BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1338
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 1338 (Anderson) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Specifically, this bill : Authorizes the presiding
judge of a superior court, or a judge designated by the
presiding judge, together with the district attorney and the
public defender, to agree in writing to establish and conduct an
arraignment court program. The presiding judge of the superior
court may establish extended hours for the operation of an
arraignment court program.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows a special assessment in an amount equal to $1 for every
fine, forfeiture, and traffic violator school fee imposed and
collected by any court that conducts a night or weekend
session of the court, on all offenses involving a violation of
a section of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant
to this code, except offenses relating to parking. [Vehicle
Code Section 42006(a).]
2)Provides that if a court conducts night or weekend sessions at
two or more locations, the court may do either of the
following:
a) Levy assessments only on those persons who are required
to appear at the location where night or weekend sessions
are held.
b) Levy assessments on persons who have the option to
appear at a location where night or weekend court sessions
are held and that is within 25 miles of the location of the
court where the person is otherwise required to appear.
c) After a determination by the court of the amount of the
assessment due, the clerk of the court shall collect the
amount and transmit it.
AB 1338
Page 2
d) In any case where a person convicted of any offense to
which this section applies is imprisoned until the fine is
satisfied, the court shall waive the penalty assessment.
[Vehicle Code Section 42006(c).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Extended-hours
arraignment departments will increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of California's courts. The public would
benefit from their judicial system working for them in
real-time, with fewer bottlenecks and speedier delivery of
justice for the rights of all involved."
2)Background : According to information provided to the author
by the sponsor, Judge Stirling, "In recent past years, more
than 7 million criminal cases have been annually filed with
California Courts. The defendant in every case is entitled to
timely arraignment. Since the courts are traditionally closed
during evenings and weekends, arraignments have to await the
courts opening.
"The delay in arraignment occasioned by the courts being
closed during peak criminal activity creates several
dysfunctions:
"In regards to infractions, the vast majority of the courts
criminal workload, appearing at arraignment during normal
working hours works a hardship in defendants. If the
arraignment courts were open, the public would be better able
to attend after their own normal working hours. That would
increase the service to the public, make it likely that more
people would appear, that more cases would be settled timely,
and fines imposed and collected.
"In regards to misdemeanors, especially the two most common
and dangerous misdemeanors, drunk driving and domestic
violence, since the arraignment departments are not readily
available, arrestees for DUI are generally held at a DETOX
center until sober and then released without bail on their
promise to appear when the court is open. A great percentage
do not appear thus adding to the huge unserved arrest balance.
AB 1338
Page 3
"In the case of domestic violence, since there is no
arraignment department and few misdemeanor jail beds, it is
the practice of law enforcement to charge the DV as a felony
to get the defendant into jail only to have the cases reduced
to misdemeanors when the issuing deputies finally look at the
facts on Monday and Tuesday.
"In the case of all felonies, the failure to arraign timely
creates jail overcrowding Friday, Night, Saturday, Sunday and
most of the day Monday as the prosecutors come to work faced
with a huge stack of arrest files to evaluate in a short
period. Since the police officer who arrested the defendant
over the week end is unlikely to be available Monday for
discussions, if the case has any questions, the DA has little
choice except to 'kick' the arrest to the detriment of the
public.
"In our County, I believe the percentage of cases 'kicked'
hovers around 25 percent. It is hard to believe that
professional police officers make mistakes that many times.
"In addition to their duties as arraignment departments and
case settlements, the attending judge would also be available
for search warrants, arrest warrants, bail reviews, and most
importantly of all additional duties, restraining orders.
"When a woman is a victim of domestic violence, she presently
has to wait until Monday to find an attorney and file for a
restraining order. If there were an extended hour's
arraignment court, the police could take her there directly
and have the judge issue the TRO.
"Arraignment departments are the work horses of courts.
Nearly all infractions are resolved at arraignment and a great
majority of misdemeanors are too. That means that case
dispositions would climb (along with revenues), there would be
better service to the public, less jail overcrowding a more
timely justice available to defendants."
