BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 881
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
SB
881 (Hertzberg) - As Amended May 2, 2016
REVISED
SENATE VOTE: 32-7
SUBJECT: Vehicles: violations
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to existing law relating to
suspended licenses for individuals who have failed to pay (FTP)
a traffic fine or failed to appear (FTA) in court.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits the court from imposing a civil assessment for a FTP
or FTA, unless the defendant willfully fails to appear or pay.
2)Provides that the ability to pay the $300 assessment shall not
be a prerequisite to arraignment, trial, or other court
proceedings.
SB 881
Page 2
3)Provides that payment of bail, fines, penalties, fees, or a
civil assessment shall not be required to schedule a court
hearing on a pending underlying charge.
4)Requires county or court "comprehensive collection programs"
to provide payment plans based on the debtor's ability to pay,
as specified.
5)Prohibits a county or court from initiating driver's license
suspension or hold actions as part of a comprehensive
collection program.
6)Repeals provisions that would require the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) to suspend a person's driver's license upon
notification from the court of a FTA or FTP.
7)Requires DMV to restore all driving privileges suspended as a
result of a FTA or FTP by July 1, 2017.
8)Provides that the bill applies to commercial driver's
licenses, as well as Class C or M licenses (common and
motorcycle licenses).
9)Specifies that the court must notify DMV if a person has
satisfied court orders related to a FTA or FTP, if the court
previously notified DMV of that person's FTA or FTP.
SB 881
Page 3
10)Prohibits DMV from suspending a driver's license upon notice
from a court of a person's FTA or FTP.
11)Specifies that the bill does not apply to license suspensions
that are related to specified reckless driving or driving
under the influence violations.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes a court to notify DMV when an individual fails to
pay a traffic fine, fails to appear in court, or fails to
comply with a court order.
2)Requires DMV to suspend the driver's license of an individual
when DMV receives a notice from the court of an FTP or FTA for
that individual.
3)Requires the court to notify DMV if the individual later pays
the fine at which time DMV is required to reinstate the
individual's driver's license.
4)Requires the court, when an individual appears before a
traffic referee or superior court judge regarding a traffic
SB 881
Page 4
offense, to consider the individual's ability to pay if he or
she so requests.
5)Prohibits DMV from issuing or renewing a driver's license for
an individual when:
a) A license previously issued to the individual has been
suspended, until the end of the suspension period, unless
the cause for the suspension has been removed.
b) A license previously issued to the individual has been
revoked, until one year after the date of revocation,
unless a different period of revocation has been prescribed
or the cause for revocation has been removed.
c) DMV receives a notice from the court of an individual's
FTP or FTA.
d) The individual's driving record shows two or more FTPs
and/or FTAs, until all FTPs and FTAs have been reported to
DMV as cleared or adjudicated.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Judicial Council annually adopts a uniform traffic
penalty schedule for all non-parking infractions outlined in the
Vehicle Code. Due to additional surcharges, penalties, and
assessments, a base fine of $100, for example, often results in
a total fine of $541. For many individuals, costly traffic
fines such as these can become prohibitively expensive. If a
person fails to pay these fines, or if they fail to appear in
court, one of the court's recourses is to suspend the
individual's driver's license.
SB 881
Page 5
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), driver's
license suspensions create a vicious economic cycle for those in
poverty. They also point out that this cycle can quickly become
a downward spiral. To illustrate this point, the ACLU cites the
April 2015 report from the Back of the Road California Coalition
entitled "Not Just a Ferguson Problem: How Traffic Courts Drive
Inequality in California," which details how California's
decision to significantly increase traffic fines and penalties,
combined with policies that require full payment of fines and
fees before the validity of a citation can be challenged, has
resulted in 4.2 million driver's license suspensions because
individuals cannot afford to pay their tickets. The ACLU also
points out that the highest driver's license suspension rates
are found in neighborhoods with high poverty rates. Studies
also show that individuals who have their driver's license
suspended often lose their jobs, which, in turn, further hinders
their ability to earn an income, pay their fine, and support
themselves and their families.
To address the growing backlog of unpaid tickets and the
difficulties individuals were experiencing with having their
driver's license suspended, the 2015-16 Budget Act authorized an
18-month traffic amnesty program for delinquent debt. Under
this program, the $300 civil assessment imposed by collection
programs for an FTA or FTP is waived. Further, individuals also
receive a 50% reduction in the total amount of court-ordered
debt owed for traffic infractions and certain traffic
misdemeanors, provided specified criteria are met. In addition,
participants in the amnesty program, as well as individuals
currently making payments for certain violations included in the
amnesty program, can have their driver's licenses reinstated.
Also in 2015, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed
into law, SB 405 (Hertzberg), Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015,
which addressed the effects of hefty fines and assessments and
the challenges they present to low-income individuals who are
unable to challenge the citation in court until the citation was
paid. SB 405 addressed this problem by requiring courts to
SB 881
Page 6
allow court proceedings to be scheduled, even if bail or civil
assessments are imposed, thereby allowing individuals to
challenge traffic citations without first posting bail or paying
fees.
