BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
7
5
AB 1756 (Skinner) 6
As Amended May 1, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Penal and Welfare and Institutions Codes
AA:sl
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
SEALING OF MISDEMEANOR RECORDS
HISTORY
Source: All of Us or None; The East Bay Community Law Center;
Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; The Youth Justice Coalition
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Alameda County Board of Education; Alameda County Board
of Supervisors; Alameda County Superintendent of
Schools; American Civil Liberties Union; Advancement
Project; Akonadi Foundation; American Friends Service
Committee; Asian American Advancing Justice - Los
Angeles; Bend the Arc; Brotherhood Crusade; California
Alliance for Youth & Community Justice; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Catholic
Conference, Inc.; California Coalition for Women
Prisoners; California Coalition for Youth; California
Conference for Equality and Justice; California Fund
for Youth Organizing; California Public Defenders
Association; Californians for Safety and Justice;
Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Center on
Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Children's Defense Fund
of California; Coalition to Abolish Slavery and
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 2
Trafficking; Communities United for Restorative Youth
Justice; Community-Labor-Environmental Action Network;
Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance; Courage
Campaign; Disability Rights Legal Center; Drug Policy
Alliance; East Bay Community Law Center; Ella Baker
Center for Human Rights; Equal Rights Advocates; FACTS
Education Fund; Fair Chance Project; Friends Committee
on Legislation of California; Highway to Work; Justice
Now; Juvenile Court Judges of California; LA Gay and
Lesbian Center; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of
San Francisco Bay Area; Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce; Los Angeles Black Worker Center; Los Angeles
Community Action Network; Los Angeles Urban League;
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund;
National Association of Social Workers, California
Chapter; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National
Employment Law Project; National Juvenile Justice
Network; A New Way of Life Reentry Project; PolicyLink;
Public Counsel Law Center; Root & Rebound; Rubicon
Programs; RYSE Youth Center; San Francisco Public
Defender; San Francisco Sheriff's Department; Taxpayers
for Improving Public Safety; Time for Change
Foundation; Urban Peace Movement; Violence Prevention
Coalition of Greater Los Angeles; W. Haywood Burns
Institute; West Angeles Community Development
Corporation; Women's Foundation of California; Youth
Law Center; an individual
Opposition:California State Association of Counties; Chief
Probation Officers of California
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 61 - Noes 13
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE COST OF SEALING JUVENILE COURT RECORDS BE LIMITED TO
PERSONS AGE 26 AND OLDER?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 3
The purpose of this bill is to limit certain cost liabilities
related to expunging juvenile records to persons over the age of
26, as specified.
Current law provides that a person who was under the age of 18
at the time of the commission of a misdemeanor and is eligible
for or has previously received expungement relief, may petition
the court for an order sealing the record of conviction and
other official records in the case, including records of arrests
resulting in the criminal proceeding and records relating to
other offenses charged in the accusatory pleading, whether the
defendant was acquitted or charges were dismissed. Thereafter
the conviction, arrest, or other proceeding shall be deemed not
to have occurred, and the petitioner may answer accordingly any
question relating to their occurrence. (Pen. Code, � 1203.45,
subd. (a).)
Current law states that a person who petitions for an order
sealing a record may be required to reimburse the court for the
actual cost of services rendered, whether or not the petition is
granted and the records are sealed or expunged, at a rate to be
determined by the court, not to exceed $150, and to reimburse
the county for the actual cost of services rendered, whether or
not the petition is granted and the records are sealed or
expunged, at a rate to be determined by the county board of
supervisors, not to exceed $150, and to reimburse any city for
the actual cost of services rendered, whether or not the
petition is granted and the records are sealed or expunged, at a
rate to be determined by the city council, not to exceed $150.
Ability to make this reimbursement shall be determined by the
court and shall not be a prerequisite to a person's eligibility
under this section. The court may order reimbursement in a case
in which the petitioner appears to have the ability to pay,
without undue hardship, all or any portion of the cost for
services established pursuant to this subdivision. (Pen. Code,
� 1203.45, subd. (g).)
This bill would limit this payment provision to persons who are
26 years of age and older.
Current law provides that five years or more after the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court has terminated over a person
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 4
adjudged a ward of the court or after a minor appeared before a
probation officer, or, in any case, at any time after the person
has reached the age of 18, the person or county probation
officer, with specified exceptions, may petition the juvenile
court for sealing of the records, including arrest records,
relating to the person's case, in the custody of the juvenile
court, the probation officer, or any other agency or public
official. (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 781, subd. (a).)
Current law states that once the court has ordered the person's
records sealed, the proceedings in the case shall be deemed
never to have occurred, and the person may reply accordingly to
any inquiry about the events. (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 781, subd.
(a).)
Current law provides that the "father, mother, spouse, or other
person liable for the support of a minor person, the person
himself or herself if he or she is an adult, or the estates of
those persons shall, unless indigent, be liable for the cost to
the county and court for any investigation related to the
sealing and for the sealing of any juvenile court or arrest
records pursuant to Section 781 pertaining to that person. The
liability of those persons and estates shall be a joint and
several liability." (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 903.3(a).)