3)Counties with Extended Court Hours :
a) Alameda County Superior Court has night court.
b) Butte County Superior Court offers small-claims court
AB 1338
Page 4
one night each month.
c) Calaveras County Superior Court holds peer court one
night each month.
d) Colusa County Superior Court holds peer court two nights
each month.
e) Fresno County Superior Court holds small-claims court
one night each month from May to September and one Saturday
each month from October to April.
f) Inyo County Superior Court holds night court once each
month.
g) Kern County Superior Court holds small-claims and
traffic-metro divisions two nights each month.
h)Los Angeles Superior Court has night court in almost every
district in at least one court. Court is usually held on
Monday or Tuesday, and only once each week. Adoption
Saturdays are held a few times each year, as well.
i) Madera County Superior Court holds night court one night
each month.
j) Marin County Superior Court holds night court.
aa) Modoc County held traffic court twice each month on
Saturdays but stopped due to lack of interest. Peer court
is held after 5:00 p.m. on as as-needed basis.
bb) Napa County Superior Court holds night court.
cc) Nevada County Superior Court holds peer court two nights
each month.
dd) Orange County Superior Court holds night court each
Tuesday for traffic cases. Small claims are heard during
night court once each month. There are no weekend hours.
ee) Placer County Superior Court has peer court outside
normal court hours.
ff) Plumas County Superior Court hears adoptions outside
AB 1338
Page 5
normal court hours as needed.
gg) Riverside County Superior Court holds night court one
time each month at five locations: Blythe on third the
Wednesday of each month, Corona on the second Wednesday,
Palm Springs on the first Wednesday, Indio on the first
Tuesday, and Moreno Valley on third Wednesday.
hh) Sacramento County Superior Court holds traffic and small
claims one night each month, and peer court two nights each
month. Annual adoption day held outside normal court
hours.
ii) San Diego holds night court: East County, one time each
week on Wednesdays; Chula Vista/South Bay, one time each
week on Thursdays; North/Vista, one time each week on
Thursdays; and Central, Monday to Friday. The court holds
a "Stand Down" on one weekend each year for old warrants.
jj) San Joaquin County Superior Court holds small claims one
night each month and Adoption Saturday annually.
aaa) San Luis Obispo County Superior Court holds night court
for small claims on the second Thursday of each month.
bbb) San Mateo County Superior Court holds night court.
ccc) Santa Barbara County Superior Court holds night court
for traffic cases on the second Tuesday of each month and
night court hours for small-claims/civil cases.
ddd) Santa Cruz County Superior Court holds night court.
eee) Sonoma County Superior Court holds night court.
fff) Stanislaus County Superior Court holds small claims one
night each month.
ggg) Tuolumne County Superior Court holds peer court in the
evenings five times each year.
hhh) Ventura County Superior Court holds night court at
Ventura and Simi Valley locations.
iii) Yolo County holds night court for small claims once each
AB 1338
Page 6
month.
If the aforementioned counties have already established a
night court, is it necessary that we create provisions through
this bill to establish arraignment courts with extended hours?
4)Judicial Council Findings : In 1970, the Judicial Council of
California conducted a study of the operation of night
sessions in traffic cases with a view to determining policies
on night courts generally. [Night Sessions in Municipal
Courts, Judicial Council of California Report, (1970) pp.
44-52.] The following documents were submitted to municipal
courts:
i) A questionnaire surveying the traffic procedures
followed in each municipal court;
ii) An opinion questionnaire to be completed by each
court clerk in courts not having night sessions;
iii) A letter to all judges in courts having night
sessions, except Los Angeles Municipal Court, requesting
comments regarding the need for night sessions, the
problems of night sessions and the types of proceedings
that should be held at night; and,
iv) A request for information and opinions from clerks
of courts having night sessions.
It was found that night sessions are not an added expense to
the counties. Night sessions are partly funded by revenues
derived from a special night court assessment, which is a
percentage of the money collected for traffic violations,
other than parking violations. With only four exceptions,
night courts have no occasioned additional cost because the
staggering of staff hours has avoided any need to pay overtime
rates. Even in the courts that pay overtime to the night
staff, the revenues are about three times greater than the
administrative cost, despite the fact that the night staffs
are larger than needed and personnel are assigned tasks not
related to the night sessions. No serious personnel problems
resulted from night courts: staffing has not been difficult as
many of those involved like the arrangement. In a small
number of courts, however, some of the deputies, especially
married women with families, prefer not to work at night.