The author has introduced SB 881 in an effort to continue to
address the effects of costly, and often punitive, fines and
assessments for relatively minor traffic infractions which, he
notes, has a particularly devastating effect on low-income
individuals. According to the author, traffic offenses
represent the largest number of charges prosecuted in state and
local courts. He also notes that in California, an infraction
such as a broken tail light or expired tags, if not paid in a
timely manner or if the individual does not appear in court, can
result in suspension of the individual's driving privilege. The
author adamantly contends that suspending the driver's license
of low-income individuals for an FTA or FTP is an overly harsh
punishment that ultimately undermines a person's ability to hold
a job and make payments on their debt. He also asserts that the
inability to drive, and therefore the inability to work, creates
difficulty for not only the individual but, their entire family.
The author notes that many individuals, out of necessity, will
continue to drive without a driver's license which ultimately
leads to further negative consequences.
Recently, the Solano County Superior Court was served with a
complaint that is directly related to SB 881. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the court has failed to make
determinations about whether an individual's FTP is "willful"
and that the court fails to provide adequate notice of an
individual's right to an ability to pay determination prior to
referring an individual to DMV for license suspension (Rubicon
Programs, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California,
Henry Washington v. Superior Court of Solono; Case No:
FCS047212). The complaint also alleges that the court's failure
to provide adequate notice of the right to an ability to pay
determination, prior to referring an individual to DMV for a
driver's license suspension for failure to pay, violates the
California Constitution and rights provided under the Fourteenth
SB 881
Page 7
Amendment of the United States Constitution. The complaint also
alleges that many individuals FTA or otherwise respond to
notices regarding traffic tickets and related fines and fees
because they cannot pay the imposed fines and fees and,
accordingly, they do not have adequate notice that they are
entitled to relief based on their financial circumstances.
The complaint, which would achieve the same outcome as SB 881,
seeks injunctive relief that would, among other things, prohibit
the court from referring an individual to DMV for license
suspension without a judicial determination that non-payment was
willful; would prohibit the court from referring an individual
to the DMV for license suspension for FTP or FTA until the court
provides adequate notice to individuals; and asserts the
individual's the right to an ability to pay determination and
that the ability to pay be a critical factor in determining
whether a driver's license may be suspended.
Writing in support of SB 881, the Western Center on Law and
Poverty (Western Center), a cosponsor of the bill and one of the
co-counsels representing the plaintiffs in the Solano County
Superior Court case, suggests that SB 881 proposes a fundamental
shift in state policy that will reduce the negative procedural
consequences that result from relatively minor traffic
infractions. They point out that the response to the recent
amnesty program has been strong, largely because it provides
discounts on the debt, making it possible for low income
individual's to pay and because it immediately restores an
individual's driving privilege. The Western Center points out
that the current system of license suspensions is not working
and to illustrate their point they note that currently 612,000
Californians have suspended licenses solely because of FTAs and
FTPs - a number they believe would be substantially lower if the
punishment were effective.
Writing in opposition to this bill, the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC) has expressed serious concerns
with SB 881. CSAC points out that this bill provides an
oversimplified solution to a very complex problem and, rather
SB 881
Page 8
than address the problem directly, the bill instead simply
removes a tool that is used by the courts to collect fines and
fees as they are mandated to do. CSAC also notes that the
bill's requirement that DMV restore driving privileges that have
been suspended due to FTAs and FTPs would eliminate any
incentive for individuals to pay outstanding debt for traffic
violations they have received. CSAC also notes that while this
bill would make it such that driving privileges cannot be
affected for certain FTPs and FTAs, SB 881 bill fails to address
the fact that an individual's vehicle registration would still
be affected by an individual's FTA or FTP which would affect the
individuals ability to properly register their car and obtain
adequate insurance.
Committee concerns: While the goal of this bill is laudable,
the Committee has number of concerns including:
1)SB 881 fails to address the underlying problem of overly
costly fines and penalties.
2)According to the author, this bill seeks relief for low-income
individuals however; SB 881 is not narrowly tailored to
specifically address this population. Instead, this bill
would allow all individuals, regardless of ability to pay, to
avoid driver's license suspension for FTP or FTA.
3)The issue of driver's license suspensions has recently become
the subject of litigation in the Superior Court of California,
Solano County. The Legislature has, in practice, refrained
from passing legislation that could prejudice the outcome of
pending litigation.
SB 881
Page 9
4)By eliminating the option for courts to suspend the driving
privilege as a consequence for FTAs, this bill could
unintentionally encouraging individuals to avoid appearing in
court to resolve citations.
Suggested amendments: The author may wish to consider amending
SB 881 to allow driver's license suspensions to be utilized by
courts, where necessary, to discourage FTAs by providing that a
driver's license suspension can be lifted once the individual
appears in court and establishes a payment plan or that the
driver's license suspension be conditional, such as authorizing
driving to and from work only.
Previous legislation: SB 405 (Hertzberg), Chapter 385, Statutes
of 2015, required courts to allow individuals to schedule court
proceedings, even if bail or civil assessment has been imposed,
and clarifies the traffic amnesty program.
SB 85 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 26,
Statutes of 2015, authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty
program, beginning October 1, 2015, for delinquent debt.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AIDS Legal Referral Panel
SB 881
Page 10
Asian Americans Advancing Justice, California
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Department of Insurance
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Public Defender's Association
Community Housing Partnership
East Bay Community Law Center
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Forward Together
Haywood Burns Institute
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition
SB 881
Page 11
Law Foundation of Silicone Valley
Legal Aid Association of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
OneJustice
Root & Rebound
Safer Streets LA
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Opposition
California Police Chiefs Association, Inc.
California State Association of Counties
SB 881
Page 12
Analysis Prepared by:Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916)
319-2093