BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 2673|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 2673
          Author:   Bradford (D)
          Amended:  5/6/14 in Assembly
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE  :  5-0, 6/17/14
          AYES:  Hancock, De Le�n, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Anderson, Knight

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  75-1, 5/15/14 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Civil compromise:  hit and run

           SOURCE  :     Los Angeles City Attorneys Office


           DIGEST  :    This bill prohibits civil compromise in criminal  
          cases in which a driver has left the scene of an accident  
          resulting in the injury or death of another person without  
          stopping his/her vehicle.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law:

          1.Provides that the driver of any vehicle involved in an  
            accident resulting in damage to any property, including  
            vehicle, shall immediately stop the vehicle and exchange  
            information, as specified, or leave in a conspicuous place on  
            the vehicle or other property damaged written notice giving  
            the name and address of the driver of the vehicle involved,  
            and the failure to comply with these requirements is a  
            misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2673
                                                                     Page  
          2

            exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by  
            both a fine and imprisonment. 

          2.Requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident  
            resulting in injury to any person, other than himself or  
            herself, or in the death of any person shall immediately stop  
            the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill  
            specified requirements, and the failure to comply is a  
            punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for16 months,  
            two, or three years or, by imprisonment in a county jail not  
            to exceed one year, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor  
            more than $10,000, or by both a fine and imprisonment.  If the  
            accident results in death or permanent, serious injury, the  
            offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for  
            two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less  
            than 90 days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less  
            than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by both a fine and  
            imprisonment.  (Vehicle Code Section 20001(a) and (b).)

          3.States when the person injured by an act constituting a  
            misdemeanor has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be  
            compromised, as provided in existing law, as specified.

          This bill prohibits civil compromise in criminal cases in which  
          a driver has left the scene of an accident resulting in the  
          injury or death of another person without stopping his/her  
          vehicle.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   Local:  
           No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/18/14)

          Los Angeles City Attorney's Office (source) 
          California District Attorney Association

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  6/18/14)

          California Public Defenders Association
          Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to Los Angeles City  
          Attorney's Office:


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2673
                                                                     Page  
          3

               Hit-and-run collisions have become a significant issue in  
               the City of Los Angeles over the last few years.  While a  
               majority of hit-and-runs involve only vehicle and do not  
               result injuries or deaths, a significant number of  
               hit-and-runs involve pedestrians and bicyclists, who are  
               often injures as a result.  Between 2007 and 2011, there  
               was an average of 22 severe or fatal hit-and run collisions  
               involving bicycles and 92 involving pedestrians each year.   
               While a hit-and-run is a serious offense, the current  
               penalties for this crime often do not work as an effective  
               deterrent or punishment.

               Legislation addressing this issue would help public safety  
               officers and local district attorney's officers charged  
               with investigating and trying hit-and run cases to be more  
               effectively deal with those who commit hit-and runs.  Many  
               of the misdemeanor hit-and-run cases that were filed in the  
               LA City Attorney's Office were resolved through the use of  
               civil compromise.  Often the consequences agreed to under  
               civil compromise were no different than if a driver had not  
               left the scene after a collision.

               Motorists that flee the scene of a traffic collision commit  
               a crime against the public as well against the other  
               motorist.  If the other party to the accident was injured  
               as a result of the accident, the driver who fled should not  
               be allowed to enter into a civil compromise.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The California Public Defenders  
          Association notes that hit-and-run is exactly the type of case  
          that civil compromise is designed for stating:

               Hit-and-run is a crime simply because that act makes it  
               harder to establish civil liability, the identity of those  
               involved, and to reach an effective resolution either  
               through the courts or through the intervention of insurance  
               companies.  Case law has repeatedly held that fault for the  
               accident is not an issue in hit-and-run cases, and that a  
               faultless driver can nonetheless be prosecuted if he does  
               not stop and exchange information.  Since hit-and-run is  
               all about enabling the civil liability process and the  
               civil compromise statutes (PC 1377-1378) are all about  
               washing out minor criminal actions that have a civil  
               liability counterpart, it should be apparent that civil  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2673
                                                                     Page  
          4

               compromise could not be more appropriate for any crime than  
               hit-and-run.  Certainly, hit-and-run does not involve the  
               sort of attacks on public order or vulnerable victims that  
               are mentioned in the exclusions to civil compromise, and it  
               is rarely felonious. 

               If the defendant is convicted he may be ordered to pay  
               restitution, but if he is indigent the courts cannot  
               penalize him for not paying money that he doesn't have.   
               Indeed, lack of insurance and money is a common reason for  
               drivers to flee the scene of an accident.  On the other  
               hand, if a defendant is motivated by the prospect of civil  
               compromise he can often come up with sources of funds, such  
               as loans from friends or family, that cannot be compelled  
               by a court.  It must also be recognized that the defendant  
               does not get a "freebie" when he gets a civil compromise.   
               Not only does he have to pay the "full satisfaction" (i.e.  
               damages), but under the mandate of section 1378 he is  
               responsible for "payment of costs incurred," which many  
               courts consider to include court costs and prosecution  
               costs.  Moreover, even without a conviction, the police  
               will report his involvement in an accident to the DMV  
               which, if "chargeable," will count as a point against his  
               driver's license and will affect the cost of his insurance.  
                Civil compromise was devised as a means to resolve minor  
               offenses that have a civil damages component in a way that  
               is cheaper for the courts, cheaper for the prosecution,  
               makes the victim whole quicker, and incentivizes the  
               defendant to pay sooner rather than later.  Thus, the  
               process becomes a win - win - win - win situation that  
               benefits everyone. 
           
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  75-1, 5/15/14
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra,  
            Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,  
            Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh,  
            Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,  
            Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,  
            Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,  
            Jones-Sawyer, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina,  
            Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan,  
            Patterson, Perea, John A. P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk,  
            Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner,  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2673
                                                                     Page  
          5

            Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,  
            Williams, Yamada, Atkins
          NOES:  Levine
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Allen, Gonzalez, Mansoor, Vacancy


          JG:nl  6/18/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****


































                                                                CONTINUED