Existing law prohibits the release of any person on his or her own recognizance who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, including theft, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.

This bill would further apply this prohibition to any offense involving domestic violence or any offense in which the defendant caused great bodily injury to another person, and would remove the prohibition as it pertains to an offense of theft. For all other new felony offenses, the bill would prohibit the release of a person on his or her own recognizance without a hearing in open court if the person has failed to appear in court 3 or more times over the 3 preceding years, unless the person is released under a court-operated pretrial release program or a pretrial release program with approval by the court.

Existing law prohibits the release of any person on his or her own recognizance who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, including theft, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.

This bill would further apply this prohibition to any offense involving domestic violence or any offense in which the defendant caused great bodily injury to another person, and would remove the prohibition as it pertains to an offense of theft. For all other new felony offenses, the bill would prohibit the release of a person on his or her own recognizance without a hearing in open court if the person has failed to appear in court 3 or more times over the 3 preceding years, unless the person is released under a court-operated pretrial release program or a pretrial release program with approval by the court.

Existing law prohibits the release of any person on his or her own recognizance who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, including theft, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.

This bill would limit the above-described prohibition on releasing a person on his or her own recognizance to a person who is arrested for a new felony offense. The bill would further apply this prohibition to any felony offense involving domestic violence or any offense in which the defendant caused great bodily injury to another person, and would remove the prohibition as it pertains to an offense of theft. For all other new felony offenses, the bill would prohibit the release of a person on his or her own recognizance without a hearing in open court if the person has failed to appear in court 3 or more times over the 3 preceding years, unless the person is released under a court-operated pretrial release program or a pretrial release program with approval by the court.

Existing law prohibits the release of any person on his or her own recognizance who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, crimes, including theft, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.

Existing law prohibits the release of any person on his or her own recognizance who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.

This bill would allow a court to approve, without a hearing in open court, own recognizance releases under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program for arrestees with 3 or more prior failures to appear.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 789

Author:(Rubio)

As Amended Ver:July 17, 2017

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.

SUMMARY: Allows a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program for arrestees of specified felony offenses with three or more prior failures to appear.

The Senate amendments

1. Provide that a person arrested for a new offense shall not be released on his or her own recognizance, until a hearing is held in open court, if any of the following apply:
   1. The person is currently on felony probation or felony parole;
   2. The person has three or more failures to appear over the three years preceding the current arrest and is arrested for any of the following offenses:
      1. any gang-related offense;
      2. any assault and battery;
      3. any residential burglary;
      4. any offense in which the defendant is alleged to have been armed with or to have personally used a firearm.
      5. any offense involving domestic violence;
      6. any offense in which the defendant is alleged to have caused great bodily injury to another person; or,
      7. any other felony offense unless the person is released pursuant to a court-operated pretrial release program or a pretrial release program with approval by the court.
2. Remove the prohibition against OR release without a hearing for arrestees of theft with three or more prior failures to appear.
3. Specify that this provision does not change the statutory requirement to hold a hearing in open court before the magistrate or judge in cases in which the person is arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order.
4. State that this provision does not alter or diminish the rights conferred under Marsy's Law.^[1]

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, generally, that a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor or charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to OR release, unless the court makes a finding on the record that OR release a) will compromise public safety, or b) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required.
2. Provides, generally, that a person who is arrested for or charged with a felony may be released on OR in the court's discretion.
3. Requires that if an OR release is denied, "a court or magistrate" must "make[] a finding on the record . . . that an [OR] release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required."
4. Requires a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order. In making the determination whether to release the detained person on his or her own recognizance, the court must consider the potential danger to other persons, including threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence. The court must also consider any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond.
5. Provides for an investigative staff, if approved by the board of supervisors, that would recommend to the court "whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance." After an investigation, the recommending report shall verify the defendant's outstanding warrants, prior failures to appear, criminal record, and the defendant's residence during the past year.
6. Sets forth the procedures that apply to a defendant's OR release. To be released on OR a defendant must first file a signed release agreement, which includes a promise to appear and a promise to obey all reasonable conditions that the "court or magistrate" imposes with respect to the OR. By the agreement the defendant also promises not to leave California without permission and waives extradition if there is a failure to appear.
7. Requires a hearing, as specified, before any person arrested for a violent felony be released on OR. In making the determination as to whether or not to grant release, the court must consider: the existence of any outstanding felony warrants on the defendant; any other information presented in the report prepared by a county investigator's staff as specified; and any other information presented by the prosecuting attorney." Within the time period specified, the magistrate or court must state the reasons for granting OR relief.
8. Prohibits the court from releasing an arrested person on OR, if he or she is currently on felony probation or parole, until a hearing is held.
9. Prohibits the court from releasing a person arrested for specified offenses, who has three or more failures to appear over three years preceding the current arrest (except for Vehicle Code based infractions), on his or her OR, until a hearing is held before the judge or magistrate. The specified offenses are:
   1. any felony;
   2. any gang-related;
   3. any assault and battery;
   4. theft;
   5. burglary; and
   6. any offense in which the defendant is alleged to have been armed with or to have personally used a firearm.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill allowed a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program for arrestees of specified offenses with three or more prior failures to appear.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Courts are increasingly implementing evidence-based pretrial release programs designed to ensure (1) the court's release decisions are informed by a risk assessment, with recommendations based on county-specific guidelines that establish which defendants are eligible for release; and (2) individuals granted OR release receive appropriate levels of supervision by court-operated or court-approved programs rather than being released without any form of supervision. State law sets forth statutory requirements for arrestees who receive court-approved OR release and courts have broad authority to impose additional conditions including, when appropriate, drug testing and electronic monitoring.

