BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2473|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2473
Author: Atkins (D)
Amended: 3/29/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/26/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/17/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Court security
SOURCE : California State Sheriffs Association
San Diego County Sheriffs Department
DIGEST : This bill explicitly allows 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.
ANALYSIS : 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. (Government Code (GOV) Section 69921.5)
Existing law defines "superior court law enforcement
CONTINUED
AB 2473
Page
2
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 Section 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 Section
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 Section 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 Section
CONTINUED
AB 2473
Page
3
69925)
Existing law requires that the court and sheriff or marshal
shall enter into an annual or multi-year memorandum 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 Section 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
Section 69927)
This bill requires 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 provides 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
CONTINUED
AB 2473
Page
4
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 clarifies that, whenever required, a sheriff or
marshal shall attend all superior court sessions held
within the county, except as otherwise provided by law.
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 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
CONTINUED
AB 2473
Page
5
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/12)
California State Sheriff's Association (co-source)
San Diego County Sheriff's Department (co-source)
California Peace Officers Association
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of San Diego County
San Bernardino County Office of the Sheriff
San Diego Superior Court
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/17/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth
Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
CONTINUED
AB 2473
Page
6
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller,
Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Olsen,
Pan, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams,
John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fletcher, Bonnie Lowenthal, Norby,
Perea, Skinner, Yamada
RJG:kd 7/3/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED