BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2085
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014
Counsel: Shaun Naidu
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2085 (Fox) - As Amended: March 19, 2014
SUMMARY : Authorizes, in each county, the implementation of an
amnesty program whereby a person can pay 50 percent of a fine or
bail due before January 1, 2012 for eligible infraction or
misdemeanor violations in full satisfaction of the obligation if
certain conditions are met. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes, in each county upon the agreement of the court and
the county, the establishment of an amnesty program for fine
and bail payments for specified infraction violations that had
due dates for payment on or before January 1, 2012.
2)Authorizes, in addition to and at the same time as the
infraction amnesty program described above and upon the
agreement of the court and county, the establishment of an
amnesty program for fine and bail payments imposed for
specified misdemeanor Vehicle Code and Penal Code violations
that had due dates for payment on or before January 1, 2012.
3)Specifies that "fine" or "bail" refers to the total amounts
due in connection with a specific violation, which include,
but are not limited to, the following:
a) Base fine or bail, as established by court order, by
statute, or by the court's bail schedule;
b) Penalty assessments, as specified;
c) Civil assessment, as specified;
d) State surcharge, as specified; and,
e) Court security fee, as specified.
4)Specifies that violations are eligible for amnesty only if, in
addition to specified conditions applying, the following
AB 2085
Page 2
requirements are met:
a) The defendant does not owe victim restitution on any
case within the county, and
b) There are no outstanding misdemeanor or felony warrants
for the defendant within the county, except for specified
misdemeanor warrants.
5)Prohibits the use of the amnesty program for parking
violations and specified reckless driving and
driving-under-the influence offenses.
6)Allows a person owing a fine or bail payment who is eligible
for amnesty under the program to pay 50% of the fine or bail
in full satisfaction of the original obligation.
7)Provides that payment under an amnesty program implemented
pursuant to this bill shall be accepted beginning January 1,
2016 and ending December 31, 2016.
8)Prohibits criminal action from being brought against a person
for a delinquent fine or bail paid under the amnesty program.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows a person owing a fine or bail that is eligible for
amnesty under this program to pay to the superior or juvenile
court 70 percent of the total fine or bail, or $100 for an
infraction or $500 for a misdemeanor, either amount of which
must be accepted by the court in full satisfaction of the
delinquent fine or bail. Requires the one-time, voluntary
amnesty program to be conducted in accordance with Judicial
Council guidelines for a period of between 120 days to six
months from the date the court initiated the program. (Veh.
Code, � 42008.5.)
2) Requires each county to establish a one-time infraction
violation amnesty program for fines and bail providing
relief to individuals who are financially unable to pay
traffic bail or fines with due dates prior to January 1,
2009, thereby allowing courts and counties to resolve older
delinquent cases and focus limited resources on collecting
on more recent cases. Payment of a fine or bail under
these amnesty programs shall be accepted beginning January
AB 2085
Page 3
1, 2012, and ending June 30, 2012. The Judicial Council
shall adopt guidelines for the amnesty program no later
than November 1, 2011, and each program shall be conducted
in accordance with Judicial Council guidelines. (Veh.
Code, � 42008.7.)
3) Allows the court and the county, at the same time as the
infraction amnesty program described above, to extend the
program to specified misdemeanor violations if certain
conditions are met. (Veh. Code, � 42008.7, subd. (d).)
4)Punishes as a misdemeanor offense any person who willfully
violates his or her written promise to appear or a
lawfully-granted continuance of his or her promise to appear
in court, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon
which he or she was originally arrested. (Pen. Code, �
853.7.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 2085 will
help courts and counties in California continue towards
economic recovery. AB 2085 authorizes a court or county to
implement an amnesty program for specific minor traffic
related fines due on or before January 1, 2012. An amnesty
program would allow any person, who has a long outstanding
traffic fine that was eligible for amnesty, to pay 50% of the
fine for full relief. A previous one-time mandatory amnesty
program for traffic fines that met eligibility requirements in
each county was established in Vehicle Code Section 42008.7.
This one-time mandatory amnesty program expired on June 30,
2012.
"A report from the Judicial Council on the implementation of
the amnesty program found that courts and counties saw a total
net revenue of $12,270,950. Overall the report found that the
amnesty program reduced outstanding statewide debt by $29
million and provided an opportunity for court and county
collection programs to collect old debt that 'in all
likelihood would otherwise have remained uncollected.'