"Some courts include an OR release component that operates during noncourt hours. On-call magistrates approve OR releases that allow arrestees to return to their jobs and families, while imposing statutory conditions and appropriate levels of supervision. However, these innovative programs have been hindered by the inflexible requirements of [Penal Code] section 1319.5, which require a hearing in open court before some arrestees can be granted OR release. During noncourt hours, including weekends and holidays, jail officials may have no option but to release offenders without supervision or court date reminders. Many of those offenders will fail to appear for subsequent court dates, and the dysfunctional cycle of arrest and unsupervised jail release continues

"This proposal amends [Penal Code] section 1319.5 to allow judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court operated or court-approved pretrial release program will [sic.] encourage more efficient processing of cases, more appropriate levels of supervision, and a possible reduction in jail overcrowding."

Analysis Prepared by: Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001230

1. On November 4, 2008, the People of the State of California approved Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law. This measure amended the California Constitution to provide additional rights to victims. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 789

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/20/17

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-30, 4/6/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Criminal procedure: release on own recognizance

SOURCE: Judicial Council

DIGEST:

This bill allows a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release into a pretrial release program for certain arrestees with three or more prior failures to appear (FTAs).

Senate Floor Amendments of 7/17/17 make clarifying and non-substantive changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides generally that a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor or charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to OR release, unless the court makes a finding on the record that OR release (a) will compromise public safety, or (b) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, §§ 1270, 1275.)
2. Provides generally that a person who is arrested for or charged with a felony may be released on OR in the court’s discretion. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12.)
3. Requires that if an OR release is denied, a court or magistrate must make a finding on the record that an OR release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, § 1270.)
4. Requires a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order. In making the determination whether to release the detained person on his or her OR, the court must consider the potential danger to other persons, including threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence. The court must also consider any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond. (Pen. Code, § 1270.1.)
5. Provides for an investigative staff, if approved by the board of supervisors, that would recommend to the court “whether a defendant should be released on his or her OR.” After an investigation, the recommending report shall verify the defendant’s outstanding warrants, prior FTAs, criminal record, and the defendant’s residence during the past year. (Pen. Code, § 1318.1.)
6. Specifies that to be released on OR a defendant must first file a signed release agreement, which includes a promise to appear and a promise to obey all reasonable conditions that the “court or magistrate” imposes with respect to the OR. By the agreement the defendant also promises not to leave California without permission and waives extradition if there is a failure to appear. (Pen. Code, § 1318.)
7. Requires a hearing, as specified, before any person arrested for a violent felony be released on OR. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subd. (a).)
8. States that in making the determination as to whether or not to grant release, the court must consider: the existence of any outstanding felony warrants on the defendant; any other information presented in the report prepared by a county investigator’s staff as specified; and any other information presented by the prosecuting attorney. The magistrate or court must state the reasons for granting OR. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subds. (b) & (c).)
9. Prohibits the release of any person on OR who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, three or more times over the three years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge. (Pen. Code, § 1319.5, subs. (a) & (b)(2).)

This bill:

1. Adds offenses involving domestic violence and when the defendant caused great bodily injury to the specified offenses in existing law that requires a hearing prior to releasing a person on OR when the person has three or more prior FTAs within the past three years.
2. Provides that for offenses other than those specified where a defendant has had three or more prior FTAs, the defendant may be released into a pretrial release program at the court’s discretion.
3. Clarifies that this bill’s provisions do not change the current requirement under another Penal Code section that prohibits individuals arrested for specified offenses from being released on OR until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.
4. Clarifies that this bill’s provisions do not alter or diminish any rights conferred under Section 28 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, also known as Marsy’s Law.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/19/17)

Judicial Council (source)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Judges Association

California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association

California Public Defenders Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Sheriffs’ Association

Reentry Council of the City and County of San Francisco

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/20/17)

Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny

Congress of Racial Equality

Crime Survivors

Professional Bail Agents of the United States

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: According to California State Association of Counties, “AB 789 would allow judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program. This measure will encourage more efficient processing of criminal cases, more appropriate levels of offender supervision, and a reduction in jail overcrowding.”

