BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1838
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1838 (Bill Berryhill) - As Introduced: February 12, 2010
SUBJECT : Unlawful Detainer: Controlled Substances and Firearms
KEY ISSUE : Should the existing pilot project that permits city
prosecutors and city attorneys to file unlawful detainer actions
against nuisances involving illegal drug and weapons activity be
extended to include San Joaquin County, even before the
california research bureau completes a required evaluation of
the pilot project?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill would extend to San Joaquin County an existing pilot
project that permits local authorities to use unique means to
abate nuisances relating to illegal drug and weapons activity.
Existing law permits a landlord to file an action for unlawful
detainer against any tenant who is engaged in unlawful conduct,
including illegal drug and weapons activity. However,
landlords, for various reasons, are sometimes reluctant to bring
such actions. To address this problem, the Legislature
previously adopted pilot projects that allowed local city
attorneys and prosecutors to bring unlawful detainer actions on
behalf of the people when a landlord fails to act. Last year's
AB 530 (Krekorian) extended sunset dates on those projects,
removed the sunset on the drug pilot for Los Angeles, amended
reporting requirements, and required the California Research
Bureau (CRB) to study the project's effectiveness. Currently
the programs only apply to certain cities within the counties of
Los Angeles, San Diego, Alameda, and Sacramento. Participating
jurisdictions are required to provide information on the
operation of these projects to the CRB, which in turn must
submit reports to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees,
one in March of 2011 and the second in March of 2013 to assist
the Legislature in determining the merits and deficiencies of
this approach. According to the author, the pilot program
should nevertheless be extended to San Joaquin County this
January because of its well-documented criminal gang activity,
which is as serious and extensive as criminal activity in the
AB 1838
Page 2
large metropolitan areas in which the pilots presently operate.
The Committee may wish to consider, however, whether it is
appropriate to extend the pilot project before the CRB has had
an opportunity to evaluate the data and submit its required
reports. Last year's legislation originally attempted to create
statewide and permanent policy. However, that legislation was
purposefully made time- and place-limited and subjected to
further study. Adding more counties simply because they suffer
from the same unlawful activity would arguably defeat the clear
legislative intent to deliberately create pilot projects as an
express alternative to implementing statewide and permanent
policy, and to halt further expansion of this approach pending
the CRB report.
SUMMARY : Extends to San Joaquin County an existing pilot
project that allows local authorities to file actions for
unlawful detainer in order to abate unlawful conduct relating to
controlled substances or illegal weapons or ammunition
possession. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits the county district attorney of San Joaquin County to
file an action for unlawful detainer in order to abate a
nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving controlled
substances, weapons or ammunition on rental property, in the
manner specified by existing pilot projects.
2)Provides that the provisions of this bill shall remain in
effect only until January 1, 2014, unless that date is
repealed or extended by a later enacted statute.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a tenant that maintains, commits, or permits a
nuisance upon the premises or who uses the premises for an
unlawful purpose thereby terminates the lease, entitling the
landlord to restitution of the premises under unlawful
detainer. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(4).)
2)Specifies that a person who illegally possesses certain
firearms or ammunition on the premises, or who illegally
possesses or sells a controlled substance on the premises, or
who uses the premises to further either purpose, as defined,
shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises
for the purpose of bringing an unlawful detainer. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1161(4).)
AB 1838
Page 3
3)Permits, until January 1, 2014, a city prosecutor or city
attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in order to
abate a nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful
weapons or ammunition on real property. Requires that the
action be based upon an arrest report or other report by a law
enforcement agency reporting an offense committed on the
property and documented by the observations of a police
officer. (Civil Code Section 3485.)
4)Permits, until January 1, 2014, a city prosecutor or city
attorney, to file an action for unlawful detainer in order to
abate a nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving a
controlled substance purpose on real property. Requires that
the action be based upon an arrest report or other report by a
law enforcement agency reporting an offense committed on the
property and documented by the observations of a police
officer. (Civil Code Section 3486.)
5)Provides that prior to filing an action pursuant to 3) or 4)
above, the city prosecutor or city attorney shall give 30
calendar days' notice to the property owner, requiring the
owner to file an action for the removal of the person who is
in violation of the nuisance involving the prescribed unlawful
conduct. However, if the owner fails to file the required
action for unlawful detainer, then the city prosecutor or city
attorney may file and prosecute the action and join the owner
as a defendant in the action. (Civil Code Sections 3485 (a)
(1) (A)-(F) and 3486 (a) (1) (A)-(F).)
6)Provides that for any action filed pursuant to the above, a
court may, as specified, issue a partial eviction against a
tenant who has caused the nuisance while permitting other
tenants to remain, provided however that the remaining tenants
shall not give permission to or invite any person who has been
removed to return to the premises. (Civil Code Sections 3485
(b) and 3486 (b).)
7)Specifies that nothing in the above provisions shall prevent a
local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws,
consistent with this section, relating to the abatement of
unlawful conduct involving controlled substances, weapons, or
ammunition. (Civil Code Sections 3485 (a) (4) and 3486 (a)
(4).)