Finally the report concluded that the amnesty program gave
courts and counties the chance to redirect resources to
collecting newer debt.
AB 2085
Page 4
"As California exits its economic crisis, AB 2085 brings
relief to individuals who are in violation of court-ordered
obligations because they are financially unable to pay minor
traffic fines. AB 2085 will also contribute to decreasing
outstanding courts or county debt and continue to allow courts
or counties to eliminate backlog [of] older debt cases."
2)Judicial Council Report : After the conclusion of the amnesty
program that the Legislature enacted to run from January 1,
2012 to June 30, 2012, the Judicial Council was required to
submit a report to the Legislature summarizing the information
provided by each court or county on the operation of the
program. (Veh. Code, � 42008.7, subd. (i).) The Judicial
Council reported the following findings about the program:
[County p]rograms reported a total of 42,245 cases
resolved through the Amnesty Program, which resulted
in courts and counties collecting $14,920,872 in gross
amnesty revenue. The total operating costs for the
Amnesty Program were $2, 868,379. The total net
revenue collected and distributed under the Amnesty
Program, after recovering a total of $2,649,922 for
operating costs, was $12,270,950. Total net revenue
was calculated by deducting operating costs from each
revenue fund prior to distribution.
Programs were allowed to recover costs of operating
the Amnesty Program pursuant to Penal Code section
1463.007. The programs recovered a total of $2,649,922
of the total operating costs. Some programs reported
that the Amnesty Program costs exceeded the revenue
collected. Other programs reported minimal operating
expenses and were able to absorb those costs without
claiming cost recovery. Amnesty Program expenses
varied across the state depending on individual
program start-up costs that included modifications to
case management and accounting systems and allocation
of staff.
(Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council of
California, Statewide Amnesty Program: Fiscal Year 2011-2012
(Dec. 2012) p. 1-2 (hereafter Amnesty Program Report).)
The Judicial Council also reported 22 counties would support a
AB 2085
Page 5
future amnesty program, while 23 did not find the program
beneficial to their collection efforts and would not support a
future program. (Amnesty Program Report at p. 3.) Issues
that some courts and counties had with the amnesty program
included "restrictive eligibility requirements, the costs of
reprograming case management and accounting systems, and
extensive preparation and labor-intensive processes to
implement and operate the program." (Ibid.) Moreover, some
felt that the program was unfairly biased against those
individuals who paid their fines and bail on time. (Ibid.)
In spite of these issues, the Judicial Council concluded that
the amnesty program provided people, including those impacted
by a negative economy and unemployment, with an opportunity to
settle their delinquent court-ordered obligations and, in some
cases, reinstate their driving privileges by lifting
Department of Motor Vehicles sanctions tied to the debt. (Id.
at p. 4.) The Judicial Council further stated that the
benefit the amnesty program provided to the government was the
opportunity "to collect old debt that in all likelihood would
otherwise have remained uncollected" and allow collection
programs to focus their efforts on collecting newer debt.
(Ibid.)
This bill would allow counties and courts to implement the
amnesty program at their own discretion. Thus, counties that
suffered a net loss or did not have a beneficial experience
with the mandated infraction (and voluntary misdemeanor)
amnesty program in 2012 may choose to opt out of the program
authorized by this bill.
3)Argument in Support : As argued by the California Public
Defenders Association , this bill "creates a win-win situation
for both defendants and the authorities. It reduces the
backlog of unresolved cases and uncollected fines. It saves
the cost of arresting, incarcerating and prosecuting these
individuals. It actually increases the public treasury by
adding 50% of delinquent traffic fines that are unlikely to
ever be collected if they are already three years overdue. It
gives individuals an incentive to clear their old traffic
offenses by giving them a discount as well as reassurance that
they will not be prosecuted or incarcerated for those
delinquent cases. Finally, it enables individuals to clear
their driving record of delinquent offenses so that they can
be lawfully licensed and insured again, which will benefit all
of the motoring public.
AB 2085
Page 6
"This bill, will not only give defendants an incentive to pay
fines owed, but will make it affordable for some to do so. In
this way, there will be a short term infusion of money that
would otherwise probably never be collected, and there would
be a cost savings to the county because the cost of
collection, apprehension, and incarceration will be reduced."