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION: According to Crime Survivors, “Public safety and the safety of the victim are the primary considerations when determining eligibility for own recognizance release (Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 28(f)(3)). These defendants are a public safety risk because they have been arrested for a new offense which could be a felony, while their previous criminal case was pending, thereby creating a new crime victim. These defendants have also shown they are a flight risk by not appearing in court 3 or more times over the previous 3 years.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-30, 4/6/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Caballero, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Daly, Eggman, Rendon

Prepared by:

7/20/17 15:16:13

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 789

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/20/17

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-30, 4/6/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Judicial Council

DIGEST:

This bill allows a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release into a pretrial release program for certain arrestees with three or more prior failures to appear (FTAs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides generally that a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor or charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to OR release, unless the court makes a finding on the record that OR release (1) will compromise public safety, or (2) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, §§ 1270, 1275.)
2. Provides generally that a person who is arrested for or charged with a felony may be released on OR in the court’s discretion. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12.)
3. Requires that if an OR release is denied, a court or magistrate must make a finding on the record that an OR release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, § 1270.)
4. Requires a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order. In making the determination whether to release the detained person on his or her own recognizance, the court must consider the potential danger to other persons, including threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence. The court must also consider any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond. (Pen. Code, § 1270.1.)
5. Provides for an investigative staff, if approved by the board of supervisors, that would recommend to the court “whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.” After an investigation, the recommending report shall verify the defendant’s outstanding warrants, prior FTAs, criminal record, and the defendant’s residence during the past year. (Pen. Code, § 1318.1.)
6. Specifies that to be released on OR a defendant must first file a signed release agreement, which includes a promise to appear and a promise to obey all reasonable conditions that the “court or magistrate” imposes with respect to the OR. By the agreement the defendant also promises not to leave California without permission and waives extradition if there is a failure to appear. (Pen. Code, § 1318.)
7. Requires a hearing, as specified, before any person arrested for a violent felony be released on OR. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subd. (a).)
8. States that in making the determination as to whether or not to grant release, the court must consider: the existence of any outstanding felony warrants on the defendant; any other information presented in the report prepared by a county investigator’s staff as specified; and any other information presented by the prosecuting attorney. The magistrate or court must state the reasons for granting OR. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subds. (b) & (c).)
9. Prohibits the release of any person on OR who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge. (Pen. Code, § 1319.5, subs. (a) & (b)(2).)

This bill:

1. Adds offenses involving domestic violence and when the defendant caused great bodily injury to the specified offenses in existing law that requires a hearing prior to releasing a person on OR when the person has three or more prior FTAs within the past three years.
2. Provides that for offenses other than those specified where a defendant has had three or more prior FTAs, the defendant may be released into a pretrial release program at the court’s discretion.
3. Clarifies that the bill’s provisions do not change the current requirement under another Penal Code section that prohibits individuals arrested for specified offenses from being released on OR until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.
4. Clarifies that the bill’s provisions do not alter or diminish any rights conferred under Section 28 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, also known as Marsy’s Law.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/20/17)

Judicial Council (source)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Judges Association

California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association

California Public Defenders Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Sheriffs’ Association

Reentry Council of the City and County of San Francisco

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/20/17)

Crime Survivors

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: According to California State Association of Counties, “AB 789 would allow judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program. This measure will encourage more efficient processing of criminal cases, more appropriate levels of offender supervision, and a reduction in jail overcrowding.”

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION: According to Crime Survivors, “Public safety and the safety of the victim are the primary considerations when determining eligibility for own recognizance release (Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 28(f)(3)). These defendants are a public safety risk because they have been arrested for a new offense which could be a felony, while their previous criminal case was pending, thereby creating a new crime victim. These defendants have also shown they are a flight risk by not appearing in court 3 or more times over the previous 3 years.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-30, 4/6/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Caballero, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Daly, Eggman, Rendon

Prepared by:

6/21/17 13:38:27

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 789 Hearing Date: June 20, 2017

Subject: Criminal Procedure: Release on Own Recognizance

HISTORY

Source: Judicial Council

Prior Legislation: SB 163 (Hertzberg), 2015, held without further action

SB 210 (Hancock), 2013, placed on Assembly Inactive File

SB 105 (Steinberg), Chapter 310, Statutes of 2014

SB 210 (Hancock), 2011, held without further action

SB 1180 (Hancock), 2012, placed on Senate Inactive File

Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Judges Association; California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association; California Public Defenders Association; California State Association of Counties; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Reentry Council of the City and County of San Francisco

Opposition: Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 46 - 30

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to allow a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release under a pretrial release program for certain arrestees with three or more prior failures to appear (FTAs).

Existing law generally provides that a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor or charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to OR release, unless the court makes a finding on the record that OR release (1) will compromise public safety, or (2) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, §§ 1270, 1275.)

Existing law generally provides that a person who is arrested for or charged with a felony may be released on OR in the court’s discretion. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12.)

