Existing law proscribes various traffic infractions, such as driving on a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour, and makes those infractions punishable by a fine, as specified. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to annually adopt a uniform traffic penalty schedule for nonparking Vehicle Code infractions.

This bill would direct the Judicial Council to develop a proposal to evaluate and implement civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions. infractions, and submit that proposal to the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to conduct at least one public hearing and submit status reports every 6 months, as specified.

Existing law proscribes various traffic infractions, such as driving on a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour, and makes those infractions punishable by a fine, as specified. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to annually adopt a uniform traffic penalty schedule for nonparking Vehicle Code infractions.

This bill would direct the Judicial Council to develop a proposal to evaluate and implement civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions. The bill would require the Judicial Council to conduct at least one public hearing and submit status reports every 6 months, as specified.

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2655

Author:(Gloria) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Judicial Council to develop, on or before January 1, 2021, a proposal to evaluate and implement a model for civil adjudication of “minor” vehicle infractions. The bill requires the Judicial Council to submit its proposal to the Legislature, should it determine civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions is advisable.

FISCAL EFFECT:

The Judicial Council, which is the sponsor of this bill, reports the bill would entail minor and absorbable costs to implement and that the council already is undertaking that work, at the direction of the chief justice, with existing resources.

Judicial Council’s comments notwithstanding, it seems likely that the resources necessary to develop a proposal to revamp adjudication of vehicle infractions are substantial. It is realistic to assume that such an undertaking would involve the equivalent of one highly educated staff member, at least, working full time for several years. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the cost to implement this bill is in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars during fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Judicial Council may be able to absorb these costs with existing resources—the very same resources that are currently working to develop the proposal required by this bill. However, at the moment, Judicial Council incurs those costs at the discretion of the chief justice. The council will have no such discretion, should this bill become law.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. In 2014, the Chief Justice of California established the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System to “take a fresh look at legal and structural challenges to long-term efficiency and stability for the judicial branch and develop practical, achievable recommendations.” The commission’s report notes that traffic infractions are considered crimes and the court, therefore, must afford traffic cases the formal rules of criminal procedures. The report asserts traffic filings make up 75% of total criminal filings and occupy court resources that could better be used to address more-serious criminal offenses. The report recommends implementation of a civil model of adjudication for minor vehicle infractions.

The chief justice directed the commission to develop a proposal to implement the commission’s recommendations. The commission began this work in 2017, through its Futures Traffic Working Group, and reports meetings with dozens of stakeholders.

1. Need for the bill. As mentioned, Judicial Council is the sponsor of this bill and is undertaking the work required by the bill. It seems self-evident, therefore, that Judicial Council is willing to develop a proposal to evaluate and implement a model for civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions. It is not unreasonable, then, to question the need for this bill. In response, the author, as noted in the policy committee analysis of this bill, contends the bill is needed to ensure the Judicial Council apprizes the Legislature of its progress so a legislator can rely on the proposal as a basis for future legislation.
2. Opposition. Safer Streets L.A. contends the workload issues associated with traffic cases noted by the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System could be addressed by means other than relegating traffic violations to civil adjudication. Similarly, an individual identifying himself as an attorney and a member of the California Traffic Defense Bar Association contends traffic violations do not burden the criminal courts to the extent described by the commission because 71% of traffic cases do not go to trail and 19% require only a single court appearance.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 3, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2655

Author:(Gloria) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2018

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Judicial Council: minor vehicle infractions

KEY ISSUE: Should the judicial council develop a proposal to evaluAte and implement a model for civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions?

