Existing law authorizes the court, in addition to any other penalty in an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony case, to impose a civil assessment of up to $300 against any defendant who fails, after notice and without good cause, to appear in court for any proceeding authorized by law, or who fails to pay all or any portion of a fine ordered by the court or to pay an installment of bail, as specified. Existing law provides that the assessment shall not become effective until at least 20 calendar days after the court mails a warning notice to the defendant, and requires the court, if the defendant appears within the time specified in the notice and shows good cause for the failure to appear or for the failure to pay a fine or installment of bail, to vacate the assessment.

This bill would provide that the assessment shall not become effective until at least 60 days after the court mails a warning notice to the defendant. The bill would require the court to vacate a civil assessment if the underlying charge is dismissed, refund any payments made by a defendant towards that assessment, and terminate any collection action. The bill would require the court to vacate a civil assessment imposed pursuant to those provisions, if the defendant certifies that he or she had good cause to not appear or not pay a fine, or is unable to pay the assessment. The bill would define good cause for this purpose. The bill would also require a court to allow a defendant to file a motion to vacate a civil assessment at any time. Finally, the bill would require the court to include a form to petition the court to vacate a civil assessment with any notice of or request to pay the civil assessment.

Existing law authorizes the court, in addition to any other penalty in an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony case, to impose a civil assessment of up to $300 against any defendant who fails, after notice and without good cause, to appear in court for any proceeding authorized by law, or who fails to pay all or any portion of a fine ordered by the court or to pay an installment of bail, as specified. Existing law provides that the assessment shall not become effective until at least 20 calendar days after the court mails a warning notice to the defendant, and requires the court, if the defendant appears within the time specified in the notice and shows good cause for the failure to appear or for the failure to pay a fine or installment of bail, to vacate the assessment.

This bill would require the court to vacate a civil assessment imposed pursuant to those provisions, if the defendant certifies that he or she had good cause to not appear or not pay a fine, or is unable to pay the assessment. The bill would define good cause for this purpose. The bill would also require a court to allow a defendant to file a motion to vacate a civil assessment at any time. Finally, the bill would require the court to include a form to petition the court to vacate a civil assessment with any notice of or request to pay the civil assessment.

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 412

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the court to vacate a civil assessment (monetary fine) imposed for failure to appear in court or pay a fine, if the defendant establishes that he or she had good cause to not appear or not pay a fine, or is unable to pay the assessment.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Revenue loss to the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF) in the millions of dollars. According to the 2017-18 Governor’s Budget, over $125 million was collected last year and will be collected this year during the current amnesty program; however, over $160 million (an additional $35 million) is projected to be collected. If the assumption is made that every year 5% of the $160 million would be waived due to a qualifying good cause, the annual revenue loss to the TCTF would be $8 million

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Under current law, in addition to any other penalty for an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, the court may impose a civil penalty up to $300 against any defendant who fails to appear in court for any proceeding or fails to pay any portion of the fine ordered by the court. This amount is referred to as a “civil assessment” and may only be imposed if the person gets notice and still does not pay or appear within a 20 days of mailing of notice.

However, under current law, a defendant may request an ability-to-pay determination at adjudication, or while the judgment remains unpaid, including when a case is delinquent or has been referred to a comprehensive collection program. At such determination, the court may (with or without showing good cause by the defendant) provide for alternative payment schedule, allow for community service, or suspend all or part of the fine.

A traffic ticket is a citation to appear in traffic court. The citation requires the recipient to appear in court on, or before a specific date. A person that receives a traffic citation does not need to appear in court if they pay the full amount of the fine. The officer that issues the citation usually informs the person that they will get a notice in the mail giving the fine amount and explaining their options.

Most people do not know that they are responsible for contacting the court even if they don’t get further notice, and that their driver’s license will be suspended if they fail to follow up. Even if additional notice is mailed by the court, it usually does not describe what people can do if they do not have hundreds of dollars immediately available to pay the fine.