Existing law requires that if an OR release is denied, a court or magistrate must make a finding on the record that an OR release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, § 1270.)

Existing law requires a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order. In making the determination whether to release the detained person on his or her own recognizance, the court must consider the potential danger to other persons, including threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence. The court must also consider any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond. (Pen. Code, § 1270.1.)

Existing law provides for an investigative staff, if approved by the board of supervisors, that would recommend to the court “whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.” (Pen. Code, § 1318.1, subd. (a).) After an investigation, the recommending report shall verify the defendant’s outstanding warrants, prior FTAs, criminal record, and the defendant’s residence during the past year. (Pen. Code, § 1318.1, subd. (b).)

Existing law specifies that to be released on OR a defendant must first file a signed release agreement, which includes a promise to appear and a promise to obey all reasonable conditions that the “court or magistrate” imposes with respect to the OR. By the agreement the defendant also promises not to leave California without permission and waives extradition if there is a failure to appear. (Pen. Code, § 1318.)

Existing law requires a hearing, as specified, before any person arrested for a violent felony be released on OR. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that in making the determination as to whether or not to grant release, the court must consider: the existence of any outstanding felony warrants on the defendant; any other information presented in the report prepared by a county investigator’s staff as specified; and any other information presented by the prosecuting attorney. The magistrate or court must state the reasons for granting OR relief. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subds. (b) & (c).)

Existing law prohibits the court from releasing an arrested person on OR, if he or she is currently on felony probation or parole, until a hearing is held. (Pen. Code, § 1319.5, subds. (a), (b)(1).)

Existing law prohibits the release of any person on OR who is arrested for a new offense and who is currently on felony probation or felony parole or who has failed to appear in court as ordered, resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest, and who is arrested for any felony offense or other specified crimes, until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge. (Pen. Code, § 1319.5, subs. (a) & (b)(2).)

This bill narrows the application of the above provision to the currently specified felonies, and adds the offenses involving domestic violence or when the defendant caused great bodily injury to another person.

This bill states that for all other felonies, the court is authorized to grant OR release under a court-operated or other pretrial release program even if a person has failed to appear in court as ordered resulting in a warrant being issued, 3 or more times over the 3 years preceding the current arrest.

This bill clarifies that its provisions do not change the current requirement under Penal Code section 1270.1 that individuals arrested for specified offenses shall not be released on OR until a hearing is held in open court before the magistrate or judge.

This bill clarifies that its provisions do not alter or diminish any rights conferred under Section 28 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, also known as Marsy’s Law.

This bill makes other conforming changes.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Currently, the law requires a hearing in open court before an offender arrested for a felony offense, who has previously failed to appear (FTA) in court three or more times over the preceding three years, may be granted OR release. If a defendant with three or more FTAs is arrested the defendant must be arraigned with 48 hours, and if a defendant is arrested on the weekend or a holiday, the actual time is longer because weekend dates and holidays are excluded from that time. In contrast, if a defendant has less than three FTAs, a court may order that the defendant be placed into a court-approved pretrial release program without a hearing, allowing the defendant to return more quickly to the community.

As a result of the open-hearing requirement a defendant who is an appropriate candidate for placement into a court-approved pretrial release program is either: (1) held in jail while awaiting the mandatory hearing or (2) in counties with overcrowded jails, especially those subject to a court order capping the jail population, the sheriff releases the defendants without supervision. Unfortunately, courts are hindered by the requirements of section 1319.5 because if a defendant having three or more FTAs is released prior to a hearing in open court, a court will not be able to place the individual in a pretrial release program that would require supervision.

Also, when defendants are released without supervision, they often fail to appear at their court dates and since they are unsupervised, this raises public safety concerns. Other defendants who are appropriate candidates for release into a court-approved pretrial program remain in jail until the hearing, which can, among other things, create hardships for their employment and families.

2. OR Release Generally

In cases where the defendant is likely to return to court and where the safety of the public or specific persons will not be put at risk, a court can release someone on his or her own recognizance (OR). This includes both felonies and misdemeanors. An OR release is essentially release without payment of bail pending trial or other resolution of a criminal case.

In order to be released on OR:

[T]he defendant signs a release agreement promising to appear at all required court hearings in lieu of posting bail. Before granting an OR release, the judge must evaluate the defendants flight risk by considering the defendants ties to the community, whether the defendant has a past record of failures to appear in court, and the possible sentence the defendant faces if convicted. The judge must also evaluate risk to public safety by considering any threats that have been made by the defendant, as well as any record of violent acts.

