BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
8
7
7
AB 877 (Skinner)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Hearing date: June 28, 2011
Vehicle Code
SM:mc
NONPROSECUTION OF PENDING NONFELONY VEHICLE
VIOLATIONS FOLLOWING INCARCERATION
HISTORY
Source: Office of the Sheriff, City and County of San Francisco
Prior Legislation: AB 3569 (Becerra) - Chap. 950, Stats. of 1992
Support: California Public Defenders Association; Community
Works; East Bay Community Law Center; Equal Justice
Society; Fathers and Families; Instituto Familiar de la
Raza, Inc.; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the
San Francisco Bay Area; Legal Services for Prisoners
with Children; Life Support Alliance; Recovery Survival
Network; Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP; San Francisco
Department of Child Support Services; San Francisco
District Attorney's Office
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 49 - Noes 25
KEY ISSUES
(More)
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 2
SHOULD PENDING NONFELONY VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS BE DISMISSED
AFTER THE DEFENDANT SERVES 90 DAYS OR MORE IN COUNTY JAIL?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES BE PROHIBITED FROM DENYING A
DRIVER'S LICENSE TO SOMEONE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR REGARDING A
NONFELONY VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO THAT PERSON
SERVING A COUNTY JAIL SENTENCE OF 90 DAYS OR MORE?
SHOULD SPECIFIED NONFELONY OFFENSES INCLUDING DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE AND RECKLESS DRIVING BE EXEMPTED FROM THESE PROVISIONS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) prohibit prosecution of
certain nonfelony Vehicle Code violations that occurred prior to
the defendant serving 90 days or longer in a consecutive
12-month period in a county correctional facility, court or
county rehabilitation facility, or
in involuntary home detention; (2) prohibit Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) from suspending, revoking, or refusing to issue
or renew a driver's license as a result of the department having
received a notice that a person failed to appear regarding a
pending nonfelony Vehicle Code violation occurring prior to the
defendant having served 90 days or longer in a consecutive
12-month period in a county correctional facility, court or
county rehabilitation facility, or in involuntary home
detention, if the offense that gave rise to the notice occurred
prior to incarceration; (3) exempt from these provisions
nonfelony offenses wherein the DMV is required by law to
immediately suspend or revoke a person's driver's license upon
notice of conviction of the offense; and (4) exempt from these
provisions nonfelony offenses for driving-under-the influence or
reckless driving.
(More)
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 3
Current law provides that no one may be prosecuted for any
nonfelony offense, except as noted below, arising out of the
operation of a motor vehicle or violation of the Vehicle Code as
a pedestrian which is pending against him at the time of his
commitment to the custody of the Director of Corrections or the
Department of the Youth Authority.
These provisions do not apply to any nonfelony offense
pursuant to which the department is required by this code
to immediately revoke or suspend the privilege of any
person to drive a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly
certified abstract of the record of any court showing that
the person has been convicted of that nonfelony offense.
These provisions do not apply to any offense committed
by a person while he is temporarily released from custody
pursuant to law or while he is on parole.
These provisions do not apply if the pending offense is
for reckless driving, driving-under-the influence or
driving-under-the influence and causing injury. (Vehicle
Code
� 41500.)
Current law also provides that no driver's license shall be
suspended or revoked, nor shall the issuance or renewal of a
license be refused as a result of a pending nonfelony offense
occurring prior to the time a person was committed to the
custody of the Director of Corrections or the Department of the
Youth Authority, or as a result of a notice received by the
department of a failure to appear or to pay a fine in relation
to a Vehicle Code offense, as specified, when the offense which
gave rise to the notice occurred prior to the time a person was
committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections or the
Department of the Youth Authority. The department shall remove
from its records any such notice received by it upon receipt of
satisfactory evidence that a person was committed to the custody
of the Director of Corrections or the Department of the Youth
Authority after the offense which gave rise to the notice
occurred. (Vehicle Code � 41500.)
(More)
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 4
Current law requires each county to establish a one-time
infraction amnesty program for fines and bail providing relief
to individuals who are financially unable to pay traffic bail or
fines with due dates prior to January 1, 2009, thereby allowing
courts and counties to resolve older delinquent cases and focus
limited resources on collecting on more recent cases. Payment
of a fine or bail under these amnesty programs shall be accepted
beginning January 1, 2012, and ending June 30, 2012. The
Judicial Council shall adopt guidelines for the amnesty program
no later than November 1, 2011, and each program shall be
conducted in accordance with Judicial Council guidelines.
(Vehicle Code � 42008.7.)
This bill would expand existing law described above to require
the dismissal of certain charges for nonfelony Vehicle Code
violations of persons who have served 90 days or longer in a
consecutive 12-month period in a county correctional facility,
court or county rehabilitation facility, or in involuntary home
detention.
This bill similarly expands the existing law to prohibit
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from suspending, revoking, or
refusing to issue or renew a driver's license, as a result of
the department having received a notice that a person failed to
appear regarding a pending nonfelony Vehicle Code violation
occurring prior to the defendant having served 90 days or longer
in a consecutive 12-month period in a county correctional
facility, court or county rehabilitation facility, or in
involuntary home detention, if the offense that gave rise to the
notice occurred prior to incarceration.
This bill exempts from its provisions non-felony offenses
wherein the DMV is required by law to immediately suspend or
revoke a person's driver's license upon notice of conviction of
the offense.
This bill exempts from its provisions nonfelony offenses for
driving-under-the influence or reckless driving.
(More)
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 5
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 6
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
While current law provides relief to anyone who has
been committed to CDCR with outstanding Vehicle Code
violation, the code does not apply to persons
sentenced to county jail unless they are also or
subsequently sentenced to CDCR.
Studies show that one of the surest ways to assist
formerly incarcerated inmates with reintegration in
society is to assure that they are employable and able
to care for themselves and their families. A
defendant who is unable to obtain a driver's license
is less employable, less likely to pay child support,
apt to drive despite the lack of a license, unable to
obtain insurance and even more troubling, inclined to
return to a life of crime - putting the greater
community at risk.
Not having the ability to legally drive is a major
barrier to re-entry and becoming a productive member
of society. Quite frequently, upon their release,
these individuals often are arrested on a warrant
relating to additional charges for the
failure to appear in court for a hearing on non-felony
Vehicle Code charges scheduled for a date on which the
individual was in prison or jail and unable to appear.
(More)
The proposed legislation will remove this barrier for
over 12,000-19,000 formerly incarcerated individuals
statewide. The community at large will be positively
affected by this legislation. It will allow formally
incarcerated individuals to move toward successful
reentry, resulting in a decrease in crime and a
savings in associated court and incarceration costs.
Furthermore, it is in the public interest that courts
not be burdened with the prosecution of minor vehicle
code cases where the defendant has already served a
long county jail sentence/incarceration period.
Lastly, the additional prosecution for unpaid vehicle
infractions (minor non-felony cases) will not
facilitate the public safety or rehabilitative purpose
of our criminal justice system
AB 877 does not expand vehicle code offenses already
dismissed under current law for over 41 years. AB 877
simply provides the same relief given to state inmates
to county inmates. It covers only those inmates who
have served 90 or more days in a county jail or jail
alternative. In order to limit eligibility, time
served must be completed within a 12 month period. AB
877 will not apply to those inmates with pending DUIs
or reckless driving, nor to those with pending
offenses which would require mandatory license
suspension upon conviction.
Currently, all the persons who are eligible for AB 877
relief have outstanding traffic matters in the court.
If AB 877 becomes law, all they will need to do is
send proof of incarceration (ie. discharge papers) to
the courts with a request for disposition. Without AB
877 they will need to add these cases to calendar, and
make several court appearances at an estimate of $300
per appearance. AB 877 will save courts, local law
enforcement, county jails and Sheriff Departments and
(More)
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 8
CDCR money and resources by not having to process
minor cases and by helping former inmates face less
unemployment and recidivism.
2. Governor's Realignment Plan
Legislation enacted earlier this year will, if implemented,
provide that certain low-level felony offenders will serve their
sentences locally instead of in state prison. Inmates convicted
of serious or violent felonies or convicted of felony sex
offenses will continue to serve their sentences in state
prisons. (AB 109 (Assembly Budget Committee), Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011.) This bill would allow those individuals
serving time in county jail to apply for the same type of relief
from old nonfelony Vehicle Code violations those in state
prisons are afforded.
3. Statement in Support
The San Francisco District Attorney writes:
The ability to drive lawfully is important for the
successful reentry of former offenders. It provides
the mobility necessary to comply with conditions of
parole and probation, and the ability to obtain
drivers licenses and car insurance. Moreover, for
many individuals it plays a critical role in their
ability to secure employment and, thus, to support
themselves and their families.
Vehicle Code Section 41500 already enables state
prisoners to reenter their communities with clear
driving records. It is smart policy to extend this
provision to individuals who remain within the local
criminal justice system.
WOULD ALLOWING DISMISSAL OF THESE VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS HELP
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 9
EX-OFFENDERS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL TO SUCCEED IN EFFORTS AT
REHABILITATION?
4. Statement in Opposition
The California District Attorneys Association states:
We are concerned that AB 877 will portend serious
personnel and fiscal implications for district
attorney offices. The existing statute results in the
filing of numerous petitions, many of which are filed
by defendants who do not qualify for relief.
Analyzing each of these cases takes time and
resources. By expanding the scope of existing law to
include persons who have served 90 days or longer in
jail in a 12-month period, AB 877 will greatly
increase the number of petitions seen by district
attorney offices. This is especially problematic in
this time of rapidly shrinking law enforcement
resources.
Our concern about workload is exacerbated by the
bill's violation of the principle that people should
be held accountable for their crimes. Some vehicle
code violations can be quite serious and using other
criminality to erase offenses minimizes their
seriousness. We understand your desire to promote
offenders' reintegration into society, but giving
criminals a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" for simply
spending enough time in jail encourages the shirking
of responsibilities and is counterintuitive.
***************
AB 877 (Skinner)
Page 10