BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
4
8
AB 2487 (Wagner) 7
As Amended April 22, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
HISTORY
Source: Judicial Council
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:Safer Streets L.A.; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children; California Traffic Defense Bar Association;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; over 150 private
citizens
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 52 - Noes 11
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE TRIAL DE NOVO FOLLOWING A TRIAL BY DECLARATION FOR AN
ALLEGED VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION BE ELIMINATED?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to delete the requirement that a
defendant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the court,
after having elected to have a trial by declaration for an
alleged traffic infraction, shall have the right to a trial de
novo.
Existing law requires that the court shall, by rule, provide
that the defendant may elect to have a trial by written
declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the
citing officer, involving a violation of the Vehicle Code, or
any local ordinance, as specified. (Vehicle Code,
� 40902 (a)(1).)
Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to adopt rules and
forms governing trials by declaration. Any rule or form adopted
by the Judicial Council shall supersede any local rule of court
adopted pursuant to these provisions. (Vehicle Code, � 40902
(a)(2).)
Existing law provides that if the defendant elects to have a
trial by written declaration, the defendant shall at the time of
submitting the declaration, submit bail in the amount scheduled
in the uniform traffic penalty schedule, as specified. If the
defendant is found not guilty or if the charges are otherwise
dismissed, the amount of the bail shall be promptly refunded to
the defendant. (Vehicle Code, � 40902 (b).)
Existing law provides that notwithstanding the rule of evidence,
the rules governing trials by written declaration may provide
for testimony and other relevant evidence to be introduced in
the form of a notice to appear, a business record or receipt, a
sworn declaration of the arresting officer, a written statement,
or letter signed by the defendant. (Vehicle Code, � 40902 (c).)
Existing law provides that if the defendant is dissatisfied with
the decision of the court in a trial by declaration shall be
granted a trial de novo. (Vehicle Code, � 40902 (d).)
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 3
This bill deletes the ability of a defendant to have a trial de
novo.
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
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 4
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.
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 5
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
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. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under existing law a defendant charged with a Vehicle
Code infraction may elect to have a trial by written
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 6
declaration on the alleged infraction, with the
exception of drug and alcohol infractions (Veh. Code �
40310). If the defendant is dissatisfied with a
decision of the court in that proceeding the defendant
is entitled to a "trial de novo" or new trial before a
Traffic Court, which results in a waste of court
resources. In other words, the defendant gets two
trials on the same issue. In some counties, a trial de
novo is requested in 40 to 50 percent of cases where
the defendant has not prevailed on the trial by written
declaration. Rather than providing a convenient way
for a traffic violator who lives an impractical or
inconvenient distance from the court to contest matters
as originally intended by the code section, the process
is being used to give traffic violators who chose a
trial by written declaration a second bite at the apple
to win a case.
AB 2487 increases the efficiency of traffic courts by
amending Vehicle Code section 40902 to require
defendants accused of most Vehicle Code infractions to
choose either a trial by written declaration or a
hearing, but not both.
2. No Trial De Novo for Vehicle Code Infractions
Under existing law, a person may challenge a Vehicle Code
infraction by a trial by written declaration. The person
submits a declaration along with any evidence he or she may have
that the infraction was not committed and the full fine. If the
defendant is dissatisfied with the result of the trial by
written declaration, he or she shall be granted a trial de novo.
This bill would remove the right of a person to have a trial de
novo thus even if they believe the decision was wrong the
defendant would have no right to a trial de novo.
3. Argument in Support
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 7
Judicial Council is the sponsor of the bill and believes that
this bill will help court efficiency, stating:
Under existing law, a defendant charged with a Vehicle
Code infraction may elect to have a trial by written
declaration on the alleged infraction, with the
exception of drug and alcohol infractions (Vehicle Code
� 40310). If the defendant is dissatisfied with a
decision of the court in that proceeding, the defendant
is entitled to a "trial de novo" or trial before a
Traffic Court, which results in a waste of court
resources. In some counties, a trial de novo is
requested in 40 to 50 percent of cases where the
defendant has not prevailed on the written declaration.
Rather than providing a convenient way for a traffic
violator who lives an impractical or inconvenient
distance from the court to contest matters, the process
is being used to give traffic violators a second bite
at the apple to win a case.