In counties with active pretrial programs, the judge may consider pretrial reports and recommendations based on interviews and evaluations that assess the defendant’s public safety and flight risk. For example, in Marin County, the county probation department contracts with an independent agency that provides pretrial services. Using an evidence-based pretrial risk-assessment tool, agency staff evaluates eligible defendants along three dimensions: criminal history, employment and residential stability, and drug use. Following a verification process and an evaluation of danger to self or others, the agency prepares a recommendation along with a report. After approval by the probation department, the report is submitted to the court. In addition to supplying the court with recommendations and reports, these programs may also offer a range of conditional release options. These release options may include release on electronic monitoring, release with alcohol monitoring, or release to home detention. If pretrial release is not granted and bail is fixed by the court, realignment legislation also permits the sheriff to authorize the pretrial release of inmates. Under the legislation, a county board of supervisors must first designate the sheriff as the county’s correctional administrator and may then authorize the correctional administrator to place pretrial jail inmates who do not pose a significant threat to public safety in an electronic monitoring program when specified conditions are met. (Tafoya, Assessing the Impact of Bail on California's Jail Population, Public Policy Institute of California (June 2013), p. 8 (citations omitted).)

3. Ongoing Concerns over County Jail Populations

The most recently available data from the BSCC shows that the majority of jail inmates are unsentenced, roughly 62 percent of the population. Data shows that California relies more heavily on pretrial detention than the rest of the United States. (Sonya Tafoya, Pretrial Detention and Jail Capacity in California, Public Policy Institute of California (July 2015) <http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1154> [as of March 15, 2017].) This dynamic strains the capacity of county jails making it necessary to release sentenced inmates, while people who have not been found guilty of any crimes wait in jail because they have not been released on OR and cannot afford to post bail.

This bill would help relieve jail overcrowding by authorizing courts to grant OR release to defendants with three or more prior FTAs who under the current statute are required to have a hearing prior to being released. The bill adds to the current list of offenses that requires a hearing, specifically offenses involving domestic violence or great bodily injury to another person, but for all other felonies not specified in the statute, the court would be authorized to release a person on OR without a hearing.

It is important to note that there are other existing statutes that require a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release a person on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony, specified crimes of domestic violence, and specified violations of a protective order. (Pen. Code, §§ 1270.1, 1319.) This bill specifies that those other statutes are not repealed, so those crimes specified in other statutes would still require a hearing prior to release on OR. Additionally, this bill clarifies its provisions do not change or diminish any rights conferred under Section 28 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, also known as Marsy’s Law.

4. Argument in Support

The California State Association of Counties, writes in support:

Existing law requires a hearing in open court before an offender arrested for certain offenses who has previously failed to appear in court three or more times over the preceding three years, may be granted OR release. In counties where a sizeable portion of those arrested already have multiple FTAs due to jail overcrowding and other factors, the restriction within the law limits judicial discretion and courts’ efficient use of court-operated or court-approved pretrial release programs to process releases for eligible defendants during non-court hours.

Some courts include an OR release component that operates during non-court hours. On-call magistrates approve OR releases that allow arrested to return to their jobs and families, while imposing statutory conditions and appropriate levels of supervision. However, these innovative programs have been hindered by the inflexible requirements of the current law. During non-court hours, including weekends and holidays, jail officials may have no option but to release offenders without supervision or court date reminders. Many of those offenders will fail to appear for subsequent court dates, and the dysfunction cycle of arrest and unsupervised jail release repeats.

Specifically, AB 789 would allow judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program. This measure will encourage more efficient processing of criminal cases, more appropriate levels of offender supervision, and a reduction in jail overcrowding.

5. Argument in Opposition

The Riverside Sheriffs’ Association is in opposition to this bill, and states:

The Riverside Sheriffs’ Association regrets that it must oppose AB 789 (Rubio) which would allow defendants with repeated, proven failures to appear in court to be granted release on own recognizance.

Such releases are traditionally reserved for those most likely to appear in court and few counties have the excess resources needed to track down those who habitually fail to appear in court. This bill would exacerbate this problem.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 789

Author:(Rubio)

