BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2473
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2473 (Atkins)
As Amended March 29, 2012
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, | | |
| |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, | | |
| |Jones, Monning, | | |
| |Wieckowski, Bonnie | | |
| |Lowenthal | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits a sheriff to provide security services in the
exterior of a court facility, if agreed to by the superior court
and the sheriff. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows court security services agreed to by a superior court
and the sheriff to include, but not be limited to:
a) Performing bailiff functions;
b) Taking charge of a jury;
c) Patrolling hallways and other areas within the court;
d) Overseeing prisoners in holding cells in the court;
e) Escorting prisoners to and from those holding cells;
f) Providing security screening within the court;
g) Providing enhanced security for judges and court
personnel; and,
h) Providing security in areas adjacent to a court facility
to the extent necessary to protect the safety of people
using the facility.
2)Clarifies that the sheriff shall attend all superior court
sessions within his or her county whenever required.
AB 2473
Page 2
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. Defines " law enforcement functions"
as all of the following:
a) Bailiff functions in criminal and noncriminal actions,
including, but not limited to, attending courts;
b) Taking charge of a jury;
c) Patrolling hallways and other areas within court
facilities;
d) Overseeing prisoners in holding cells within court
facilities;
e) Escorting prisoners in holding cells within court
facilities;
f) Providing security screening within court facilities;
and,
g) Providing enhanced security for bench officers and court
personnel, as agreed upon by the court and the sheriff or
marshal.
2)Except as otherwise provided, requires a sheriff, as
specified, to attend all superior court actions held within
his or 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 the sheriff or marshal, in conjunction with the
presiding judge, to 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.
AB 2473
Page 3
4)Requires that the cost of services in the court security
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between each superior court
and the sheriff or marshal must be based on estimated average
cost of salary and benefits for equivalent personnel
classifications in that county, not including overtime and
retiree health benefits, as defined. Provides that actual
court security allocations shall be subject to the approval of
the Judicial Council and the funding provided by the
Legislature.
5)Directs the Judicial Council to establish a working group on
court security to promulgate recommended uniform standards and
guidelines that may be used by the Judicial Council and any
sheriff or marshal for the implementation of trial court
security services.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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 of the security in
civil and juvenile courts. This bill, sponsored by the San
Diego County Sheriff's Department and the California State
Sheriff's Association, allows the sheriff, if agreed to by the
trial court in that county, to provide security services in the
exterior of a court facility, in addition to interior security
services. According to the author:
The State Sheriffs' Departments have the responsibility
of providing a secure, safe environment for the public
and staff in courthouses. A safe and secure environment
must include the exterior as well as the interior of the
building in which the court is housed.
Courthouses have been targets of violence including
shootings, explosive devices and assaults. High profile
court trials such as Mexican drug cartels create a new
paradigm for modern courthouses. Security planning must
address exterior areas of courthouses to mitigate the
threat from those who would use unattended property,
suspicious objects or vehicles to facilitate acts of
violence against a courthouse and its occupants.
AB 2473
Page 4
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 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 did not help keep court security costs from increasing
significantly or guarantee adequate funding for court security
services.
Court security funding had been part of the funds allocated to
the judicial branch. The Judicial Council then allocated to
each trial court its respective share, which the trial courts
then paid to the sheriffs. Last year, as part of realignment,
funding for sheriff- provided court security was sent directly
to the county. As such, realignment changed the direct source
of funding for court security - the county and not the court -
although not the underlying source - the general fund and
specified fines and fees. Realignment did not, however, change
the nature of the services required, neither reducing court
security service delivery nor increasing obligations on sheriffs
or counties.
This bill permits the security services agreed upon by the trial
court and the sheriff to include the perimeter of the
courthouse. It does not, however, require that such services be
provided by the sheriff. If it did, this bill would undoubtedly
have, what could be, significant fiscal impacts. According to
the author, this bill does not require any additional funding
unless the security plan agreed to by the court and the sheriff
calls for such measures. This bill does not address where such
additional funds would come from, but since the additional
exterior security services are not mandated, no additional
funding is needed at this time.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003517
AB 2473
Page 5