1. Purpose. According to the author, “This bill would ease the burden of traffic court fines by allowing individuals who are indigent to petition to eliminate the Civil Assessment Fee, a $300 penalty charged for not paying traffic court fines on time. An individual having trouble paying rent or putting food on the table cannot afford to pay off these tickets, creating a penalty for those with low or no incomes. AB 412 would help end this disparity and help these individuals get their life back on track and out of a continuous cycle of debt and poverty.”
2. Support: According to the Western Center on Law and Poverty, “The plethora of different state and local fines tacked onto traffic tickets can significantly increase the cost of being ticketed. For example, a citation for failure to carry proof of insurance has a base fine of $100, but additional fees make the actual cost $490. If the citation payment is not paid on time, the cost increases to $815.
   
   “Low-income residents throughout California rely on driving to get to work, access medical care, buy healthy food, and meet their most basic needs. When at-risk individuals and families must choose between addressing a minor traffic ticket or paying the rent, they often choose the latter, unknowingly placing themselves at risk of license suspension.”
3. Related Legislation: SB 185 (Hertzberg), would require courts in traffic cases to reduce fines based on a finding that the defendant is indigent. Would provide additional time to defendants before their driver’s license could be suspended for a failure to appear in court on a vehicle code offense. SB 185 is set for hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 25, 2017.
   
4. Prior Legislation:
   

SB 405 (Hertzberg), Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015, provided that payment of bail, fines, penalties, fees, or a civil assessment is not required in order for the court to vacate the assessment at the time the person makes an appearance, as specified. SB 405 also provides that payment of a civil assessment is not required to schedule a court hearing on a pending underlying charge.

SB 85 (Budget Bill), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2013, created the traffic amnesty program.

SB 366 (Wright), of the Legislative Session of 2013-2014, would have given courts more discretion to consider defendants ability to pay in setting fines and fees. SB 366 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2724 (Bradford), of the Legislative Session of 2013-2014, would have allowed defendants to get their driving privileges back when the driver’s license had been suspended for failing to pay a fine, if they agree to pay in installments. SB 2724 was held on Suspense in this Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 21, 2017

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Requires the court to vacate a civil assessment(monetary fine) imposed for failure to appear in court or pay a fine, if the defendant establishes that he or she had good cause to not appear or not pay a fine, or is unable to pay the assessment. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court to vacate a civil assessment imposed for failure to appear in court or pay a fine if a defendant establishes good cause for the underlying failure to appear or failure to pay, for which the assessment was imposed.
   
2. States that the request to vacate the civil assessment may be made at the time of judgment, or while the judgment remains unpaid, including when a case is delinquent or has been referred to a comprehensive collection program.
   
3. Specifies that a defendant seeking to have a civil assessment vacated shall petition the court to vacate the assessment and shall provide documentation to establish good cause or certify to the good cause circumstances under penalty of perjury.
   
4. Provides that good cause includes, but is not limited to, the following reasons:
   
   1. The defendant’s hospitalization or incapacitation;
      
   2. The defendant’s incarceration;
      
   3. The defendant’s required military duty;
      
   4. The death or hospitalization of the defendant’s dependent or immediate family member;
      
   5. The defendant’s inability to pay; and
      
   6. Any other extraordinary reason, beyond the defendant’s control, that prevented the defendant from making an appearance or payment on or before the date listed on the notice to appear.
      
5. Requires that a court vacate a civil assessment at adjudication, or while the judgment remains unpaid, including when a case is delinquent or has been referred to a comprehensive collection program, if a defendant is unable to pay the civil assessment.
   
6. Requires a defendant who petitions the court to vacate their civil assessment because of inability to pay to be indigent, homeless, or be a full-time or part-time student receiving financial aid.
   
7. Defines “indigent” for purposes of this bill, as an individual who meets any of the following criteria:
   
   1. Has a net income at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level by family size;
      
   2. Is receiving public benefits under one or more specified support programs; or
      
   3. Is unable, as determined by the court, to pay the relevant fine, fee or assessment without using money that would pay for the common necessities of life for the defendant and his or her family.
      
8. Defines “homeless” for purposes of this bill as an individual who meets any of the following criteria:
   
   1. Meets the definition of homeless as specified elsewhere in California law; or
      
   2. Would become homeless upon exiting a publicly funded institution or system or care including, but not limited to a, a hospital, skilled nursing facility, mental health facility, jail, or prison.
      
9. Requires that any notice sent to a defendant by the court that includes a request for payment of a civil assessment also include a petition to file to vacate a civil assessment.
   