As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Allows a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program for arrestees of specified offenses with three or more prior failures to appear.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, generally, that a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor or charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to OR release, unless the court makes a finding on the record that OR release a) will compromise public safety, or b) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required.
2. Provides, generally, that a person who is arrested for or charged with a felony may be released on OR in the court's discretion.
3. Requires that if an OR release is denied, "a court or magistrate" must "make[] a finding on the record . . . that an [OR] release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required."
4. Requires a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order. In making the determination whether to release the detained person on his or her own recognizance, the court must consider the potential danger to other persons, including threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence. The court must also consider any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond.
5. Provides for an investigative staff, if approved by the board of supervisors, that would recommend to the court "whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance." After an investigation, the recommending report shall verify the defendant's outstanding warrants, prior failures to appear, criminal record, and the defendant's residence during the past year.
6. Sets forth the procedures that apply to a defendant's OR release. To be released on OR a defendant must first file a signed release agreement, which includes a promise to appear and a promise to obey all reasonable conditions that the "court or magistrate" imposes with respect to the OR. By the agreement the defendant also promises not to leave California without permission and waives extradition if there is a failure to appear.
7. Requires a hearing, as specified, before any person arrested for a violent felony be released on OR. In making the determination as to whether or not to grant release, the court must consider: the existence of any outstanding felony warrants on the defendant; any other information presented in the report prepared by a county investigator's staff as specified; and any other information presented by the prosecuting attorney." Within the time period specified, the magistrate or court must state the reasons for granting OR relief.
8. Prohibits the court from releasing an arrested person on OR, if he or she is currently on felony probation or parole, until a hearing is held.
9. Prohibits the court from releasing a person arrested for specified offenses, who has three or more failures to appear over three years preceding the current arrest (except for Vehicle Code based infractions), on his or her OR, until a hearing is held before the judge or magistrate. The specified offenses are:
   1. any felony;
   2. any gang-related;
   3. any assault and battery;
   4. theft;
   5. burglary; and
   6. any offense in which the defendant is alleged to have been armed with or to have personally used a firearm.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: "Courts are increasingly implementing evidence-based pretrial release programs designed to ensure (1) the court's release decisions are informed by a risk assessment, with recommendations based on county-specific guidelines that establish which defendants are eligible for release; and (2) individuals granted OR release receive appropriate levels of supervision by court-operated or court-approved programs rather than being released without any form of supervision. State law sets forth statutory requirements for arrestees who receive court-approved OR release and courts have broad authority to impose additional conditions including, when appropriate, drug testing and electronic monitoring.

"Some courts include an OR release component that operates during noncourt hours. On-call magistrates approve OR releases that allow arrestees to return to their jobs and families, while imposing statutory conditions and appropriate levels of supervision. However, these innovative programs have been hindered by the inflexible requirements of section 1319.5, which require a hearing in open court before some arrestees can be granted OR release. During noncourt hours, including weekends and holidays, jail officials may have no option but to release offenders without supervision or court date reminders. Many of those offenders will fail to appear for subsequent court dates, and the dysfunctional cycle of arrest and unsupervised jail release continues

"This proposal amends section 1319.5 to allow judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court operated or court-approved pretrial release program will [sic.] encourage more efficient processing of cases, more appropriate levels of supervision, and a possible reduction in jail overcrowding."

Analysis Prepared by: Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000060

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Cheryl Anderson

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 789

Author:(Rubio) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2017

SUMMARY:

1. Allows a court to approve, without a hearing, own recognizance (OR) release under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program for arrestees of specified offenses with three or more prior failures to appear.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, generally, that a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor or charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to OR release, unless the court makes a finding on the record that OR release (1) will compromise public safety, or (2) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. (Pen. Code, §§ 1270, 1275.)
   
2. Provides, generally, that a person who is arrested for or charged with a felony may be released on OR in the court’s discretion. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12.)
   
3. Requires that if an OR release is denied, “a court or magistrate” must “make[] a finding on the record . . . that an [OR] release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required.” (Pen. Code, § 1270.)
   
4. Requires a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony (other than residential burglary), specified crimes of domestic violence, or specified violations of a protective order. In making the determination whether to release the detained person on his or her own recognizance, the court must consider the potential danger to other persons, including threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence. The court must also consider any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond. (Pen. Code, § 1270.1.)
   
5. Provides for an investigative staff, if approved by the board of supervisors, that would recommend to the court “whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.” (Pen. Code, § 1318.1, subd. (a).) After an investigation, the recommending report shall verify the defendant’s outstanding warrants, prior failures to appear, criminal record, and the defendant’s residence during the past year. (Pen. Code, § 1318.1, subd. (b).)
   
6. Sets forth the procedures that apply to a defendant’s OR release. (Pen. Code § 1318, et seq.) To be released on OR a defendant must first file a signed release agreement, which includes a promise to appear and a promise to obey all reasonable conditions that the “court or magistrate” imposes with respect to the OR. (Pen. Code, § 1318.) By the agreement the defendant also promises not to leave California without permission and waives extradition if there is a failure to appear. (Pen. Code, § 1318.)
   
7. Requires a hearing, as specified, before any person arrested for a violent felony be released on OR. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subd. (a).) In making the determination as to whether or not to grant release, the court must consider: the existence of any outstanding felony warrants on the defendant; any other information presented in the report prepared by a county investigator’s staff as specified; and any other information presented by the prosecuting attorney.” (Pen. Code, § 1319, subd. (b).) Within the time period specified, the magistrate or court must state the reasons for granting OR relief. (Pen. Code, § 1319, subd. (c).)
   
8. Prohibits the court from releasing an arrested person on OR, if he or she is currently on felony probation or parole, until a hearing is held. (Pen. Code, § 1319.5, subds. (a), (b)(1).)
   
