay fines.
This bill provides that DMV shall provide a notice to each
person's whose license has been suspended regarding his or her
potential eligibility for the amnesty program.
This bill provides that no criminal action shall be brought
against a person for a delinquent fine or bail paid under the
amnesty program.
This bill provides that each court or county implementing an
amnesty program shall file, not later than one year after
establishing the program a written report with the Judicial
Council with information about the number of cases resolved, the
amount of money collected and the operating costs of the amnesty
program.
This bill sunsets January 1, 2018.
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.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
6 of ?
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.
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
7 of ?
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Due to an increase in fines and fees and reduced
access to courts, a staggering number of Californians
have suspended driver licenses. These suspensions make
it harder for people to retain employment, harm credit
ratings, and raise public safety concerns. The loss of
the ability to drive is a threat to a family's
economic security.
Suspended licenses can trap working poor in an
impossible situation: unable to reinstate their
licenses without gainful employment and unable to
access employment without a license, keeping people in
cycles of poverty that are difficult to overcome. A
New Jersey study found that when a license was
suspended, 42% of drivers lost their jobs. Of those,
45% were unable to find a new job and 88% of persons
with suspended licenses reported a reduction in their
income. This jeopardizes economic stability in the
state and limits the workforce available. Employers
are affected by having to internalize the cost to
replace workers and face the challenge of finding
qualified workers with valid driver licenses.
By imposing fees that cannot be paid and effectively
creating permanent license suspensions, the system
also threatens public safety. Those with suspended
licenses often drive without insurance; if there is an
accident they don't have coverage.
The Governor has proposed a Traffic Amnesty program in
the 2015-16 Budget for $10 billion of uncollected
court-ordered debt. However, any such attempt to
collect, through an amnesty program or otherwise,
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
8 of ?
requires the ability to pay, one which is generally
lacking without the ability to drive.
2. Amnesty Program Under This Bill
This bill provides that a county which establishes an amnesty
from January 1, 2016 until January 1, 2018 for fines and bail
that were due on or before January 1, 2013 shall follow the
guidelines adopted by Judicial Council. The entity in a county
that is in charge of collections shall run the program and the
bill sets forth the amount of the fines that shall be collected.
A person who had their license suspended who participates in
the program shall have their license reinstated.
While this bill talks about an amnesty program it does not
clearly state that a county may adopt an amnesty program. This
should be clarified.
Amnesty programs under this bill would apply to fines due on or
before January 1, 2013. Is this the appropriate time frame?
3. Federal Poverty Level
Under this bill, the payments under the amnesty program shall be
made as follows:
80% of the fine or bail if the person has income that
exceeds 200% of the federal poverty level.
50% of the fine or bail fi the person has income that is
greater than 150% of, but not more than 200% of the federal
poverty level.
20% of the fine or bail if the person has income that is
not more than 150% of the federal poverty level.
Is the federal poverty level the appropriate measure in
California? Would the supplemental poverty level be more
appropriate since it should more accurately recognize the cost
of living in California?
4. License Reinstated
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
9 of ?
This bill provides that DMV shall reinstate the license of a
participant in the amnesty program whose license was suspended
under Vehicle Code Section 13365. The intent is that the
license suspension will be removed as soon as the participant
signs up for the amnesty program but this should be clarified.
The remaining issue is what if a participant stops making
payments as part of the amnesty program, should their license be
suspended again? How will that work?
5. Notice by DMV
This bill provides that DMV shall provide notice to each person
whose driver's license has been suspended under Vehicle Code
Section 13365 for failure to pay fines regarding his or her
potential eligibility for the amnesty program. The sponsors
believe past amnesty programs have not been totally successful
because of a lack of notice and believes that DMV notice in
multiple languages should help that.
This is not a mandatory amnesty program, is DMV supposed to send
it to everyone with a suspended license even if only a few
counties adopt the amnesty program or just those in the impacted
counties? Do people with suspended licenses keep their
addresses current with DMV so that they will receive notice?
6. Report
This bill requires those counties participating in the amnesty
programs to file a written report with Judicial Council
including the number of cases involved, the amount of money
collected and the operating costs of the program. The Judicial
Council shall then submit a report to the legislation
summarizing the information from the various programs.
7. Sunset
The amnesty programs under this bill will remain in effect only
until January 1, 2018.
-- END -
SB 405 (Hertzberg ) Page
10 of ?