SYNOPSIS

According to the Commission on the Future of California's Court System (Commission), traffic infractions constitute up to 75% of criminal filings. Because traffic infractions are considered "crimes," they are subject to the same procedures and evidentiary rules as criminal trials. Failure to respond to a "notice to appear," therefore, can result in an additional misdemeanor charge, a civil assessment, license suspension, or even a warrant for arrest. Adjudicating relatively minor traffic infractions through the criminal process, the Commission's report concluded, "places a burden on the criminal justice system that could otherwise be directed toward more serious criminal offenses." This bill, taking its cue from the Commission report, would require the Judicial Council to develop, on or before January 1, 2021, a proposal for developing and implementing a civil adjudication model for minor traffic offenses. The Judicial Council would hold public hearings on the matter and make reports to the Legislature, which would then make the necessary changes in existing law. The bill is sponsored by the Judicial Council, which believes that civil adjudication will "free up court and law enforcement resources and simplify procedures for defendants in traffic infraction cases." The bill is opposed by Safer Streets L.A., first, because they believe the transition to civil adjudication will afford fewer procedural protections to defendants and, second, that the process for developing the transition model involves too few stakeholders. The Judicial Council, on the other hand, contends that it has been reaching out to stakeholders since June of 2017, through its Futures Traffic Working Group. The bill will be amended in this Committee to expressly require the Judicial Council to submit any proposal it makes to the Legislature upon completion. This amendment is reflected in the summary and analysis below.

SUMMARY: Requires the Judicial Council to develop a proposal to evaluate and implement a model for civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Judicial Council, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission on the Future of California's Court System, develop a proposal on or before January 1, 2021, to evaluate and implement a model for civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions, and submit that proposal to the Legislature, as specified.
2. Requires the Judicial Council, at least once before January 1, 2020, to conduct a public hearing at which interested parties may present testimony related to the transition to civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions. Specifies that additional hearings may be held at the discretion of the Judicial Council.
3. Requires the Judicial Council to submit periodic status reports to the Legislature, as specified, that detail the Judicial Council's efforts to develop a model for civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that any violation of the Vehicle Code is an infraction unless otherwise expressly designated as a misdemeanor or a felony. (Vehicle Code Sections 40000.1 to 40008.)
2. Sets forth the manner in which violations of the Vehicle Code are adjudicated, from the initial notice of violation and notice to appear, to the manner of trial, rules of evidence, presumptions, and defenses appropriate at trial. (Vehicle Code Sections 40300 to 41501.)
3. Requires the Judicial Council to annually adopt a uniform traffic penalty schedule for all non-parking vehicle code infractions; specifies that penalties shall not exceed maximum amounts set forth in statute, as specified. In establishing a uniform traffic penalty schedule, the Judicial Council shall classify the offenses into four or fewer penalty categories, according to the severity of offenses, so as to permit convenient notice and payment of the scheduled penalty. (Vehicle Code Section 40310.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the Commission on the Future of California's Court System, traffic infractions constitute up to 75% of criminal filings. Because traffic infractions are considered "crimes," they are subject to the same procedures and evidentiary rules as criminal trials. Failure to respond to a "notice to appear," therefore, can result in an additional misdemeanor charge, a civil assessment, license suspension, or even a warrant for arrest. Adjudicating relatively minor traffic infractions through the criminal process, a Commission report concluded, "places a burden on the criminal justice system that could otherwise be directed toward more serious criminal offenses." The Commission's report noted, for example, that criminal procedure requires judicial arraignment, where the defendant is advised of the charges and enters a plea. Under a civil model, on the other hand, minor infractions could be handled in a simpler and more flexible manner that does not require an in-court appearance (unless the defendant opts for that). The Judicial Council could develop supporting forms to admit or deny an allegation without an in-court appearance; indeed, a defendant could go online to enter a plea, pay fines, or (if wanted or necessary) set a hearing date. The Commission report noted that any transition from criminal to civil adjudication would need to consider a number of questions, such as modifications of the appropriate burden of proof, evidentiary rules, and the role of the judge and law enforcement officer in adjudication. A transition to civil adjudication, it appears, would require considerable statutory and regulatory changes to existing law. (Commission on the Future of California's Court System, Report to the Chief Justice, 2017, pp. 85-93 and Appendix 2.4A, pp. 95-102.)

