BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1392
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 13, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                    AB 1392 (Tran) - As Amended:  April 13, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              Public  
          SafetyVote:  7-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill creates a new $150 fine for graffiti-related offenses  
          and a $300 fine if the offense is committed by a person  
          determined to be an active member of a criminal street gang, as  
          defined, and earmarks the fine revenue for specified purposes.   
          Specifically, this bill:

          1)Creates the Graffiti and Gang Technology Fund (fund) within  
            the Department of Justice (DOJ), for deposit of the above fine  
            revenues, to fund technological advances in the identification  
            and apprehension of vandals and gang members.

          2)Specifies the CalGang Executive Board, under the DOJ, shall  
            distribute funds from the Fund based on the recommendations of  
            the California Gang Node Advisory Committee and the California  
            Graffiti Advisory Committee (which does not currently exist).  
            At least 30% of the funds shall go to "graffiti-related  
            purposes," 30% shall go to "gang-related purposes," and the  
            balance to "law enforcment's greater need for technology."

          3)Requires DOJ to maintain annual fiscal reports and report  
            annually to the CalGang Executive Board on the status of the  
            fund.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

           1)Unknown increased fine revenue and commensurate increased  
            expenditures  , potentially in the hundreds of thousands of  
            dollars.

            It is difficult to estimate the number of graffiti  








                                                                  AB 1392
                                                                  Page  2

            convictions, in addition to the difficulty of estimating  
            offenders' ability to pay an additional fine, but for order of  
            magnitude purposes:  based on an average of about 500  
            graffiti-related arrests per year by the L.A. P.D., if a  
            similar number of arrests were made by L. A. Sheriff's  
            Department, and if those 1,000 arrests are offset by 50% for  
            cases that do not result in a conviction, L.A. County alone  
            would have about 500 annual convictions. If 20% of the 500  
            were unable to pay the fine, and if the fines levied averaged  
            $225, potential proceeds to the Graffiti and Gang Technology  
            Fund from L.A County would be about $90,000.  Extrapolating  
            statewide, the fund would likely receive less than $300,000. 

           2)Proliferation of assessments and charges has driven fines  
            upward  . For example, a $1,000 criminal fine for a  
            graffiti-related offense, with current maximum assessments  
            would be $4,785, shocking defendants who think $1,000 means  
            $1,000.

           3)Increasing assessments may result in diminishing returns  .  
            Judges do have the discretion to reduce the base fine, which  
            then reduces revenue to state and local governments, as well  
            as to assessments. As current penalty assessments more than  
            triple the base fine, increasing fines and assessments may  
            have the unintended consequence of reduced fine collections.  
            Indigent defendants facing ever-increasing fees may simply  
            choose to spend time in jail in lieu of paying the fine,  
            causing taxpayers to pay the jail costs while state and local  
            government receive fewer penalty funds. Moreover, county jail  
            population caps may provide additional incentives to opt for  
            jail time over fines, as the time served for nonviolent  
            offenders may be minimal.  

            As noted by the California Research Bureau (CRB) in its 2006  
            review of penalty assessments, "High penalty assessments may  
            result in higher rates of default by the guilty parties. Some  
            offenders may spend time in jail, or plea for community  
            service, rather than pay the fine and penalty assessment. The  
            end result may be that a substantial amount of fines, fees and  
            revenue is not collected."
           
           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . The author contends this bill will provide  
            additional funding to combat gangs and graffiti.  








                                                                  AB 1392
                                                                  Page  3


           2)Related legislation  , AB 576 (Torres, 2009), also contained a  
            fine for graffiti-related offenses. The fine was deleted from  
            the bill by this committee and AB 576, which also allows local  
            governments to qualify as victims for purposes of  
            graffiti-related restitution, is pending in the Senate. 


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081