BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2473 (Atkins)
As Amended March 29, 2012
Hearing Date: June 26, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
LSF/SK:rm
SUBJECT
Court Security
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the San Diego County Sheriff's
Department and the California State Sheriffs' Association, would
explicitly allow a sheriff to provide security in areas adjacent
to a courthouse facility as specified, if agreed to by the court
and the sheriff. This bill also sets out a non-exhaustive list
of internal courthouse security functions that a sheriff may
perform as contracted with a superior court.
BACKGROUND
California maintains 58 trial court systems, each having
jurisdiction over a single county. In almost every county,
courthouse security services are provided by a sheriff or
marshal. In fiscal year 2009-2010 over 10 million cases were
filed in California superior courts.
Prior to 1997, counties had the responsibility for funding the
trial courts, including security. In an effort to promote a more
efficient and unified court system, the Legislature adopted the
Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, and the state
assumed primary responsibility for trial court funding from the
counties. Last year's realignment package provided that funding
of court security will go directly to local sheriff's offices
rather than continuing with the prior system of appropriating
these funds in the annual state budget to the trial courts.
As part of the state assumption of trial court funding, and in
an effort to help promote standardized court security, the
(more)
SB 2473 (Atkins)
Page 2 of ?
Legislature passed the Superior Court Law Enforcement Act of
2002, SB 1396 (Dunn, Chapter 1010, Statutes of 2002). Under the
act, the presiding judge of each court, subject to the court's
available funding, contracts with a sheriff or marshal for the
necessary level of law enforcement services. The act, among
other things, defines law enforcement services that may be
provided by a sheriff or marshal and requires Judicial Council
review of security plans.
SB 2473 (Atkins)
Page 3 of ?
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that the presiding judge of each superior
court has the authority to contract, subject to available
funding, with a sheriff or marshal for the necessary level of
law enforcement services in the courts. (Gov. Code Sec.
69921.5.)
Existing law defines "superior court law enforcement functions"
as all of the following:
(1)Bailiff functions, as defined, in criminal and noncriminal
actions, including but not limited to, attending courts.
(2)Taking charge of a jury, as provided.
(3)Patrolling hallways and other areas within court facilities.
(4)Overseeing prisoners in holding cells within court
facilities.
(5)Escorting prisoners in holding cells within court facilities.
(6)Providing security screening within court facilities.
(7)Providing enhanced security for bench officers and court
personnel, as agreed upon by the court and sheriff or marshal.
(Gov. Code Sec. 69921.)
Existing law provides that whenever required, a sheriff or
marshal shall attend all superior court held within the county,
except as otherwise provided by law. (Gov. Code Sec. 69922.)
Existing law provides that the sheriff or marshal shall attend a
noncriminal, nondelinquency action only if the presiding judge
makes a determination that the sheriff's attendance is necessary
for reasons of public safety. The court may use attendants in
lieu of a sheriff or marshal in courtrooms in those actions.
(Gov. Code Sec. 69922.)
Existing law requires the sheriff or marshal, in conjunction
with the presiding judge, to develop an annual or multi-year
comprehensive court security plan that includes the mutually
agreed-upon law enforcement security plan to be utilized by the
court. The Judicial Council shall establish a process for the
review of those security plans and shall annually submit to the
Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees a report summarizing
the court security plans reviewed by the council. (Gov. Code
Sec. 69925.)
Existing law requires that the court and sheriff or marshal
shall enter into an annual or multi-year memorandum of
SB 2473 (Atkins)
Page 4 of ?
understanding specifying the agreed-upon level of court security
services, cost of services, and terms of payment. The cost of
services shall be based on the average cost of salary and
benefits for equivalent personnel in that county, not counting
overtime and retiree health benefits. Actual court security
allocations shall be subject to Judicial Council approval and
funding provided by the Legislature. (Gov. Code Sec. 69926.)
Existing law 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. The Judicial Council, after
receiving recommendations from the working group, shall
promulgate and implement rules, standards, and policy directives
for the trial courts in order to achieve efficiencies that will
reduce security operating costs and constrain growth in those
costs. (Gov. Code Sec. 69927.)
This bill would require the superior court and the sheriff or
marshal to enter into an annual or multiyear memorandum of
understanding specifying the agreed upon level of court security
services, costs of services, and terms of payment.
This bill would provide that, as agreed to by the court and
sheriff or marshal, the court security services provided by the
sheriff may include, but are not limited to:
(1)Bailiff functions, as defined, in criminal and noncriminal
actions, including but not limited to, attending courts.
(2)Taking charge of a jury, as provided.
(3)Patrolling hallways and other areas within court facilities.
(4)Overseeing prisoners in holding cells within court
facilities.
(5)Escorting prisoners to and from holding cells within court
facilities.
(6)Providing security screening within court facilities.
(7)Providing enhanced security for bench officers and court
personnel.
(8)Providing security in areas adjacent to a courthouse facility
and the judicial officers, court personnel, and other people
using the facility.
This bill would clarify that, whenever required, a sheriff or
marshal shall attend all superior court sessions held within the
county, except as otherwise provided by law.
SB 2473 (Atkins)
Page 5 of ?
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
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.
The county courthouses of our state have been the 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.
2.Authorizes an expansion of law enforcement services that can
be provided by sheriffs to courts
This bill would expand the range of law enforcement services a
sheriff may provide, as agreed upon by the court and the
sheriff. As part of that expansion, this bill would explicitly
allow a sheriff to provide security services for the exterior of
a courthouse, but would not require the sheriff to do so. In
addition, this bill would provide a list of security services
that the sheriff may provide, but notes that the list is not
exhaustive. This provision provides more flexibility for the
courts and sheriffs to create security plans that are
appropriate for the specific court facility.
3.Does not increase or change funding to accommodate for
expansion of law enforcement services
Under Lockyer-Isenberg, court security funding was a part of the
funds allocated by the Legislature to the judicial branch. The
Judicial Council then allocated to each trial court their
portion of funding for court security, which the trial courts
then paid to the sheriffs. As part of last year's realignment,
funding for court security is now sent directly from the state
to the sheriffs. This bill does not require the state to
SB 2473 (Atkins)
Page 6 of ?
appropriate any additional funds for court security, nor does it
authorize any increase in funding from the state to the
respective sheriffs. As discussed above, the sheriffs are not
required to patrol the exterior or adjacent areas of the
courthouse, or provide any additional services, but are
authorized to do so if agreed to by the courts and sheriffs.
Support : California Peace Officers Association; Deputy
Sheriffs' Association of San Diego County; San Bernardino County
Office of the Sheriff; San Diego Superior Court
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California State Sheriff's Association; San Diego
County Sheriff's Department
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : SB 1396 (Dunn, Chapter 1010, Statutes of
2002). See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
**************