10. States that a civil assessment shall not become effective until at least 60 calendar days after the courts mails a warning notice to the defendant.
    
11. Requires that if the underlying charge is dismissed, the court shall vacate the civil assessment, refund any funds deposited by the defendant towards the assessment, and terminate any collection action.
    

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that in addition to any other penalty in an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony the court may impose a civil penalty up to $300 against any defendant who fails to appear in court for any proceeding or fails to pay any portion of the fine ordered by the court. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1, subd. (a).)
   
2. Provides that the assessment shall not become effective until at least 20 calendar days after the court mails a warning to the defendant, and the court shall vacate the order for the assessment if the person appears in time and shows good cause for failure to appear or failure to pay the fine. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1, subd. (b)(1).)
   
3. States that payment bail, fines, penalties, fees, or a civil assessment shall not be required in order for the court to vacate the assessment at the time of appearance. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1, subd. (b)(2).)
   
4. States that payment of a civil assessment shall not be required to schedule a court hearing on a pending underlying charge. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1, subd. (b)(2).)
5. Specifies that if a civil assessment is imposed under this section, no bench warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued with respect to the failure to appear at the proceeding for which the assessment is imposed or the failure to pay the fine or installment of bail. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1, subd. (c).)
   
6. States that an outstanding, unserved bench warrant or warrant of arrest for a failure to appear or for a failure to pay a fine or installment of bail shall be recalled prior to the subsequent imposition of a civil assessment. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1, subd. (c).)
   
7. States that in any case when a person appears before a traffic referee or judge of the superior court for adjudication of a violation of this code, the court, upon request of the defendant, shall consider the defendant's ability to pay. (Veh. Code, §42003, subd. (c).)
   
8. Specifies that in making a determination of whether a defendant has the ability to pay, the court shall take into account the amount of any fine imposed upon the defendant and any amount the defendant has been ordered to pay in restitution. (Veh. Code, §42003, subd. (c).)
   
9. Provides that the court may hold additional hearings during the probationary period. If practicable, the court or the probation officer shall order payments to be made on a monthly basis. Execution may be issued on the order in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action. The order to pay all or part of the costs shall not be enforced by contempt. (Veh. Code, §42003, subd. (c).)
   
10. States that at any time during the pendency of the judgment rendered according to the terms of this section, a defendant against whom a judgment has been rendered may petition the rendering court to modify or vacate its previous judgment on the grounds of a change of circumstances with regard to the defendant's ability to pay the judgment. (Veh. Code, §42003, subd. (e).)
11. States that when the defendant fails to make an installment payment, the court may charge a failure to appear or pay and impose a civil assessment as specified, or issue an arrest warrant for a failure to appear. (Veh. Code, § 40510.5, subd. (e).)
    
12. Specifies that courts must provide defendants with notice of their right to request an ability-to-pay determination and make available instructions or other materials for requesting an ability-to-pay determination. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (b).)
    
13. Provides that the court, on request of a defendant, must consider the defendant's ability to pay. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(1).)
    
14. States that a defendant may request an ability-to-pay determination at adjudication, or while the judgment remains unpaid, including when a case is delinquent or has been referred to a comprehensive collection program. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(2).)
    
15. Requires the court to permit a defendant to make this request by written petition unless the court directs a court appearance. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(3).)
    
16. States that based on the ability-to-pay determination, the court may exercise its discretion to:
    
    1. Provide for payment on an installment plan (if available); (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(4)(A).)
       
    2. Allow the defendant to complete community service in lieu of paying the total fine (if available); (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(4)(B).)
       
    3. Suspend the fine in whole or in part; or(Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(4)(C).)
       
    4. Offer an alternative disposition. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(4)(D).)
       
17. Specifies that a defendant ordered to pay on an installment plan or to complete community service may request to have an ability-to-pay determination at any time during the pendency of the judgment. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(5).)
    
18. States that if a defendant has already had an ability-to-pay determination in the case, a defendant may request a subsequent ability-to-pay determination only based on changed circumstances. (Rule of Court 4.335, subd. (c)(6).)
    
19. Requires a notice of a civil assessment to inform the defendant of his or her right to petition that the civil assessment be vacated for good cause and must include information about the process for vacating or reducing the assessment. (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(1).)
    
