BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1697
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1697 (Hall)
As Amended May 28, 2010
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, |
| |Hagman, Jones, Swanson, | |Bradford, |
| |Monning, Nava | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, |
| | | |Monning, Ruskin, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the $10 court security fee increase until 2013,
and establishes a special court security fund. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Extends, until July 1, 2013, the $10 increase in court security
fees, so that the total security fees imposed on every conviction
for a criminal offense, including traffic offenses, but excluding
parking offenses, increases from $20 to $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.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the duties of the presiding judge of each superior
court shall include the authority to contract with a sheriff or
marshal for the necessary level of law enforcement services in
the courts.
2)Requires, except as otherwise provided, a sheriff, whenever
required, to attend all superior court actions held within his or
AB 1697
Page 2
her county. Provides that the court may use court attendants in
courtrooms hearing noncriminal, nondelinquency actions where the
sheriff's attendance is not required.
3)Requires that on or after July 1, 2003, the sheriff or marshal,
in conjunction with the presiding judge, shall develop an annual
or multiyear comprehensive court security plan that includes the
mutually agreed upon law enforcement security plan, to be
utilized by the court. Provides that Judicial Council shall
annually submit to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees a
report summarizing the court security plans reviewed by Judicial
Council.
4)Increases, until July 1, 2011, the court security fee imposed on
every conviction for a criminal offense, including traffic
offenses, but excluding parking offenses, from $20 to $30.
FISCAL EFFECT : Additional ongoing fee revenue of around 30
million, earmarked for two additional years, to be spent on court
security.
COMMENTS : 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
marshals, who are employees of the court, in Shasta and Trinity
counties. Court attendants provide some security in civil and
juvenile courts. This bill, sponsored by the California State
Sheriffs' Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of
California and Los Angeles Country Sheriff Lee Baca, seeks to
extend an increase in the court security fee worked out as part of
last year's budget agreement and to create 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 . . . .
To standardize court security, help implement court unification,
and as part of the state take over of trial court funding, the
Legislature passed the Superior Court Law Enforcement Act, SB 1396
(Dunn), Chapter 1010, Statutes of 2002, which helped create greater
AB 1697
Page 3
consistency in court security services by simplifying the process
of negotiations over court security and establishing a specific set
of guidelines both as to procedures and as to what were allowable
costs. Unfortunately, the simplified process has not helped ensure
adequate funding for court security services. These services
continue to be one of the fastest growing parts of the trial court
budgets and, according to the Judicial Council (JC), now represent
fully 20% of the trial court budget. The JC estimates that it will
require $56 million in the 2010-11 budget year to bring all courts
up to the existing security standard.
In order to address the security funds shortfall and add some cost
containments to court security costs, two changes were made as part
of last year's budget agreement (SBx4 13 (Ducheny), Chapter 22,
Statutes of 2009, 2009-10 4th Ex. Sess.) First, the court security
fee imposed on all criminal offenses, was increased from $20 to $30
for a period of two years. Second, the JC had reported that one of
the reasons for the security funding shortfall in the past is that
while the Legislature funds court security positions at the
mid-level salary range, many sheriffs assigned to court security
are in the upper salary range. In order to give the state some
control over the ever growing court security costs, salary costs
were limited last year to the average costs of salary and benefits
paid to equivalent personnel classifications, specifically
excluding overtime pay and retiree health benefits. JC estimates
that the retiree heath care costs alone are $5 million.
Given the continuing security budget shortfall, this bill seeks to
continue the $10 court security fee increase for an additional five
years, until July 1, 2013, while maintaining the cost containment
provisions from last year's budget agreement.
This bill also establishes a separate Court Security Account within
the Trial Court Trust Fund and directs that all court security
funds from whatever source, including funds from the state's
general fund and from the court security fee, be deposited into
this new account. Funds in the new Court Security Account can only
be expended on court security services. While this provision does
not increase the available pot of funds, it does ensure that those
funds can only be used for needed court security services.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0004583
AB 1697
Page 4