BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1338
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1338 (Anderson) - As Amended: April 28, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
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 to establish
and conduct an "arraignment court program." This bill states
that the presiding judge of the superior court may establish
extended hours for the operation of an "arraignment court
program."
FISCAL EFFECT
Though this measure is permissive, the intent is to provide
extended court hours and access. To do so requires either (a)
redirected resources, which creates backlogs in other areas; (b)
overtime, which generally costs time-and-a-half; or (c) the
hiring of more people, which creates new costs.
If 10 courts opted to provide eight additional hours each month,
at about $4,500 per day per court, this would total $540,000. If
accomplished via overtime, the cost would exceed $800,000. If
these 10 courts opted to redirect resources, the costs, assuming
no overtime for evening and weekend hours, could be a wash, but
would divert resources from other court functions.
To the extent extended hours results in less jail overcrowding,
by requiring fewer people to spend weekends in jail, for
example, there would be some offsetting local savings. At $90
per day, for example, should this proposal result in 2,000 fewer
jail-bed days per year, assuming 10 courts with eight extended
hours each month, the cumulative local savings would be almost
$200,000.
AB 1338
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends off-hour courts will increase
court efficiency and availability.
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)Opposition . The Judicial Council states, "The Council opposes
AB 1338 unless additional resources are provided for judges,
court staff, courtroom security, and facilities costs.
"There is nothing in current law that prevents a court from
remaining open past normal business hours. In fact,
arraignment calendars already extend well past 5 p.m. in order
to process arrestees within the statutory timeframe. With that
being the case, the purpose of AB 1338 is unclear."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081