20. States that when a notice of civil assessment is given, a defendant may, within the time specified in the notice, move by written petition to vacate or reduce the assessment. (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(2).)
    
21. Specifies that a petition to vacate an assessment does not stay the operation of any order requiring the payment of bail, fines, penalties, fees, or assessment unless specifically ordered by the court. (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(4).)
    
22. States that the court must vacate the assessment upon a showing of good cause, as specified, for failure to appear or failure to pay. (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(5).)
23. Provides that if the defendant does not establish good cause, the court may still exercise its discretion to reconsider:
    
    1. Whether a civil assessment should be imposed; and (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(6)(A).)
       
    2. If so, the amount of the assessment. (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(6)(B).)
       
24. In exercising its discretion, the court may consider such factors as a defendant's due diligence in appearing or paying after notice of the assessment has been given under section 1214.1(b)(1) and the defendant's financial circumstances. (Rule of Court 4.106, subd. (c)(7).

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “This bill would ease the burden of traffic court fines by allowing individuals who are indigent to petition to eliminate the Civil Assessment Fee, a $300 penalty charged for not paying traffic court fines on time. An individual having trouble paying rent or putting food on the table cannot afford to pay off these tickets, creating a penalty for those with low or no incomes. AB 412 would help end this disparity and help these individuals get their life back on track and out of a continuous cycle of debt and poverty.”
   
2. Traffic Tickets and the Court System: A traffic ticket is a citation to appear in traffic court. The citation requires you to appear in court on, or before a specific date. A person that receives a traffic citation does not need to appear in court if they pay the full amount of the fine. The officer that issues the citation usually informs the person that they will get a notice in the mail giving the fine amount and explaining their options. However, many times “courtesy notices” are not sent from the court, or even if they are sent, they don’t make it to the individual.
   
   Most people do not know that they are responsible for contacting the court even if they don’t get further notice, and that their driver’s license will be suspended if they fail to follow up themselves. The ticket itself becomes the sole “notice,” which is problematic because of the small size of the type font, sometimes illegible handwritten officer notations, and the poor quality of carbon-copy paper. Even if additional notice is mailed by the court, it usually does not describe what people can do if they do not have hundreds of dollars immediately available to pay the fine. The California Courts’ Traffic and Ticket Basics webpage acknowledges that there are many reasons why individuals who have received citations, fail to receive “courtesy notices” and point out that the court is not required to send further notice. (www.courts.ca.gov/8452.htm) Without knowing that community service, reduced fines, or payment plans are possibilities, people often think their only option is to pay. With fines at an all-time high, many simply can’t pay, so instead they do nothing – not realizing that doing nothing can set in motion a financially disastrous chain of events. (http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-Courts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf.)
   
3. Imposition of Civil Assessment When Individual Misses a Court Date or Fails to Pay Fine: When a person misses a court date or a deadline to pay a traffic ticket, the court can add up to $300 to the original fine. (Pen. Code, § 1214.1.) This amount is referred to as a “civil assessment” and may only be imposed if the person gets notice and still does not pay or appear within a 20 days of mailing of notice.
   
   However, people who say to a court clerk that they did not get the required notice often are told they still have to pay the fine. Also under state law, the fine should be vacated if the person has “good cause” for not appearing or paying. Anecdotally, many courts do not tell people that if they have a good reason for not appearing or paying, they may not have to pay the assessment. If the person with the ticket figures out that they can ask the court in writing to cancel the civil assessment, most courts will only do so under circumstances much narrower than the “good cause” articulated in the statute. In addition, even if the person is eventually found not guilty of the traffic violation in court, courts still require payment of the civil assessment.
   
   Though state law sets these civil assessments at “up to $300,” and allows the court to decide if and when to impose them, courts in practice add the full $300 for every delinquent ticket, regardless of ability to pay or severity of the ticketed offense. At the $300 level, these civil assessments often grossly outweigh the base fine for the offense.
   
   Many traffic courts do initially have options if you cannot afford to pay a fine, ranging from community service to reduced fines for people on public assistance. In fact, when an individual appears in court on a citation, the judge is required by law to consider ability to pay if requested. However, many courts do not tell people about the right to request an ability to pay determination or mention that community service is an option. (http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-Courts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf.)
   