4)Argument in Opposition : The Judicial Council of California
opposes this bill "for several reasons: (1) not enough time
has passed since the 2012 amnesty program which sends an
unintended message that individuals do not need to take
traffic and other enumerated violations seriously; (2) the
program upon which the[sic] this effort is predicated was only
marginally successful in retiring delinquent debt; (3) the
bill allows courts or counties to initiate the program without
the consent of the other and at differing times throughout the
state; and (4) neither the courts nor the Judicial Council's
staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has the
human or financial resources to implement and oversee such a
program.
"The council is concerned that another effort close on the
heels of the 2012 program creates a disincentive for
Californians to believe that their actions in violation of the
enumerated code sections in fact carry the penalties that the
Legislature has placed into law. Moreover, the 2012 amnesty
program was part of a larger, more comprehensive and strategic
effort by the courts and counties to identify and retire old,
hard-to-collect debt. The amnesty program was not intended to
be a stand-alone effort. Rather, it was part of a
multi-faceted approach one [sic] to address the $7.9 billion
that courts and counties determined remained uncollected.
"Despite significant outreach, communications, messaging and
participation from all courts, the 2012 amnesty program was,
unfortunately, only marginally successful. Of the $1.86
billion identified as eligible debt potentially collectible
under the amnesty program, that debt was only reduced by $29
million and the net gain to courts and counties was only
$12,270,950. The Los Angeles Superior Court, for example,
collected $5,821,722 at a cost to the court of about 10% of
that amount, or $546,425. The Superior Courts of San Mateo,
Santa Barbara, and Solano, however, all lost money in the
effort. In the report by the council to the Legislature at
AB 2085
Page 7
the conclusion of the program, more courts reported that they
would prefer to not undertake an amnesty program again than
said they would want to.
"Further, as currently written the bill would allow a county
to initiate amnesty programs without the consent of the court
and at different time periods. Courts bear the burden of
funding the up-front costs of amnesty programs. The bill also
requires the Judicial Council to develop guidelines for courts
and counties about the program which result in the AOC
advising court and counties as programs are established. For
the 2012 amnesty program the AOC developed outreach materials
for use in the statewide amnesty program. The AOC also
coordinated with local public information officers to assist
with community outreach. The media tools were available on
the Judicial Council's website to ensure wide access for
courts, county personnel, and justice partners. Finally, the
AOC responded to voluminous telephone and e-mail inquiries
from the public about eligibility, payment options, and
clarification of the jurisdiction of their traffic citations.
All of these efforts implicate expenses that neither the
courts nor the Judicial Council and the AOC are in a financial
position to absorb. The courts are suffering from nearly six
straight years of reductions. Cuts to the trial courts are in
excess of $1.2 billion since 2007; the courts have lost over
55% of the General Fund dollars they previously received to
execute their programs. The AOC, likewise, has suffered
financially, losing nearly 30% of its staffing and continues
to operate on reduced work schedule (mandatory furloughs)."
5)Related Legislation : SB 366 (Wright) would have made numerous
changes in the Vehicle and Penal codes regarding provisions
the court must take into consideration when considering a
person's ability to pay traffic fines or civil assessments.
SB 366 died in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
6)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1358 (Fuentes), Chapter 662, Statutes of 2011,
authorized a county to establish a one-time amnesty program
that would allow a person to pay 50% of the total fine or
bail for specified misdemeanor offenses if certain
conditions are met.
b) SB 857 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter
AB 2085
Page 8
720, Statutes of 2010, established a mandatory one-time
amnesty program for fines and bail meeting certain
requirements to accept, in full satisfaction of any
eligible fine or bail, 50% of the fine or bail amount,
between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2012.
c) AB 3095 (Villaraigosa), Chapter 742, Statutes of 1996,
authorized any county to operate an amnesty program for
delinquent fines and bail imposed for an infraction or
misdemeanor Vehicle Code violation, except parking and
other specified violations that were delinquent on or
before April 1, 1991. AB 3095 allowed any person owing a
fine or bail who is eligible for amnesty under the program
to pay to the municipal or juvenile court either 70% of the
total fine or bail amount, $100 for an infraction, or $500
for a misdemeanor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Glendale City Employees Association
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 777
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 792
Organization of SMUD Employees
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Rose City Employees Association
Opposition
Judicial Council of California
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744