Administration of Justice update 5/23/2014
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board Restitution Survey Due
The Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB) is conducting a statewide survey exploring restitution collection processes and challenges at the local level. The survey focuses on identifying collection processes, impediments to collection and efforts to improve and expand current processes. The VCGCB mailed a copy of the survey along with an informational letter to County Administrative Officers (CAOs) and Court Executive Officers (CEOs) throughout the state on April 25, 2014. Recognizing that the functions of collections and remittance are likely done by various county entities and completion of the survey will require collaboration, informational copies were also sent to Chief Probation Officers, District Attorneys, Sheriffs and Treasurer-Tax Collectors. Lastly, the survey web link was emailed to CAOs and CEOs on May 5th, with a requested completion date of May 30th.
As of May 16th, the VCGCB had received completed surveys from 23 counties, many of which were submitted by CEOs and Chief Probation Officers. In partnership with VCGCB, we encourage the remaining counties to submit the Restitution Collection Survey as soon as possible in order to meet the May 30 th deadline. If you have any questions regarding the survey information that was sent to your county, please contact Brian Hinton, VCGCBs Restitution Trainer, at (916) 491-3640 or by email at brian.hinton@vcgcb.ca.gov.
Pilot Program to Address Residential Squatting
AB 1513 (Fox) – Request for Review
As amended on May 6, 2014
AB 1513, by Assembly Member Steve Fox, would enact a pilot program that seeks to facilitate enforcement of trespassing laws against persons who are “squatting.” Under the current version of the bill, the pilot program is currently limited to the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County. This program, which would be in place through December 2017, is to “test the waters” for a system intended to curtail squatting in vacant homes on a permanent basis. AB 1513 is not “authorizing legislation” that local governments can adopt, but rather is legislatively enacting a program for local jurisdictions that can only benefit from the bill’s provision by requesting specific inclusion in the pilot program, which must be codified in the bill. Local agencies would be barred from participating in the program unless they are expressly authorized by the bill. Each local jurisdiction interested in being included in the pilot program needs to affirmatively so indicate using the following process: A resolution is needed fromeach local government entity that wishes to be listed in the legislation as an authorized participant in the AB 1513 Pilot Program.
The California Association of Realtors, sponsors of AB 1513, has asked for CSAC’s assistance in identifying any counties that may have an interest in benefiting from the pilot program targeting squatting. To be included in this measure, please communicate directly with Jaspreet Johl, Legislative Director for Assembly Member Steve Fox, who can be reached as follows:
Jaspreet.johl@asm.ca.gov, or
Office of Assembly Member Steve Fox
Attn: Ms. Jaspreet Johl
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036
Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant
AB 2060 (V. Manuel Perez) – Request for Review
As amended May 7, 2014
AB 2060, by Assembly Member V. Manuel Perez, would create the Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant Program, administered by the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB), to provide grant funding for vocational training and apprenticeship opportunities for offenders under county jurisdiction who are on probation, mandatory community supervision, or post-release community supervision.
The sponsor of the bill, The California Workforce Association, has requested assistance from CSAC in reaching out to counties that may be interested in supporting the measure given that the bill aims to use an unspecified amount of funding from the State Recidivism Reduction Fund to provide grants to county governments to assist in vocational training, stipends for trainees, and apprenticeship opportunities. The bill requires local grants to be used for services for the supervised probation, mandatory supervision, or postrelease community supervision population.
The bill passed unanimously out of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy and now awaits a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Court Records: Sealing and Destruction
AB 1756 (Skinner) – Oppose
As amended May 1, 2014
CSAC is opposed to Assembly Bill 1756 authored by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, which would prohibit a court from charging a fee for the destruction and sealing of juvenile court records when the record in question belongs to a person who is 26 years old or younger.
Under current law, when a petition is ordered for the sealing of a record, an individual, if that person is an adult, or the person responsible for the individual, if that person is a minor, may be required to reimburse the county and court for the costs associated with sealing the record at a rate determined by the county board of supervisors and the court. The fee is not to exceed $150 and the court may order reimbursement in any case in which the petitioner appears to have the ability to pay, without undue hardship, all or a portion of the cost of the service.
While CSAC appreciates the author’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 together as a matter of policy.
This bill places yet another financial burden on counties by limiting local authority for reimbursement for services at a time when courts and county probation departments are struggling for resources. For these reasons, CSAC must respectfully oppose this measure.
AB 1756 was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and now moves to the Assembly Floor.
Counties: Search and Rescue Costs
AB 2151 (Wagner) – Support
As Amended May 13, 2014
CSAC supports Assembly Bill 2151 authored by Assembly Member Don Wagner, which would allow a city or county to seek reimbursement from residents in specified instances when search and rescue costs are incurred.
Specifically, this measure allows a city or county to seek reimbursement from a resident when search and rescue efforts necessitate the use of extraordinary methods and certain acts or omissions were a contributing factor to the need for search and rescue. The bill would further require a person who is deemed as having the ability to pay to remit those funds to the city or county within 30 days.
Recent amendments require that a county or city wishing to implement the reimbursement provisions in the bill may only do so if the board of supervisors of that county or city passes a resolution or ordinance consistent with the bill.
Given the amount of staff and resources often involved in complex and time sensitive rescue efforts, in our view, this measure provides a much-needed cost assistance tool to ensure that search and rescue expenses do not greatly exceed a county’s financial capacity. For these reasons, CSAC supports the measure.
Assembly Bill 2151 passed off of the Assembly Floor without a dissenting vote and now awaits a committee assignment in the Senate.
