BILL ANALYSIS
AB 106
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 1, 2005
Counsel: Heather Hopkins
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 106 (Cohn) - As Introduced: January 11, 2005
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Creates an amnesty program for fines, fees,
penalties, and assessments imposed on those convicted of spousal
battery or domestic violence. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the courts of each county to establish an amnesty
program for fines, fees, penalties, and assessments imposed
for violations of spousal battery or domestic violence and
that have been delinquent for not less than six months as of
January 1, 2006.
2)Provides that any person owing a fine, fee, penalty, and
assessment eligible for amnesty under the program may pay the
court the amount scheduled by the court which shall be
accepted in full satisfaction of the delinquent fine, bail or
monetary obligation.
3)Provides that the amount scheduled by the court shall be 70%
of the total fine, fee, penalty, and assessment.
4)Provides that the amnesty program shall be implemented by each
court on a one-time basis, as specified, for a period of not
less than 120 days and not longer than six months from the
date the court initiates the program.
5)Provides that no criminal action shall be brought against any
person for a delinquent fine, fee, penalty, and assessment
paid under the amnesty program and no other additional
penalties, except as specified, shall be assess for the late
payment made under the amnesty program.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Judicial Council, after consultation with the Franchise Tax
AB 106
Page 2
Board, may provide for an amnesty program involving the
collection of outstanding fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties
and assessments, applicable either statewide or within one or
more counties. The amnesty program shall provide that some or
all of the interest or collection costs imposed on outstanding
fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and assessments may be
waived if the remaining amounts due are paid within the
amnesty period. [Penal Code Section 1463.010(g).]
2)Provides that when battery is committed against a spouse or
other specified persons, the battery is punishable by a fine
not exceeding $2,000; by imprisonment in a county jail for not
more than one year; or by both a fine and imprisonment.
[Penal Code Section 243(e)(1).]
3)Provides that if a person is granted probation for a crime in
which the victim is a spouse or other specified person, the
terms of probation include, until January 1, 2007, a minimum
payment of $400 and after January 1, 2007 a minimum payment of
$200. (Penal Code Section 1203.097.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This bill
models the innovative and successful Statewide Tax Amnesty
Program currently in use by the Board of Equalization to
provide cities and counties with a short-term tool to increase
collection of court fines for domestic violence cases, thereby
boosting available funding for domestic violence programs."
2)Effectiveness of Amnesty Programs : According to the National
Center for State Courts (NCSC), fine amnesty programs offer
few real benefits beyond a short-term ability to raise
revenue, close some delinquent cases, and can be criticized on
many levels. The criticisms that NCSC raise about amnesty
include the following:
a) Granting amnesty undermines the deterrence and
punishment goals behind the original sentence as well as
the fundamental credibility of the court. An amnesty
program rewards the contemptuous and penalizes responsible
members of the community who pay their obligations on time.
AB 106
Page 3
b) There is an inherent unfairness of how amnesty programs
operate as the court is permitted to extend amnesty only
for offenses that carry non-mandatory penalties.
c) Amnesty extends only to those who receive monetary
penalties, not to those who may have committed identical
offenses and were sentenced to community service, diversion
programs, education programs, jail, etc.
d) If amnesty operates as a fixed percentage reduction of
financial penalties, then it is highly regressive against
the poorer offenders.
There are practical concerns with amnesty programs as well.
As NCSC states, "Unless such a program is coupled with strong
fine enforcement efforts, the message it sends to the 'street'
is if one ignores court orders and waits long enough, one can
get a good deal. Given that amnesty programs are often a
symptom of chronic failure to plan for, acquire, and
effectively manage sentence enforcement resources, there is no
guarantee that such programs will even produce a short-term
increase in revenues. After all, there is little reason to
pay voluntarily, even if the penalty is reduced, if the public
perception is that the court is not going to enforce the fine
anyway."
1)Judicial Council Report on Enhancing Collections : SB 940
(Escutia), Chapter 275, Statutes of 2003 was sponsored by the
Judicial Council and required Judicial Council to adopt
guidelines for a comprehensive program for the collection of
fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and assessments imposed
by the courts. The working group created by SB 940 released a
report, "Collaborative Court-County Working Group on Enhanced
Collections Report." In that report, the working group
recommends not making an amnesty program part of a
comprehensive collections program for the following reasons:
a) Although an amnesty program may bring in substantial
one-time revenues and result in the closure of many
delinquent cases, the effect on ongoing revenues will be
substantial, both for those courts and counties with
established, successful collections programs and for those
initiating or enhancing a collections program;
AB 106
Page 4
b) Amnesty programs are extremely labor-intensive;
decreases in staffing levels due to the state budget crisis
resulted in counties and courts having insufficient
resources to manage the increased workload; and,
c) A fine is a punishment for a crime; failure to hold the
defendant fully accountable erodes confidence in, and
respect for, the judicial system.
2)Franchise Tax Board : Since 1994, the Franchise Tax Board has
been involved in collection programs for outstanding fines and
fees. In these programs, the court and/or county revenue
recovery division contract with the Franchise Tax Board for
collection services on specified outstanding fines and fees.
The Franchise Tax Board then tries to collect that outstanding
money and charges an administrative fee. A Demand for Payment
Notice is sent by the Franchise Tax Board to the debtors
demanding payment for their delinquent payments. If payment
is not received, the Franchise Tax Board issues bank or wage
levies. Since 1994, the Franchise Tax Board has collected
over $177 billion in outstanding fines and fees.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Judicial Council of California
Analysis Prepared by : Heather Hopkins / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744