9. Prohibits the court from releasing a person arrested for specified offenses, who has three or more failures to appear over three years preceding the current arrest (except for Vehicle Code based infractions), on his or her OR, until a hearing is held before the judge or magistrate. The specified offenses are:
   
   1. any felony;
      
   2. any gang-related;
      
   3. any assault and battery;
      
   4. theft;
      
   5. burglary; and
      
   6. any offense in which the defendant is alleged to have been armed with or to have personally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 1319.5, subds. (a), (b)(2).)
      

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement: According to the author, “Courts are increasingly implementing evidence-based pretrial release programs designed to ensure (1) the court’s release decisions are informed by a risk assessment, with recommendations based on county-specific guidelines that establish which defendants are eligible for release; and (2) individuals granted OR release receive appropriate levels of supervision by court-operated or court-approved programs rather than being released without any form of supervision. State law sets forth statutory requirements for arrestees who receive court-approved OR release and courts have broad authority to impose additional conditions including, when appropriate, drug testing and electronic monitoring.
   
   “Some courts include an OR release component that operates during noncourt hours. On-call magistrates approve OR releases that allow arrestees to return to their jobs and families, while imposing statutory conditions and appropriate levels of supervision. However, these innovative programs have been hindered by the inflexible requirements of section 1319.5, which require a hearing in open court before some arrestees can be granted OR release. During noncourt hours, including weekends and holidays, jail officials may have no option but to release offenders without supervision or court date reminders. Many of those offenders will fail to appear for subsequent court dates, and the dysfunctional cycle of arrest and unsupervised jail release continues
   
   “This proposal amends section 1319.5 to allow judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court operated or court-approved pretrial release program will [sic.] encourage more efficient processing of cases, more appropriate levels of supervision, and a possible reduction in jail overcrowding.”
   
2. California’s Changing Corrections System: According to the Public Policy Institute of California:

Over the past 40 years, the California corrections system has gone through remarkable changes. “Tough on crime” policies led to a more-than-sevenfold increase in the prison population between 1980 and 2006. During the same period, expenditures rose dramatically and the corrections share of the state budget tripled. The growth in the prison population led to overcrowding and poor prison conditions, prompting lawsuits alleging inadequate medical and mental health care. In 2009, a federal court ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to cut its institutional population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, a reduction of almost 40,000 prisoners.

Two state measures aimed at lowering the number of offenders sent to prison for parole or probation failures began to reduce the prison population. But when the US Supreme Court upheld the population mandate in May 2011, prisons were still operating at 179.5 percent of design capacity and the state needed a reduction of about 33,000 inmates by June 2013.

California responded by enacting public safety realignment, which shifted responsibility for many non-serious, nonviolent, and non-sexual offenders to county jail and probation systems. The reform cut the prison population by about 27,400 in its first year, not enough to meet the court mandate. Two voter initiatives further trimmed the prison population: Proposition 36 in 2012 revised California’s three-strikes law and Proposition 47 in 2014 reclassified some drug and property felonies as misdemeanors. Along with court-ordered population reduction measures implemented by CDCR, these reforms have reduced the state’s prison population by almost 45,000 inmates since its peak in 2006, a 26 percent decline, bringing it to a level not seen since the mid-1990s.”

(Lofstrom & Martin, California’s Future: Corrections, Public Policy Institute of California (Jan. 2017) http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1021 [as of March 22, 2017].)

State prison and parole populations are at or below 1990s levels. “The jail population grew under realignment and then declined after the passage of Proposition 47.” (Lofstrom & Martin, supra.) “Proposition 47 brought the jail population below the statewide rated capacity . . . .” (Ibid.) “To manage jail populations, county sheriffs are increasingly using alternatives such as electronic monitoring, day reporting centers, community service, and alternative work programs. Most counties are also introducing or expanding inmate needs assessments, as well as mental health and substance abuse services, cognitive behavioral treatment, and employment and housing programs.” (Ibid.)

While “Proposition 47 reduced population pressures in county jails. Changes to the bail system and pretrial releases could further relieve population pressures and address ongoing racial disparities. Lower jail populations allow state and county correctional systems to focus more on programming, services, and treatment to help inmates reenter community life. Going forward, the state must also confront a range of longer-term needs.” (Lofstrom & Martin, supra, emphasis added.)

“Evidence-based programming and services are essential to decrease reoffending and foster successful community reentry. Progress in reducing recidivism would benefit both offenders and communities, and could also reduce corrections expenditures….” (Lofstrom & Martin, supra.)

By providing for pre-trial OR release for specified arrestees into a court-operated or court-approved program without a hearing, this bill streamlines the court process and arguably furthers the goal of reducing population pressures in county jails. It also arguably furthers the goal of inmate rehabilitation and reducing recidivism by getting defendants into programs faster and more efficiently.

Specific statutes will still require a hearing and notice, as specified, before a court may release on OR, any person arrested for a serious or violent felony, specified crimes of domestic violence, and specified violations of a protective order. (Pen. Code, §§ 1270.1, 1319.) A specific provision prevails over a more general provision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1859; Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 392, 420.)

