BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2085
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2085 (Fox) - As Amended: March 19, 2014
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-0
Transportation 13-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes, in each county, upon agreement between the
county and the court, implementation of an amnesty program
whereby a person can pay 50% of a fine or bail due before Jan.
1, 2012 for eligible infraction or misdemeanor violations of the
Vehicle Code if certain conditions are met. Payment shall be
accepted between Jan. 1, 2016 and ending Dec. 31, 2016. This
bill also:
1)Specifies violations are not eligible for amnesty if the
defendant owes victim restitution, or if there are outstanding
misdemeanor or felony warrants, as specified.
2)Prohibits amnesty for parking violations, reckless driving,
and driving-under-the influence.
FISCAL EFFECT
Implementation costs (local and state trial court funds) in the
range of $3 million, more than offset by amnesty collections.
What cannot be determined, however, is whether amnesty
collections will exceed what may have been collected absent
amnesty. Moreover, signaling reinstatement of an amnesty program
just one year after the previous amnesty period closed, raises
questions regarding the impact of anticipated amnesty on future
collections.
Based on the Judicial Council's program report to the
Legislature (Dec. 2012) on the prior amnesty program, which this
bill reestablishes, the cost of the program was $2.9 million.
AB 2085
Page 2
The program collected $15 million and resolved 42,245 cases.
Forty-nine counties reported a total of 1,881,665
amnesty-eligible cases, with a value of $1.9 billion. Thus the
net $12.1 million collected amounts to 0.6% of what counties
determined was the amnesty-eligible base.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends an amnesty program for
penalties due prior to Jan. 1, 2012 - on the heels of what was
a one-time amnesty program for penalties due prior to Jan. 1,
2009 - will provide relief to persons unable to pay traffic
bail and fines while increasing the chance of collecting at
least partial revenues on penalties more than three years old.
2)Prior Amnesty Program . AB 1358 (Fuentes), Statutes of 2011,
required each county to establish a one-time infraction
violation amnesty program for fines and bail for persons
unable to pay traffic bail or fines with due dates prior to
Jan. 1, 2009, and allowed the court and the county to extend
the program to specified misdemeanor violations under
specified conditions.
3)Was the prior amnesty program a success ? Judging from the
program report to the Legislature (Dec. 2012), the answer is
elusive. As referenced above, the cost of the program was $2.9
million. The program collected $15 million and resolved 42,245
cases. Perhaps most importantly, 49 counties reported a total
of 1,881,665 amnesty-eligible cases, with a value of $1.9
billion, thus the net $12.1 million collected amounts to 0.6%
of what counties determined was the amnesty-eligible base.
The report states that 22 counties stated they would support a
future amnesty program, 23 said they did not find the program
beneficial, and 13 did not respond to this question.
4)The Judicial Council Raises Significant Issues . In a March 20
letter opposing the bill (the Council subsequently withdrew
its opposition) the Council raised several issues: (a) 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; (b)
the program upon which this effort is predicated was only
marginally successful in retiring delinquent debt; and (c) the
courts lack the resources to implement and oversee such a
AB 2085
Page 3
program.
Notwithstanding the Council's curious change of heart, the
issues raised resonate.
5)Do consecutive amnesty programs send the message that breaking
laws lack consequences ? If Legislature feels consecutive
amnesty programs are necessary because fines are too steep
and/or too many people are ignoring them, perhaps the
underlying laws are the problem.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081