AB 1338
Page 7
The number of persons appearing before a judge at night
sessions varies from court to court. The average number of
such appearances per night session in Los Angeles is about 730
and in San Diego is about 240. In other courts, the average
varies from 50 to 150. Figures from some courts indicate that
appearances on traffic matters at night sessions constitute
from 20% to 40% of the total number of court appearances for
such matters. The number of night court appearances compared
with the total number of defendants who forfeit bail, plead
guilty or are tried seems to range from 3% to 14%, with an
average of 7% to 8%.
The Judicial Council found that the effect of night sessions
on the workload of the courts is not entirely clear. It does
not appear that night sessions generally result in more pleas
of not guilty and more court trials. Nor does it appear that
night sessions necessarily result in significantly more
appearances. Some court administrators feel that night courts
have not affected their day-time work load while others state
that day-time arraignments have dropped appreciably because of
the night sessions.
The Judicial Council considered that the greatest benefit of
night courts was derived by people who were concerned about
losing time from work. Approximately 75% of ordinary traffic
matters are disposed of by forfeiture of bail or dismissal
without a court appearance. A proportion of this group would
probably prefer to make an explanation to the court or contest
the matter but are deterred from doing so because of the loss
of time and wages that would be involved. In practice, 20% of
defendants charged with ordinary traffic offences plead guilty
or have the matter dismissed after a court appearance. Most
of those who plead guilty in court seem to appear in order to
make representations that they hope will result in a reduction
of penalty. Although the time taken for that purpose normally
is a minute or two, the court attendance can mean the loss of
one-half day or more of work.
The Judicial Council considered that, for this large group of
defendants, night sessions serve the greatest need. If found
a general consensus that there should be a facility for
traffic arraignments to be conducted at night, if there are to
be night sessions at all. Since only the defendants need to
appear, a traffic arraignment calendar at night does not
AB 1338
Page 8
inconvenience others. In contrast, traffic court trials
require the presence of the arresting officer, possibly other
witnesses, a deputy district attorney or city attorney, and
are more likely to cause custody problems.
Further, it was found that many defendants who request a trial
either do not appear at the time set for trial or else change
their plea to guilty at that time. Courts normally compensate
for this by setting far more cases on the trial calendar than
could possibly be heard if all went to trial, but this
practice obviously creates far greater problems at night, with
only one department operating, than it does during the day
when all departments are open. The Judicial Council doubted
whether the benefit to the relatively few people who would be
served by holding court trials at night would counterbalance
the many problems that would be created. Judicial Council
stated that defendants wanting court trials would probably be
better served by being able to select firm dates and times for
trial, with a corresponding assurance that they would not have
to lose one-day's work for a 10-minute court appearance.
5)Argument in Support : None submitted
6)Argument in Opposition : According to the California State
Association of Counties and the Regional Council of Rural
Counties , "We have two primary concerns with the measure.
First, the bill would authorize - but not require - the
establishment of an arraignment program. To exercise this
authority, the bill contemplates having the presiding judge
(or his designee), the district attorney, and the public
defender arrive at mutual terms in writing to operate the
program. What the construct does not take into account are
other operational and fiscal impacts to the county. Chief
among those are: (a) the impact to the county if the court
facility is housed in a shared-use building and (b) the costs
associated with providing court security and, if necessary,
defendant transportation - both functions provided by the
county sheriff.
"Secondly, while it is not clear what pecuniary orders - perhaps
bail or unpaid court-ordered debt from a previous offense -
might be involved in arraignment proceedings, counties would
oppose the sharing of any proceeds among 'the participating
prosecutorial, defense, probation, and arresting agencies,' as
contemplated by this bill. This provision disregards the
AB 1338
Page 9
extensive and complex statutory direction that distributes
revenues to specific funds and entities. (See Appendix C of
the State Controller's Manual of Accounting and Audit
Guidelines for Trial Courts.)"
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
Judicial Council of California
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744