4. Opposition Arguments
Safe Streets L.A. opposes this bill, stating:
No evidence has been provided showing that defendants
who request a Trial de Novo after being found guilty in
a Trial by Written Declaration are a major burden on
the court system. In discussion with representatives
from the Judicial Council, we found that they could
offer no verifiable data on the number or percentage of
defendants who request a Trial de Novo throughout the
State. Further, although the Fact Sheet on this bill
prepared by the Author's office claims that, "In some
counties, a trial de novo is requested in 40 to 50
percent of cases where the defendant has not prevailed
on the written declaration", neither the Author's
office nor the Judicial Council could provide any
background on this statistic. We do not know in which
county this may have occurred, whether there are
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 8
specific types of cases or reasons for this supposed
elevated number of Trial de Novo requests in this
location, or whether the percentage reported is 40% -
50% of ten trials or
thousands of trials. In subsequent conversations, the
Judicial Council offered that
anecdotal information received from a few sources
suggested that the percentage might be closer to 25%,
but again could not back up this number with any
verifiable data. Without verifiable data, the extent
of the problem cannot be determined, nor can we
determine a proper solution, or even whether there is a
problem that needs to be addressed.
Currently, there is nothing in State law or the
California Rules of Court that specifically permits
defendants that do not prevail in their written
declaration trials to appeal to a higher court. Simply
eliminating the right to a Trial de Novo without
ensuring that defendants retain their right to appeal
from a Trial by Written Declaration would deny
defendants due process. However, even if the right to
appeal from a Trial by Written Declaration were to be
assured, this might add a further burden on the court,
outweighing any "efficiencies" gained by eliminating
the right to a Trial de Novo. An appeal after a Trial
by Written Declaration creates more work for the trial
court than a request for a Trial de Novo. Currently,
when a defendant wishes to challenge a Judicial
Officer's rulings in a Trial by Written Declaration
they need only file a one page request for a Trial de
Novo. This is a rather simple procedure for both the
defendant and the court. In contrast, the filing of an
appeal requires many more steps and a great deal more
Paperwork?: Even if just a small portion of Trial by
Written Declaration defendants file an appeal rather
than request a Trial de Novo, there is more work for
the court overall. Eliminating the right to a Trial de
Novo simply shifts a small burden on the trial court to
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 9
a much larger burden onto the appellate division.
(More)
Furthermore, eliminating the right to a Trial de Novo
would make the Trial by Written Declaration an
unattractive option for many defendants who would then
likely opt for a court trial instead. Rather than
reducing the workload of traffic courts, AB 2487 could
unintentionally result in a greater number of court
trials, not fewer.
If the court wishes to gain efficiencies in the Trial
by Written Declaration process, there are more
equitable options available. For example, some
defendants opt for a Trial de Novo after an
unsuccessful Trial by Written Declaration as it is
often their only option to request traffic violator
school. Once found guilty in their Trial by Written
Declaration, defendants who wish to request traffic
school have no formal option for making that request.
Therefore, they request a Trial de Novo in order to ask
for traffic school, rather than to get "a second bite
at the apple".
Likewise, some defendants opt for a Trial de Novo after
an unsuccessful Trial by Written Declaration because
some courts routinely deny defendants a fair trial in
automated enforcement cases where the identity of the
defendant is at issue. Under current law, the driver
of a vehicle is responsible for violations committed on
the State's roadways. In the case of automated
enforcement, the identity of the defendant is sometimes
at issue as the photograph of the driver may not match
the registered owner of the vehicle who receives the
citation or the photograph is not sufficiently clear to
establish the identity of the driver beyond a
reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, rather than finding
defendants not-guilty as the law would require, it is
the common practice of some courts to find all
defendants guilty in written declaration trials
regardless of whether the identity of the driver has
been established. This forces defendants in this
(More)
AB 2487 (Wagner)
Page 11
situation to request a Trial de Novo as it is their
only option to address this miscarriage of justice.
Other due process issues exist with regards to written
declaration trials, including judicial officers finding
defendants guilty even though the citing officer does
not submit their declaration. This practice also
causes defendants to request Trials de Novo.
Correcting some of the above inequities may
significantly reduce the number of requests for Trials
de Novo, making AB 2487 unnecessary.
5. Proposed Amendment
The author will offer an amendment in Committee to clarify that
a person still has the right to appeal the hearing by
declaration. The amendment will be to insert the following on
page 5,
line 8:
(d) A defendant may appeal the court's decision in a
trial by written declaration in accordance with Penal
Code section 1466.
It is not clear how this amendment is consistent with court
efficiency when an appeal would be more costly than a trial de
novo.
***************