This bill would revise this provision to provide instead that a
person who is 26 years of age or older shall, unless indigent,
be liable for the cost to the county and court for any
investigation related to the sealing and for the sealing of any
juvenile court or arrest records pursuant to Section 781
pertaining to that person.
Current law provides in the event a petition is filed for an
order sealing a record, the father, mother, spouse, or other
person liable for the support of a minor, that person if he or
she is an adult, or the estate of that person, may be required
to reimburse the county and court for the actual cost of
services rendered, whether or not the petition is granted and
the records are sealed or expunged, at a rate to be determined
by the county board of supervisors for the county and by the
court for the court, not to exceed $150. Ability to make this
reimbursement shall be determined by the court and shall not be
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 5
a prerequisite to a person's eligibility under this section. The
court may order reimbursement in any case in which the
petitioner appears to have the ability to pay, without undue
hardship, all or any portion of the cost for services. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, � 903.3, subd. (b).)
This bill would revise this provision to instead limit it to a
person 26 years of age and older.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 6
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 7
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Under existing law, a young person must pay up to $150
dollars and petition the juvenile court in his or her
county of residence to seal a juvenile record. The
price tag of sealing a juvenile record can inhibit a
young person, who has successfully stayed out of
trouble, from getting on the right trajectory.
Employers and landlords often conduct background
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 8
checks on prospective applicants before making a
determination. A criminal record can contribute to
the denial of housing or getting a job. Without
stable employment and housing, the chances that a
young person will reoffend increases three-fold. With
a job and a home, youth are less likely to commit a
new crime.
Ensuring that our youth have a stable footing is a
pressing issue we must address. Removing roadblocks
for youth with criminal records will enable this
population to succeed. This bill will make it easier
for youth to gain employment so they can pay the bills
and feed their families. It will also make it less
difficult to find housing. Furthermore, increasing
access to the juvenile record sealing process may
reduce recidivism, which would mean a safer community
for us all.
AB 1756 would make the record sealing process
affordable for one of California's most vulnerable
populations-its youth. This bill eliminates the
record-sealing fee for young people under the age of
twenty-six.
2) Sealing and Destruction of Juvenile Records; This Bill
Juvenile court records generally must be destroyed when the
person of record reaches the age of 38 unless good cause is
shown for maintaining those records. (Welf. & Inst. Code, �
826.) The person of record also may petition to destroy records
retained by other agencies. (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 826, subd.
(b).) The request shall be granted unless good cause is shown
for retention of the records. (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 826.)
When records are destroyed pursuant to the above provision, the
proceedings "shall be deemed never to have occurred, and the
person may reply accordingly to an inquiry." (Welf. & Inst.
Code, � 826, subd. (a).) Courts have held that the phrase
"never to have occurred" means that the juvenile proceeding is
deemed not to have existed. ( Parmett v. Superior Court
(Christal B. ) (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1261, at 1267.)
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 9
Minors adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court proceedings may
petition the court to have their records sealed unless they were
found to have committed certain serious offenses. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, � 781.) In order to seal a juvenile court record, a
petition must be filed by either the person who is the subject
of the record or the probation department. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
� 781.) Juvenile court jurisdiction must have lapsed five years
previously or the person must be at least 18 years old. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, � 781, subd. (a).) The records are not sealed if
the person of record has been convicted of a felony or a
misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. (Welf. & Inst. Code, �
781, subd. (a).) No offenses listed in WIC section 707,
subdivision (b) may be sealed if the juvenile was 14 years or
older at the time of the offense. Additionally, there can be no
pending civil litigation involving the incident.
For minors who are convicted of a misdemeanor in adult court,
Penal Code Section 1203.45 authorizes sealing of such records.
Sealing of the records may be granted if the person has already
received, or is eligible for, post-conviction dismissal of the
case under existing expungement statutes. (Pen. Code, �� 1203.4
and 1203.4a.) If relief is granted under Penal Code Section
1203.45, the records are sealed and the conviction, arrest, or
other proceeding is deemed never to have occurred. With
exceptions, to receive relief, the minor can have been convicted
of only one charge, or count, even in the same case. (Pen.
Code, � 1203.45, subd. (d).) Sealing of records, under this
provision, is not available to a minor convicted of offenses
requiring sex offender registration or of certain Vehicle Code
offenses.
This bill would provide that only a person 26 years of age or
older may be charged the existing fee of up to $150 for
petitioning the court for an order sealing his or her criminal
record.
3. Opposition
CSAC opposes this bill, stating in part:
AB 1756 would permit the charging of a fee only for
persons aged 26 or older, regardless of ability to
(More)
AB 1756 (Skinner)
Page 10
pay. While CSAC appreciates the bill's intent to make
the record sealing process more affordable for
California's youth, we believe that current law is
sufficient in that it already provides that local
jurisdictions determine whether petitioners have the
ability to pay for services rendered. Further, under
existing law, counties may choose not to impose a fee
for the destruction of records all tougher as a matter
of policy.
This bill places a financial burden on counties by
limiting local authority for reimbursement for
services . . . .
***************
(More)