BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
2
6
AB 2264 (De Leon) 4
As Amended June 15, 2010
Hearing date: June 29, 2010
Penal Code
AA:dl
TRUANCY, LOITERING AND CURFEW VIOLATION FINES:
DEBT COLLECTION FROM HOMELESS YOUTH
HISTORY
Source: Children's Advocacy Institute
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Children's Law Center of Los Angeles; California
Coalition for Youth; SEIU; California Public Defenders
Association; California State PTA
Opposition:None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 49 - Noes 25
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COURTS BE PROHIBITED FROM garnishing the wages or levying
against bank accounts of a person under 25 years of age who has not
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageB
paid a ticket for truancy, loitering, curfew violations or illegal
lodging where, in the course of its routine efforts to collect
fines, the court obtains information indicating that person is
homeless, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit courts from garnishing
the wages or levying against bank accounts of a person under 25
years of age who has not paid a ticket for truancy, loitering,
curfew violations or illegal lodging where, in the course of its
routine efforts to collect fines, the court obtains information
indicating that person is homeless, as specified.
Current law requires that any county or court that implements or
has implemented a comprehensive program to identify and collect
delinquent fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and assessments,
including, but not limited to, public defender fees, with or
without a warrant having been issued against the alleged
violator, if the base fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and
assessments are delinquent, may deduct and deposit in the county
treasury or in the trial court operations fund the cost of
operating that program, excluding capital expenditures, from any
revenues collected thereby prior to making any distribution of
revenues to other governmental entities required by any other
provision of law. Any county or court may establish a minimum
base fee, fine, forfeiture, penalty, or assessment amount for
inclusion in the program, as specified. For purposes of this
section, a comprehensive collection program is a separate and
distinct revenue collection activity and shall include at least
10 of the following components:
a) Monthly bill or account statements to all debtors;
b) Telephone contact with delinquent debtors to apprise
them of their failure to meet payment obligations;
c) Issuance of warning letters to advise delinquent debtors
of an outstanding obligation;
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageC
d) Requests for credit reports to assist in locating
delinquent debtors;
e) Access to Employment Development Department employment
and wage information;
f) The generation of monthly delinquent reports;
g) Participation in the Franchise Tax Board's Interagency
Intercept Collections Program;
h) The use of Department of Motor Vehicle information to
locate delinquent debtors;
i) The use of wage and bank account garnishments;
j) The imposition of liens on real property and proceeds
from the sale of real property held by a title company;
aa) The filing of a claim or the filing of objections to the
inclusion of outstanding fines and forfeitures in
bankruptcy proceedings;
bb) Coordination with the probation department to locate
debtors who may be on formal or informal probation;
cc) The initiation of driver's license suspension actions
where appropriate;
dd) The capability to accept credit card payments;
ee) Participation in the Franchise Tax Board's Court-Ordered
Debt Collections Program;
ff) Contracting with one or more private debt collectors;
or,
gg) The use of local, regional, state, or national skip
tracing or locator resources or services to locate
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageD
delinquent debtors. (Penal Code Section 1463.007.)
Current law allows peace officers to transport any person, as
quickly as is feasible, to the nearest homeless shelter, or any
runaway youth or youth in crisis to the nearest runaway shelter,
if the officer inquires whether the person desires the
transportation, and the person does not object to the
transportation. (Penal Code Section 647a.)
Current law states that when the public defender or an assigned
counsel represents a person who is a minor in a criminal
proceeding, at the expense of a county, the court may order the
parent or guardian of such minor to reimburse the county for all
or any part of such expense, if it determines that the parent or
guardian has the ability to pay such expense. (Penal Code
Section 987.4.)
Current law provides any person under the age of 18 years who
persistently or habitually refuses to obey the reasonable and
proper orders or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or
custodian, or who is beyond the control of that person, or who
is under the age of 18 years when he or she violated any
ordinance of any city or county of California establishing a
curfew based solely on age is within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the
court. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 601(a).)
Current law states that it is the policy of California "to
facilitate and support the development and operation of housing
for homeless youth," and authorizes the provision of housing for
homeless youth is hereby authorized, which "shall not be
considered unlawful age discrimination. (Government Code
Section 11139.3(a) and (b).)
Current law defines "homeless youth" as either of the following:
A person who is at least 18 years of age, but
not older than 24 years of age, and meets one of the
following conditions:
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageE
i. Is homeless or at risk of
becoming homeless;
ii. Is no longer eligible for
foster care on the basis of age; or,
iii. Has run away from home.
A person who is less than 18 years of age who
is emancipated and who is homeless or at risk of
becoming homeless. (Government Code Section
11139.3(e)(2).)
Current law defines "at risk of becoming homeless" to mean
facing eviction or termination of one's current housing
situation. (Government Code Section 11139.3(e)(1).)
Current law defines a "homeless person" as any person who lacks
a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence or has a
primary nighttime residence in a shelter, a temporary living
institution, or a public or private place not designated for
regular sleeping accommodations for humans. (Health and Safety
Code Section 50582.)
This bill would provide that, "(n)otwithstanding any other
provision of law, if a court, during the course of its routine
efforts to collect fees, fines, forfeitures, or other penalties
imposed by a court due to the violation of a state or local law,
obtains information indicating that a person under 25 years of
age, who has not paid a ticket for truancy, loitering, curfew
violations, or illegal lodging, is homeless or has no permanent
address, the court shall not garnish the wages or levy against
bank accounts of that person until that person is older than 25
years of age, as that age is recorded by that person's credit
report or other document already in the possession of the
court."
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageF
This bill would provide that for purposes of this section, "a
person is considered to be 'homeless' or as having 'no permanent
address' if that person does not have a fixed, regular, adequate
nighttime residence, or if that person resides in any of the
following:
(1) The home of a person who is not his or her
parent or legal guardian.
(2) A motel, hotel, or campground.
(3) An emergency transitional shelter or hospital.
(4) A public or private place that is not designed
or ordinarily used for a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings, including, but not
limited to, a park or other public space, an abandoned
building, an automobile or other vehicle, or a bus or
train station.
This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions "shall be
construed to prevent a court from engaging in any other lawful
debt collection activities," to "require a court to perform any
further investigation or financial screening into any matter
beyond the scope of its regular duties," or to "prevent the
Judicial Council from altering any best practices or
recommendations for collection programs pursuant to Section
1463.010."
This bill contains legislative findings concerning the incidence
of homeless youth, the garnishment of their wages and savings,
and the effect of these debt collection practices on the ability
of homeless youth to improve their life circumstances, as
specified.
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageG
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageH
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by
Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago
continues to this day, California's prisons remain
severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California
prison system continue to languish without
constitutionally adequate medical and mental health
care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
This bill would not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageI
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Homeless youth are not homeless by choice.
Approximately half are former foster youth who have
been emancipated into the streets; the rest are forced
from their homes by abuse or are kicked out.
Homeless youth are often ticketed for "quality of
life" offenses such as loitering, truancy, illegal
lodging, and curfew violations. When they cannot pay
the fines, sometimes their wages and/or bank accounts
are garnished, making it harder for the nearly half of
homeless youth who have jobs and are working to try to
end their homelessness. And, by making it harder for
homeless youth to obtain homes by their own hard work,
garnishment actually promotes the behaviors
(loitering, illegal lodging, etc.) the tickets are
intended to dissuade.
AB 2264 seeks to provide some much-needed relief for
former foster youth and other youth who have been
forced into homelessness and are trying to work their
way out of sleeping on the streets. Homeless youth
would still have to pay the original fines for these
"quality of life" offenses, but the court would be
required to consider alternatives to the garnishment
of wages and bank accounts if it has reason to believe
that the debtor is a homeless youth under 25 years
old.
2. What This Bill Would Do
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageJ
As explained above, this bill would prohibit courts from
garnishing the wages or levying against bank accounts of a
person under 25 years of age who has not paid a ticket for
truancy, loitering, curfew violations or illegal lodging where,
in the course of its routine efforts to collect fines, the court
obtains information indicating that person is homeless. This
bill contains related uncodified legislative intent language.
3. Background: Homelessness and the Criminal Justice System
According to a 2006 National Coalition for the Homeless report,
over the past 25 years there has been a trend toward increasing
use of the criminal justice system - as opposed to social
service agencies, mental health, etc. - to respond to
homelessness. [National Coalition for the Homeless and National
Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, A Dream Denied: The
Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities, Washington, DC:
National Coalition and National Law Center (Jan. 2006) p. 8.]
This includes the passage of measures that "target homeless
persons by making it illegal to perform life-sustaining
activities in public." (Ibid.) These measures prohibit
activities such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and
begging in public spaces, usually including criminal penalties
for violation of these laws. (Ibid.)
In the four years between 2002 and 2006, in the 67 cities
surveyed, the report found there was a 12% increase in laws
prohibiting begging in particular places, an 18% increase in
laws prohibiting "aggressive panhandling," and a 14% increase in
laws prohibiting sitting or lying in particular public spaces.
(Ibid.) Jailing a homeless person for violating one of these
laws, the report points out, costs two to three times as much as
providing supportive housing would. (Lewin Group, The
Partnership to End Long-Term Homelessness, Costs of Serving
Homeless Individuals in Nine Cities: Chart Book (Nov. 19 2004)
p. 11.)
According to the Campaign to End Homelessness, warrants issued
due to inability to pay fines can impede homeless people from
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageK
obtaining a driver's license, getting a job, and securing
housing. "These cycles of arrests create escalating legal
barriers for homeless people that all too often impede their
ability to overcome homelessness." [Bring L.A. Home Blue Ribbon
Panel, Bring L.A. Home (Feb. 5, 2004) p. 35.]
4. Background: 2007 Report
In a 2007 report based on interviews with youth from ages 13 to
25 conducted in 23 California cities, the California Research
Bureau included the following snapshot of the experiences of
homeless youth being involved with the criminal justice system
for "quality of life" offenses:
Many subsistence and survival aspects of homeless life
are restricted or are illegal - such as sleeping
outside, trespassing, camping, and loitering. This
question was added midway through the survey process,
after a number of focus group participants raised the
issue of being ticketed for "quality of life" or
lifestyle offenses, their inability to pay for these
tickets, and how the subsequent fines often lead to
garnishment of wages and other impediments to
stability and financial independence. Almost 60
percent of the 59 individuals who answered interview
questions on this subject had been ticketed.
(More)
At least twice a week I get bugged by the
police for sleeping or camping. I get
a ticket and they expect me to pay.
--Female, 18, San
Francisco
I got ticketed for being on the street,
walking to a friend's house where I was
going to sleep.
--Female, 21, Fresno
I have an interaction almost daily. Usually
I get searched and just the other
day I got tackled. I ended up having four cops around
me. They ticketed me and I took it to the
Homeless Coalition.
--Female, 20, San
Francisco
I got a ticket for sleeping on the ground
and blocking pedestrian traffic at five in the morning
when there was no pedestrian traffic.
--Female, 21, Los
Angeles
The great majority said they did not pay these tickets
because were not able to. According to the Campaign to
End Homelessness, warrants issued due to inability to
pay fines can impede homeless people from obtaining a
driver's license, getting a job, and securing housing.
"These cycles of arrests create escalating legal
barriers for homeless people that all too often impede
their ability to overcome homelessness."24 This was
true for the young people in our study, who reported
that failure to pay led to problems including having
their wages garnished and having warrants issued for
their arrest, complicating subsequent cases involving
(More)
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageM
the custody of their children and going to jail.
I pretty much get tickets, and I can't
pay them, then they garnish all
my wages.
--Male, 24, Los Angeles
I just go to jail for it eventually. I mean,
I can't afford to pay for a shower.
How can I pay for a ticket?
--Male, 25, Los Angeles
Definitely it goes on your record, and for
me, with my child and the county
investigating everything in my past, it's kind of
hard.
--Female, 21, Los
Angeles
Throughout the interviews, young people brought up the
criminalization of homelessness as a cause of
homelessness - perpetuating the cycle by saddling them
with a criminal record, which then impeded their
efforts to get off the streets by legitimate means.
I'm trying to get another job. No one
will hire me 'cause I went to
jail. It sucks.
--Male, 20, San
Francisco
One young man in the Los Angeles focus group offered
this fatalistic assessment of the cycle of tickets,
warrants and jail:
"You give me a warrant and you tell me
I got to go to jail. You kind of
AB 2264 (De Leon)
PageN
helping me out. This is when it's rainy -
take my a-- in."
Others in the group pointed out that getting arrested,
and jailed even briefly, could cause them to lose
their jobs and/or impede them from finding employment
in the future. "Sabotage," one put it succinctly. A
bitter exchange followed: "They're telling you, 'You
can't sleep here.' But yet we ain't got nowhere else
to sleep. We don't really have places we can go like
everybody else. They can't recommend any places. I'm
on parole. I'm violating it by sleeping outside. I've
been violating for two years, by sleeping outside?. I
was in the hospital. I missed my court date. So now
there is a bench warrant against my arrest. Pretty
much all we could really do is just keep at it," one
young man offered, countering the fatalism of his
peers. "Just keep on trying to get off the
streets."<2>
***************
---------------------------
<2> Bernstein & Foster, California Research Bureau, Voices From
the Street (2008)