This bill requires the Judicial Council to develop, on or before January 1, 2021, a proposal for evaluating and implementing a civil adjudication model. The Judicial Council would be required to hold at least one public hearing, before January 1, 2020, at which interested parties could present testimony or provide input related to the transition. Any additional public hearings would be at the discretion of the Judicial Council. Between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2021, the Judicial Council would be required to submit reports to the Legislature at six-month intervals. As proposed to be amended in this Committee, the bill will also require the Judicial Council to submit its final proposal to the Legislature, assuming that after holding public hearings and considering stakeholder input it determines that a transition to a civil model is advisable.

Stakeholder input: As noted below, Safer Streets L.A. opposes this bill, in part, because it does not require the Judicial Council to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, including motorists groups such as AAA, law enforcement, social justice organizations, and defense attorney groups. However, since 2017, the Futures Traffic Working Group has already been meeting with various stakeholders pursuant to a directive from California Supreme Court Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye. That directive, among other things, requires the working group to seek input from "law enforcement, the Department of Motor Vehicles, organizations representing the interests of low-income Californians, and other stakeholders." The Judicial Council provided to the Committee with a list of nearly 50 groups that reportedly submitted public comments or otherwise participated in the work of the Futures Commission. The groups included representatives of several legal aid societies, public defenders, law enforcement groups, and the Department of Motor Vehicles, among others.

These meetings and discussions have already occurred, and it is reasonable to assume that the same groups will participate in the public hearing required by the bill. Moreover, these public hearings will not be the end of the matter because this bill does not authorize the Judicial Council to unilaterally implement a model of civil adjudication; it only authorizes the Judicial Council to develop a proposal to implement a model of civil adjudication. Any transition to civil adjudication will necessarily require statutory and regulatory changes. Any bill submitted to the Legislature as a result of the Judicial Council's proposal, assuming the Judicial Council concludes that legislation is advisable, will go through the usual lobbying and policy committee hearing process. Any rules and regulations based on those statutory changes will be adopted according to the established public comment process for rule-making. While the Chief Justice's directive clearly recognized the value of stakeholder input in the preliminary stages, and the Futures Traffic Working Group has apparently complied with that directive, it is worth noting that many substantial pieces of legislation are introduced without any stakeholder input prior to introduction. Indeed, nothing would prevent any group or individual legislator from drafting legislation based on the Commission's report without any authorizing legislation, public hearing, or stakeholder process. Nonetheless, the Committee may wish to ask the author and sponsor about stakeholder input that has already occurred or that is planned in the future, including the public hearing or hearings required by the bill.

Procedural Rights under Civil Adjudication: In addition to raising questions about the stakeholder process, Safer Streets L.A. also expresses concern that civil adjudication will not offer the same procedural safeguards afforded under criminal procedure. Of course, at this point we do not know what procedural safeguards will be suggested in the Judicial Council proposal, but the Commission report makes it clear that any system of civil adjudication must still afford the defendant due process. Due process under civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions would presumably be more like the administrative hearing process afforded for parking ticket violation than the due process given to a defendant accused of a misdemeanor or felony. Historically, criminal adjudication has offered more protection than civil adjudication – e.g. a higher burden of proof – because criminal offenses can lead to a loss of liberty through jail or prison time, whereas civil offenses do not. Infractions, however, unlike misdemeanors and felonies, do not threaten a loss of liberty. In this sense, fines for minor moving violations are more akin to fines for parking violations, some of which – such as parking in a designated disabled space or in front of a fire hydrant– can be higher than for fines for minor moving violations. The author, however, like the Judicial Council and the Commission report, believes that minor vehicle infractions, which are punished by fines rather than incarceration, do not require the same procedural safeguards as misdemeanor and felony offenses, which result in much more serious consequences.