Probation
AB 2314 (Hall) – Oppose
As amended May 7, 2014
AB 2314, by Assembly Member Isadore Hall, would authorize any probation officer to carry a firearm in the line of duty as determined by the chief probation officer on a case-by-case basis under terms and conditions specified by the chief probation officer. CSAC – jointly with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), and Los Angeles County — are opposed to the measure, despite recent amendments that eliminate a blanket requirement that all probation officer must be armed.
Under current law, probation officers may be authorized by their employing agency to carry a firearm. It is our understanding that in a vast majority of counties – more than 90 percent – the probation department arms at least some of their officers. Arming decisions are – appropriately, in our view – arrived at locally, based on the needs, preferences and requirements of that particular community as determined by the county. This model works well and allows county boards of supervisors and chief probation officers to evaluate and assess the circumstances, caseload, and risk exposure that might necessitate officer arming on a case-by-case basis. Questions of officer safety; designating the specific personnel or caseload types that may warrant arming; and consideration of the rather significant issues of — among others — liability, cost, and training are all decisions best left at the local level.
AB 2314 would provide that if a chief probation officer has not armed or has not adopted a policy regarding arming probation officers prior to January 1, 2015, the chief probation officer must develop a policy by June 30, 2015. In our view, this measure is unnecessary given that the number of departments (55 of the 59) arming their probation officers suggest that the local decision making process is working. The current process allows for counties to consider and make appropriate adjustments in light of the changed environment resulting from the implementation of 2011 public safety realignment. The requirement to put an arming policy in writing may create unnecessary liability for counties.
The bill passed off of the Assembly Floor without a dissenting vote and now awaits a hearing in Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 2373 (Hernández) – Oppose
As amended April 24, 2014
Recently, we have provided updates on CSAC’s ongoing opposition to AB 2373, authored by Assembly Member Roger Hernández, relating to county probation department funding. Today, the bill was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and it does not look like the bill will move forward this session.
As mentioned, existing law requires the chief probation officer to identify in writing to the superior court presiding judge and the board of supervisors when, in his or her opinion, there are insufficient resources to carry out statutory or court-ordered responsibilities. AB 2373 would extend that provision to require a county board of supervisors either to (1) provide the needed level of funding identified by the probation chief or (2) respond in writing within 30 days that it does not have the resources to do so. The premise of the bill, in our opinion, remains objectionable. It would create an unnecessary overlay to the county board of supervisors’ core responsibility to weigh and prioritize budget requests across dozens of county departments and hundreds of vital programs and services delivered at the local level. Further, the bill would set a precedent for other constituencies to seek a similar process. As drafted, AB 2373 effectively elevates probation’s identified needs above all others in the county.
CSAC supports and values the work and significant contributions of probation departments. However, in both principle and practice, the approach proposed in AB 2373 was unacceptable. It set up an adversarial and one-sided process that would not have resulted in the desired outcomes that may have been at the heart of the bill. Questions of funding and how to deploy vital public resources across the vast array of county responsibilities are best managed in the open, public budget process that already exists at the local level.
Criminal Procedure: Video Appearances
AB 2397 (Frazier) – Support
As Amended May 12, 2014
AB 2397, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, amends current law to allow for increased use of video technology for inmate court appearances. The bill is co-sponsored by the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California.
Specifically, the bill would authorize a defendant who does not wish to be personally present for noncritical portions of trial to submit an oral waiver in open court prior to the proceeding, or submit a written request to the court and would allow the court to grant the request in its discretion. Further, if the defendant is represented by counsel, the bill provides that a defendant’s attorney shall not be required to be personally present with the defendant for noncritical portions of the trial if the audio video conferencing system or other technology allows for private communication between the defendant and the attorney. Finally, the bill makes legislative findings making it clear that the bill does not expand or limit the right of a defendant to be personally present with his or her counsel at a particular proceeding as required by the California Constitution.
This bill has the potential to reduce costs associated with various judicial hearings and specified proceedings for local law enforcement without limiting inmate access to due process under the law. For these reasons CSAC is pleased to support the measure.
This bill passed unanimously off of the Assembly Floor and now awaits a hearing in Senate Public Safety Committee.
Probation: Graduated Sanctions
SB 933 (Anderson) – Oppose
As amended May 12, 2014
SB 933, authored by Senator Joel Anderson, would require chief probation officers to establish and implement a system of graduated sanctions for probation violations.
Under existing law, county probation officers currently have the flexibility to determine the type and level of supervision for offenders that is most appropriate to carry out court-ordered conditions of probation. While we appreciate the author’s intent to make sure evidence-based practices and sanctions are being implemented at the local level, SB 933 is, in our view, not necessary. As demonstrated by the tremendous success of SB 678 (Leno, Chapter 608, 2009), the Community Corrections Performance Incentive Act, county probation departments are already deeply engaged in the use of evidence-based programs across the public safety spectrum and have been taking proactive steps to reduce recidivism in our communities.
County probation departments currently use standardized decision making instruments and tools that are designed to determine the most appropriate sanctions for parolees who violate the conditions of their parole. These factors include the severity of the current violation, the probationer’s criminal record, and their assessed risk level among other key factors relating to their successful reentry. Our boards are working every day in collaboration with probation departments to carry out the substantial new duties under criminal justice realignment to help ensure its success. Rather than a costly mandate to codify practices that are currently well underway, what is truly needed are sustained resources and funding to ensure the success of evidence-based programs that already exist at the local level.
In our view, SB 933 is overly prescriptive. Science and research may lead us to different strategies in the coming years, and we fear the language of the bill would limit counties’ ability to adapt to changes in best practices. For these reasons and because counties likely would experience major one-time and ongoing costs to establish and implement a graduated sanctions protocol for probation violations as outlined, we must regrettably oppose the measure.
Today, the measure was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations Committee and it does not look like the bill will move forward this session.