AB 1838
Page 4
8)Restricts the above provisions to specified cities located in
the counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Alameda, and
Sacramento. Requires the participating jurisdictions to
submit specified information to the California Research
Bureau, which shall submit reports based on the information
provided to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, as
specified. (Civil Code Sections 3485 (g) and 3486 (g).)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to extend to San Joaquin County a
pilot project that permits city attorneys and city prosecutors
to file an unlawful detainer action against tenants who engage
in unlawful conduct involving drugs, weapons, or ammunition on
the premises. The current pilot project, comprised of already
designated cities, is set to expire on January 1, 2014, and the
California Research Bureau is required to submit two reports on
the use and effectiveness of the projects in March of 2011 and
again in March of 2013 in order to assist the Legislature in
determining the merits and deficiencies of this approach.
Background. Existing law already permits a landlord to file an
unlawful detainer against tenants engaged in unlawful conduct.
For various reasons, including threats or intimidation by those
engaged in the unlawful activity, landlords are sometimes
reluctant to take such action. In an effort to address this
problem, the Legislature enacted AB 1384 (Chapter 613, Stats. of
1998), which launched a three-year pilot project that became
effective on January 1, 1999. If a landlord refused to take
action, the pilot project permitted city attorneys and city
prosecutors in five Los Angeles Municipal Court districts to
bring unlawful detainer actions against persons who engaged in
illegal drug activity. AB 815 (Chapter 431, Stats. of 2001)
extended the program to additional courts within Los Angeles and
extended the sunset another three years. That bill also
authorized a court to issue a "partial eviction," meaning that
only offenders would be evicted while innocent tenants would be
allowed to remain. Both the 1998 and 2001 bills required the
Judicial Council to prepare reports, but in both instances there
was apparently insufficient data to provide a meaningful
evaluation. AB 2523 (Chapter 304, Stats. of 2004) extended the
pilot project to 2010, added cities in the counties of San Diego
and Alameda, and strengthened the reporting requirements so that
the Judicial Council could prepare a more useful report.
In 2007, AB 1013 (Chapter 456, Stats. of 2007) created a similar
pilot project that allowed city attorneys and prosecutors to
AB 1838
Page 5
bring unlawful detainer actions against persons engaged in
unlawful weapons and ammunition activity on rented premises.
That project, like the drug project, was to sunset on January 1,
2010. The weapons pilot project included cities in the counties
of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and Alameda. Last year's
AB 530 (Chapter 244, Stats. of 2009) made the following changes
to both the drug and weapons projects: (1) extended the sunset
for both projects to January 1, 2014; (2) added the City of
Sacramento to the drug pilot; (3) exempted the City of Los
Angeles from the sunset date for the drug project, thereby
making the program of indefinite duration in Los Angeles; and
(4) moved provisions relating to the drug project from the
Health & Safety Code to the Civil Code so that both projects
would be in the same Code; and (5) shifted the study and report
requirements from the Judicial Council to the CRB.
Legislative History of Last Year's AB 530 : In assessing the
appropriateness of extending the existing drug and weapons pilot
projects to San Joaquin County, it is important to consider the
legislative history and clear intent of last year's AB 530. As
originally introduced, AB 530 would have effectively made the
provisions of the pilot project statewide and permanent and,
correspondingly, sought to eliminate reporting requirements.
However, given that the Judicial Council reports were never able
to effectively evaluate the project, and due to continuing
concerns from tenant's groups regarding tenant due process
rights, last year's legislation rejected the extended sunsets to
2014 and shifted the report requirements from the Judicial
Council to the California Research Bureau (CRB). Participating
jurisdictions are required to submit information to the CRB, and
the CRB is required to submit reports in 2011 and 2013 to the
Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees. In addition, last
year's legislation expanded the information that city attorneys
and prosecutors were required to provide to the CRB so that it
could develop more meaningful and useful reports than were
provided by the Judicial Council. Moreover, when AB 530 reached
the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee insisted that certain
reporting requirements that had been deleted from earlier
versions of the bill be reinserted, so as to provide more
meaningful information for the study and report. In short, AB
530 began as a bill to make the projects permanent and
statewide. But the bill moved through the legislative process
only with the understanding that it would remain a
geographically limited pilot project until the CRB could
complete its reports. This measure would therefore appear to
AB 1838
Page 6
contravene last year's two house decision to require further
study of this approach before further expanding its
availability.
The Committee may wish to consider, given the clear legislative
history of AB 530, whether it would be appropriate to extend the
pilot project to another county before the CRB has completed its
reports on the projects' effectiveness. To be sure, it may be
the case that illegal drugs and weapons activity is as prevalent
in San Joaquin County as it is in any of the participating
jurisdictions, but the Committee may wish to consider the
precedent that will be set if the bill passes out of this
Committee. If this bill is eventually enacted, other cities and
counties, equally concerned about crime within their
jurisdictions, could justifiably seek to be added as well. But
adding more counties simply because they suffer from the same
unlawful activity would arguably defeat the legislative intent
to deliberately create geographically limited pilot projects as
an alternative to a statewide and permanent policy in order to
permit reasonable and needed study of the pilot program's
efficacy and potential downsides.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT : According to the author, there are many
locations in San Joaquin County that have a well-documented
history of criminal gang activity in residential rental
properties throughout the county. According to the author,
"these residences use valuable law enforcement resources with
their repeated need for attention." For example, the author
notes that a single home in an unincorporated area of San
Joaquin County generated 444 calls for Sheriff's services over a
six year period. In addition, such properties endanger
neighbors and other tenants and diminish the community's overall
quality of life. The California Apartment Association supports
this bill for substantially the same reasons, adding that it has
worked with lawmakers in the past to extend the current pilot
program and would welcome its extension to San Joaquin County.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1838
Page 7
San Joaquin County (sponsor)
California Apartment Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Peace Officers Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334