It should also be stressed that civil adjudication will not apply to all "infractions," but only to that subset of infractions deemed "minor." The bill does not define what constitutes a "minor" infraction, nor should it at this point. The Committee could find no reference to "minor vehicle infraction" in the Vehicle Code or in the descriptions of infractions listed on the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website. Rather DMV distinguishes certain "serious" violations that lead to an automatic suspension of a license (such as misdemeanor or felony DUI), while other violations are "infractions" subject to a point system – usually 1 or 2 points per violation – which only cumulatively could lead to a suspension of the license. Presumably, the kinds of infractions that should be subject to civil adjudication will be determined with greater specificity in the public hearing process and in the final proposal. It would be unnecessary and even counter-productive to define them before the Judicial Council hearings and deliberations are complete.

Necessity for Bill: This bill requires the Judicial Council to develop a proposal, hold public hearings, and submit progress reports and a proposal to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, with the general intent that the proposal will become the basis for future legislation. It is not entirely clear, however, why the Legislature must require the Judicial Council to do these things since there is nothing in existing law that would prevent the Judicial Council from developing a proposal while continuing the substantial work it has been doing since June of 2017. Clearly the Legislature does not need to impose these requirements upon the Judicial Council, given that the Judicial Council is the sponsor of the bill and, therefore, willing and able to do the complex and substantial work of proposing a system of civil adjudication to replace existing criminal procedures. The author's office informed the Committee, however, that the bill is needed in order to ensure that the Judicial Council keeps the Legislature apprised of its progress, and the author also believes that the proposal will be an invaluable tool to any legislator who decides to eventually introduce such legislation, as it will demonstrate the work, collaboration, and thought process that went into the proposal, and will document the need for the legislation.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "more than four million traffic tickets are given in California each year, and more than 70% of the state’s criminal cases involve those citations. Coupled with issues of access to the justice system, many Californians begin spiraling down through the criminal justice system over what many might consider to be issues of low priority – driving with an inoperative tail light or making an unsafe lane change." Citing the report by the Commission on the Future of California's Court System, the author contends that "with minor traffic infractions making up a majority of the state’s criminal trials, significant court resources are expended on proceedings that might better serve the public’s interest if applied elsewhere. Additionally, modifying the minor traffic infraction system to a civil model would provide enhanced access to justice." The California Judicial Council, the sponsor of this bill, similarly concludes that adopting civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions will "free up court and law enforcement sources and simplify procedures for defendants in traffic infraction cases."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Safer Streets L.A., which describes itself as "an organization dedicated to the adoption of scientifically sound and sensible transportation and traffic laws," opposes this bill. Safer Streets L.A. essentially makes two arguments against AB 2655. First, it contends that, under a system of civil adjudication "defendants are afforded many fewer and lesser rights than they would be in a criminal matter." For example, Safer Streets L.A. notes that in a criminal proceeding defendants have the right to have their case heard "by a real judge in a real court of law," whereas under civil adjudication the case is handled by a hearing officer who may lack sufficient training. Safer Streets L.A. also points out that criminal proceedings have a higher burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. "preponderance of the evidence"), and that in a criminal proceeding the accused are entitled to discovery, may subpoena witnesses, and get to face their accusers in court. "Under a civil penalty scheme," on the other hand, "the ticket itself is considered prima facie evidence and no witness or prosecutor would be required to appear." Second, Safer Streets L.A. opposes this bill because it "does not provide sufficient requirements for the Judicial Council to meaningfully engage with crucial stakeholders in the process of developing a proposal . . . Any process under which the Judicial Council develops a proposal . . . should, at a minimum, include as full partners in that process, representatives of motorist groups like AAA, law enforcement, social justice organizations such as ACLU/WCLP/Back on the Road Coalition, and defense attorney groups."

Proposed Author Amendment: In order to clarify that the proposal developed by the Judicial Council, as well as the periodic status reports, are submitted to the Legislature, the author will take the following amendment in this Committee:

- On page after line 28 insert:

(d) If the Judicial Council concludes, after public hearing and consideration of feedback from interested parties, that civil adjudication of minor vehicle infractions is advisable, it shall submit the proposal required by subdivision (a) to the Legislature in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Judicial Council (sponsor)

Opposition

Safer Streets L.A.

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334