4. The Governor’s Proposed Budget For 2017-2018 Would Eliminate License Suspension When a Person Fails to Pay Their Traffic Fine: The Governor’s Budget Summary for 2017-2018 addresses the courts’ use of drivers’ license suspension for failure to pay fines as a collection method for outstanding debt. The Budget Summary notes that “there does not appear to be a strong connection between suspending someone’s drivers license and collecting their fine or penalty.” The Budget Summary mentions that the primary consequence of a license suspension is the inability to legally drive to work or take one’s children to school. For those reasons, the Governor’s Budget proposes to eliminate the statutory provisions related to suspending drivers licenses for failure to pay fines and penalties. (Governor’s Budget Summary, Public Safety, 2017-2018, p. 84.)
   
5. Argument in Support: According to the Western Center on Law and Poverty, “The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that there is $12.3 billion in uncollected court fines and fees in California. The plethora of different state and local fines tacked onto traffic tickets can significantly increase the cost of being ticketed. For example, a citation for failure to carry proof of insurance has a base fine of $100, but additional fees make the actual cost $490. If the citation payment is not paid on time, the cost increases to $815.
   
   “Low-income residents throughout California rely on driving to get to work, access medical care, buy healthy food, and meet their most basic needs. When at-risk individuals and families must choose between addressing a minor traffic ticket or paying the rent, they often choose the latter, unknowingly placing themselves at risk of license suspension. According to a recent report, more than 17% of adult Californians now have suspended licenses for a failure to appear or pay traffic tickets, fees, and fines. Worse still, those who take the risk of driving with suspended licenses risk incarceration in county jails.
   
   “Under current law, courts impose a $300 “civil assessment” – a debilitating amount of money for many Californians – against those who fail to appear in court or pay their fines. This fine is assessed regardless of income. AB 412 would change the law to provide litigants an opportunity to show “good cause,” including inability to pay, to vacate the civil assessment. AB 412 would also outline other forms of good cause, including illness, homelessness, and caregiving.
   
   “The Civil Assessment Fee was set so that courts could stop issuing warrants for late payments and induce people to pay their fine. Unfortunately, this fee has had the effect of punishing those who could not pay for their original fine. The impact of the fee is increased when courts send the citation to collections agencies.
   
   “Individuals who have trouble paying rent or keeping food on the table cannot also pay off these tickets, resulting in ruined credit. This affects their ability to find housing or receive loans for necessities such as a car to get to work, leaving these individuals unable to get their life back on track and trapped in a continuous cycle of debt and poverty.
   
   “Ultimately, AB 412 would help ensure that low-income individuals and families faced with traffic tickets have an opportunity to break out of debt, retain their licenses, and maintain their livelihoods. California should take this important step to protect low-income drivers.”
   
6. Related Legislation: SB 185 (Hertzberg), would require courts in traffic cases to reduce fines based on a finding that the defendant is indigent. Would provide additional time to defendants before their driver’s license could be suspended for a failure to appear in court on a vehicle code offense. SB 185 is set for hearing in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 4, 2017.
   
7. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 405 (Hertzberg), Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015, provided that payment of bail, fines, penalties, fees, or a civil assessment is not required in order for the court to vacate the assessment at the time the person makes an appearance, as specified. SB 405 also provides that payment of a civil assessment is not required to schedule a court hearing on a pending underlying charge.
      
   2. SB 85 (Budget Bill), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2013, created the traffic amnesty program.
      
   3. SB 366 (Wright), of the Legislative Session of 2013-2014, would have given courts more discretion to consider defendants ability to pay in setting fines and fees. SB 366 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committeee.
      
   4. AB 2724 (Bradford), of the Legislative Session of 2013-2014, would have allowed defendants to get their driving privileges back when the driver’s license had been suspended for failing to pay a fine, if they agree to pay in installments. SB 2724 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union of California (Co-Sponsor)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (Co-Sponsor)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth
Community Legal Services in east Palo Alto
Courage Campaign
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Justice Society
Homeboy Industries
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Jobs with Justice – San Francisco
National Employment Law Project
Prison Policy Initiative
Proteus, Inc.
Riverside Temple Beth El
Root & Rebound

Rubicon Programs
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program
San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness
St. Columba Church
Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services
W. Haywood Burns Institute

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: