BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2467
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2467 (Hueso) - As Amended: April 25, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes a court to order a defendant be placed on
active Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring for up to one
year when a protective order has been issued to protect a victim
of a violent crime committed by the defendant, if the court
determines the defendant has the ability to pay for the costs
associated with the monitoring device.
If the court determines the defendant lacks the ability to pay,
this bill authorizes the court to order the local law
enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the case to pay the
GPS costs.
This bill also authorizes a victim to apply to the court for an
extension of the GPS order.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant reimbursable local law enforcement costs, likely
in the millions of dollars, to cover the costs of active GPS
monitoring. There were about 78,000 protective orders that
would qualify for GPS under this bill. At a cost of about $30
per day for active GPS supervision on a 20:1 caseload, if only
two percent of 78,000 defendants were ordered to active GPS
for six months and could not afford to pay, the annual state
GF cost would exceed $8 million.
2)Unknown, but significant, annual state trial court costs to
lengthen protection order hearings whenever GPS consideration
is an issue. The court would need to determine whether GPS is
necessary, whether the defendant can afford to pay, and which
AB 2467
Page 2
agency should administer the GPS. If two percent of 78,000
cases require such additional court time, the annual costs
could be in the range of $500,000. Also, since there is no
existing process for extending GPS monitoring, the courts
would have to create a process and devote additional time to
considering such extensions. If 150 victims seek GPS
extensions, annual costs would likely exceed $150,000.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends this bill creates additional
protection for victims of violent crimes while the defendant
is awaiting disposition. According to the author, "AB 2467
provides victims with real and tangible protection. It allows
a court to order the active GPS monitoring of perpetrators.
If the perpetrator is within a certain distance from the
victim, the GPS device will go off alerting both the victim
and law enforcement. This helps turn victims into survivors."
2)Current law authorizes a court, upon belief that harm to, or
intimidation of, a victim or witness has occurred or is
reasonably likely to occur, to issue an order protecting
victims of violent crime from contact by the defendant. This
type of protective order generally ends upon disposition of
the case - when the defendant is sentenced or otherwise
discharged. Current law also authorizes the use of electronic
monitoring for inmates in custody awaiting disposition.
3)GPS uses satellite tracking operating similar to cellular
phones. Offenders wear ankle bracelets and carry packs
containing mobile receivers. When offenders are sleeping or
sitting, packs are placed nearby. A monitoring station
receives data from offenders using the system. Tracking may be
active or passive. Active GPS transmits an offender's location
at near real-time intervals and can include immediate alert
notifications, which means someone must be constantly
monitoring the signals. Passive GPS transmits locations at
set intervals and alert notifications are usually received the
next day. If an offender tampers with the equipment, moves
more than about 150 feet from the receiver, deviates from a
schedule, or ventures into prohibited areas, monitors are
paged. GPS can also be programmed with exclusion zones where
sex offenders are not allowed, including, the home or
workplace of a victim.
AB 2467
Page 3
4)Issues/concerns .
a) This bill creates a potentially significant state
mandate by authorizing the court to require local law
enforcement to pay for the cost of active GPS.
b) The bill does not specify who would monitor the GPS
under a scenario where the defendant is determined to have
the ability to pay.
c) Though it appears the author's intent is to require the
sheriff or police department to administer the GPS
monitoring, "local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction
over the case" could be interpreted to include the district
attorney's office or county probation.
d) The bill appears to allow GPS monitoring past
disposition, which would be inconsistent with the
underlying section authorizing protective orders for
specified defendants.
e) It is not clear by what process a victim would seek an
extension of the GPS monitoring, or why an extension would
be necessary, given the court could presumably order
supervision for the duration of the criminal proceedings,
which would generally be less than one year.
5)Opposition . The L.A. Sheriff's Department states, "Local law
enforcement agencies do not provide GPS services. County
Probation Departments usually provided them by contracting
with a private provider. Thus, under this bill, a local city
police department or county sheriff would be forced to pay a
probation department for this service and would have no
control over costs. Additionally, regardless of who pays the
bill, GPS is not cheap. Depending on the restrictions and
services provided, GPS can cost up to $30 dollars a day. For
one person to be on GPS for one year (as allowed under this
bill), could cost a local agency over $10,000 year. In Los
Angeles County, the Sheriff's Department alone, took over
10,000 reports involving domestic violence in 2011. These
victims of domestic violence, under current law, would be
eligible for a protective order. As you can see, the costs of
such a proposal could quickly spiral out of control.
We agree that those in need of a protective order should have
AB 2467
Page 4
as many protections as possible, including the use of GPS
monitoring technology. However, by dumping the costs on local
law enforcement, in a time where money for basic functions is
scarce and stretched thin, we would not be able to pay for
this.
6)Prior Legislation . AB 1081 (Torrico), 2009, would have allowed
GPS surveillance for persons convicted of violating specified
protective orders, stalking, or felony domestic violence. AB
1081 was held on this committee's Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / > / (916) 319-2081