BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1697
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1697 (Hall) - As Amended: April 15, 2010
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Extends, from July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2016, a recently-enacted
$10 increase in court security fees, so that the total
security fee imposed over this period on every conviction for
a criminal offense, including traffic offenses, but excluding
parking offenses, would be $30.
2)Establishes the Court Security Account within the Trial Court
Trust Fund, directs all court security funds from whatever
source, including the court security fee, into that account,
and requires that funds in that account can only be expended
for court security services.
FISCAL EFFECT
Additional fee revenue of around $30 million for five additional
years, earmarked to be spent on court security.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Today, most court security services - ranging
from bailiff functions within courtrooms to the patrol of
court facilities - are provided by the sheriff in 56 counties
and by marshals, who are court employees, in Shasta and
Trinity counties. Court attendants provide some security in
civil and juvenile courts. To standardize court security and
help implement court unification, the Superior Court Law
Enforcement Act, SB 1396 (Dunn)/Chapter 1010 of 2002 created
greater consistency in court security services by simplifying
the process of negotiations over court security and
AB 1697
Page 2
establishing a specific set of guidelines both as to
procedures and as to what were allowable costs.
Security costs represent a significant portion of the state's
court expenditures. In 2008-09, court security totaled almost
$520 million-an increase of 15% from 2006-07. This amount
constituted about 17% of statewide court expenditures. The
Judicial Council estimates that an additional $56 million
would be required in 2010-11 to bring all courts up to the
existing security standard.
In order to help address the security funding shortfall, a
trailer bill to the 2009-10 Budget Act (SBx4 13
(Ducheny)/Chapter) increased the court security fee imposed on
all criminal offenses from $20 to $30 for a period of two
years.
2)Purpose . This bill, sponsored by the California State
Sheriffs' Association, the Peace Officers Research Association
of California and Los Angeles Country Sheriff Lee Baca,
extends the court security fee increase and creates a new
Court Security Account for all court security funds.
According to the author:
"Instability in court security funding and a
cumbersome funding mechanism create burdens on the
State, on local courts, and on county sheriffs. State
funding continues to be impacted by salary and
retirement adjustments at the local level without any
real State input into growth in those areas. Sheriffs
and local courts struggle with continual lack of
certainty in funding . . . . "
3)Existing Fees and Penalty Assessments . Current law provides
for a series of intertwined and complex penalty assessments,
including the court security fee. As noted by the California
Research Bureau (CRB) in its 2006 review of penalty
assessment, "California now has dedicated funding streams for
over 269 separate court fines, fees, forfeitures, surcharges
and penalty assessments that may be levied on offenders and
violators." The major assessments include:
a) A state penalty assessment of $10 for every $10 on every
fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and collected by the
AB 1697
Page 3
courts for all criminal offenses, including vehicle
offenses except parking fines. Of the funds collected, 70%
goes to the state, for specific purposes, and 30% to the
counties.
b) A county penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 on every
fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the
courts for criminal offenses, including vehicle offenses,
except parking fines. Proceeds are distributed to funds
established by county boards of supervisors: Courthouse
Construction, Criminal Justice Facilities Construction,
Automated Fingerprint Identification, Emergency Medical
Services, DNA.
c) A state surcharge of 20% on every base fine collected by
the court, deposited in the GF.
d) A State Court Facilities Construction penalty assessment
of up to $5 for every $10 upon every fine, penalty or
forfeiture collected by the courts for criminal offenses.
e) The $30 court security fee .
f) Proposition 69 levied a $1 penalty assessment on every
$10 in fines and forfeitures resulting from criminal and
traffic offenses and dedicates these revenues to state and
local governments for DNA databank implementation purposes.
g) The Emergency Medical Services Fund provides
supplemental financing for local emergency services via a
$2 penalty assessment for each $10 of traffic fines.
h) An additional 20% assessment of $2 for every $10 on
every fine, penalty, forfeiture or criminal offenses and
all offenses dealing with the Vehicle Code except parking
offenses for emergency medical services, in addition to the
EMS Fund.
AB 1697
Page 4
i) An additional $30 for every felony or misdemeanor
criminal conviction and $35 for every criminal infraction,
including traffic offenses, but not including parking
offenses, for the Immediate and Critical Needs Account
(ICNA) within the existing State Court Facilities
Construction Fund (SCFCF).
j) The CRB found that 86% of penalty assessments are paid
by Vehicle Code violators . Criminal defendants who
committed more serious offenses are less likely to have the
ability to pay any fines assessed in addition to other
punishments such as county jail or state prison sentences
As noted by the CRB, "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."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081