1. Argument in Support: According to the Judicial Counsel of California, the sponsor of this bill, “Currently, Penal Code section 1319.5 requires a hearing in open court before an offender arrested for certain offenses who has previously failed to appear in court three or more times over the preceding three years may be granted OR release. In counties where a sizeable portion of those arrested already have multiple FTAs due to jail overcrowding and other factors, the restriction in section 1319.5 constrains judicial discretion and limits courts’ efficient use of court-operated or court-approved pretrial release programs to process releases for eligible defendants during noncourt hours.
   
   “Courts are increasingly implementing evidence-based pretrial release programs^[] designed to ensure (1) the court’s release decisions are informed by a risk assessment, with recommendations based on county-specific guidelines that establish which defendants are eligible for release; and (2) individuals granted specific release receive appropriate levels of supervision by court-operated or court-approved programs rather than being released without any form of supervision. Penal Code section 1318 sets forth statutory requirements for defendants who receive court-approved OR release and courts have broad authority to impose additional conditions including, when appropriate, drug testing and electronic monitoring.^[1]
   
   “Some courts include an OR release component that operates during noncourt hours. On-call magistrates approve OR releases that allow arrested to return to their jobs and families, while imposing statutory conditions and appropriate levels of supervision. However, these innovative programs have been hindered by the inflexible requirements of section 1319.5, which require a hearing in open court before some arrestees can be granted OR release. During noncourt hours, including weekends and holidays, jail officials may have no option but to release offenders without supervision or court date reminders. Many of those offenders will fail to appear for subsequent court dates, and the dysfunction cycle of arrest and unsupervised jail release repeats.
   
   “The counsel believes that allowing judges the option to grant OR release to arrestees with three or more FTAs without a hearing in open court if they are released under a court-operated or court-approved program will encourage more efficient processing of cases, more appropriate levels of supervision, and a reduction in jail overcrowding.”
   
   ¹Pretrial Progress: A Survey of Pretrial Practices and Services in California, Californians for Safety and Justice.
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “This bill would allow a person arrested on a warrant who has failed to appear three or more times in the preceding three years to be released without a hearing in open court under a court-operated or court-approved pretrial release program.
   
   “This bill would permit defendants who have a poor track record for appearing in court and who have been arrested on warrants to be released on their own recognizance without a public court hearing. As a result, the prosecution would have no input on the release of these high-risk defendants, and crime victims may be unable to obtain protective orders before these defendants are released. This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that this would be allowed for any felony offense, including domestic violence, gang crimes, and any offense in which the defendant was armed or personally used a firearm.
   
   “As you know, Penal Code section 1270.1 currently requires a hearing before an OR release for a serious or violent felony (with the exception of residential burglary), felony domestic violence, witness intimidation, or certain intentional violations of a protective order. There are good reasons for keeping domestic violence defendants in custody for a cooling-off period and not releasing them until a court protective order is in place. To the extent that the new provisions of PC 1319.5 set forth in AB 789 apply to some of those same crimes, we are concerned that existing protections for victims will be eroded by this legislation.
   
   “Even if PC 1270.1 would still be controlling for the crimes specified in that section, there remain some felony assaults, gang crimes, and other offenses that are covered only by AB 789 where a protective order may be appropriate and the prosecution should have a chance to argue against release for public safety reasons and/or to prevent delay and damage to a case due to the defendant’s expected nonappearance.”
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 163 (Hertzberg), of the 2015-16 Legislative Session, would have required the court, after holding a specified hearing, to release a person charged with a criminal offense on OR subject to specified conditions, if the court determined that releasing the person on OR would otherwise not reasonably assure his or her appearance as required or would endanger the safety of any other person or the community, and the specified conditions would reasonably assure his or her appearance and the safety of any person or the community. SB 163 was held without further action.
      
   2. SB 210 (Hancock) of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, would have revised the criteria for determining eligibility for pretrial release from custody. SB 210 was placed on the Assembly Inactive File.
      
   3. SB 105 (Steinberg) Chapter 310, Statutes of 2014, provided statutory changes necessary to implement the Governor’s plan for immediate population reductions in California State Correctional facilities and long-term solutions that are cost effective and protect public safety, including creation of the Recidivism Reduction Fund.
      
   4. SB 210 (Hancock) of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have required a court to determine, with public safety as the primary consideration, whether a defendant charged with a jail felony is eligible for release on his or her own recognizance (OR). SB 210 was held without further action.
      
   5. SB 1180 (Hancock) of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have defined and implemented, at the discretion of each county, a program of evaluation and supervision for pretrial OR release. SB 1180 was placed on the Senate Inactive File.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Judicial Counsel of California (Sponsor)
California Public Defender’s Association
California Judges Association

California State Sheriffs’ Association

Opposition

California District Attorneys Association

Crime Victims United of California

Analysis Prepared by:

Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. /