Under existing law, a judgment that a person convicted of an infraction be punished by a fine may also provide for the payment to be made within a specified time or in specified installments. Existing law requires a court, in any case when a person appears before a traffic referee or judge of the superior court for adjudication of a violation of the Vehicle Code, upon request of the defendant, to consider the defendants ability to pay, as specified.

This bill would require the court, in any case involving an infraction filed with the court, to determine whether the defendant is indigent for purposes of determining what portion of the statutory amount of any associated fine, fee, assessment, or other financial penalties the person can afford to pay. The bill would provide that the defendant can demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing specified information, including attesting to his or her indigent status under penalty of perjury. Because a violation thereof would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the court to reduce the base fine and associated fees by 80% if the court establishes that the defendant is indigent, and to provide alternatives to immediate payment of the sentence, including a payment plan option. The bill would require the court to determine the amount a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator developed by the Judicial Council, as specified. For persons not found to be indigent, the bill would require that the monthly payment not exceed 5% of the defendants family monthly income, as provided. For defendants found to be indigent, the bill would require that monthly payments be $0 until the defendants financial circumstances change, and would require the remaining amount owed to be discharged after 48 months in the interest of justice.

Existing law authorizes any county or court to implement a comprehensive collection program as a separate revenue collection activity, and requires the program to meet certain criteria, one of which is that the program engages in specified activities in collecting fines or penalties. One of those activities is initiating suspensions or holds for drivers licenses, as specified.

This bill would delete initiating suspensions or holds for drivers licenses from the list of activities the program may engage in. The bill would require the program to provide a payment plan option based on the debtors ability to pay and requires the program to notify the defendant of his or her right to an indigency determination for infractions.

Existing law requires, whenever a person is arrested for any nonfelony violation of the Vehicle Code, or for a violation of an ordinance of a city or county relating to traffic offenses and he or she is not immediately taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer to prepare in triplicate a written notice to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, as specified. Existing law further requires the officer to deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail.

This bill would require the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court and would require the reminder notice to include specified information, including an appearance date and location and the right to an indigency determination.

Existing law authorizes the court to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles when a person has failed to appear or failed to pay a fine or bail, with respect to various violations relating to vehicles. Existing law requires the department to suspend, and prohibits the department from issuing or renewing, a persons drivers license upon receipt of one of those notices, as specified.

This bill would instead require the court to issue a notice to the defendant that he or she must appear in court within 60 days, as specified, if the person has failed to appear, and authorizes the court to notify the department only when the defendant does not appear within those 60 days. The bill would also repeal the provisions authorizing the court to notify the department of a failure to pay a fine or bail. The bill would repeal certain provisions prohibiting the department from issuing or renewing a persons drivers license upon receipt of a notice of a defendants failure to pay, with respect to designated violations.

Existing law provides that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, or willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a certain lawfully imposed fine, as specified, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The bill would instead provide that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of an infraction if it is on more than one case in the past 5 years. The bill would require, for the first occurrence of any of these violations, the person to be instructed to appear before a judge or a clerk of the court to schedule a new hearing date within 60 days of the willful violation. The bill would make it an infraction to fail to appear within these 60 days. infraction. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a lawfully imposed fine.

This bill would declare that its provisions do not alter existing law related to suspension of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in connection with violations relating to reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Under existing law, a judgment that a person convicted of an infraction be punished by a fine may also provide for the payment to be made within a specified time or in specified installments. Existing law requires a court, in any case when a person appears before a traffic referee or judge of the superior court for adjudication of a violation of the Vehicle Code, upon request of the defendant, to consider the defendants ability to pay, as specified.

This bill would require the court, in any case involving an infraction under the Vehicle Code, filed with the court, to determine whether the defendant is indigent for purposes of determining what portion of the statutory amount of any associated fine, fee, assessment, or other financial penalties the person can afford to pay. The bill would provide that the defendant can demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing specified information, including attesting to his or her indigent status under penalty of perjury. Because a violation thereof would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the court to reduce the base fine and associated fees by 80% if the court establishes that the defendant is indigent, and to provide alternatives to immediate payment of the sentence, including a payment plan option. The bill would require the court to determine the amount a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator developed by the Judicial Council, as specified. For persons not found to be indigent, the bill would require that the monthly payment not exceed 5% of the defendants family monthly income, as provided. For defendants defendants found to be indigent, the bill would require that monthly payments be $0 until the defendants financial circumstances change, and would require the remaining amount owed to be discharged after 48 months in the interest of justice.

Existing law authorizes any county or court to implement a comprehensive collection program as a separate revenue collection activity, and requires the program to meet certain criteria, one of which is that the program engages in specified activities in collecting fines or penalties. One of those activities is initiating suspensions or holds for drivers licenses, as specified.

This bill would delete initiating suspensions or holds for drivers licenses from the list of activities the program may engage in. The bill would require the program to provide a payment plan option based on the debtors ability to pay and requires the program to notify the defendant of his or her right to an indigency determination for Vehicle Code infractions.

Existing law requires, whenever a person is arrested for any nonfelony violation of the Vehicle Code, or for a violation of an ordinance of a city or county relating to traffic offenses and he or she is not immediately taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer to prepare in triplicate a written notice to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, as specified. Existing law further requires the officer to deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail.

This bill would require the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court and would require the reminder notice to include specified information, including an appearance date and location and the right to an indigency determination.

Existing law authorizes the court to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles when a person has failed to appear or failed to pay a fine or bail, with respect to various violations relating to vehicles. Existing law requires the department to suspend, and prohibits the department from issuing or renewing, a persons drivers license upon receipt of one of those notices, as specified.

This bill would instead require the court to issue a notice to the defendant that he or she must appear in court within 60 days, as specified, if the person has failed to appear, and authorizes the court to notify the department only when the defendant does not appear within those 60 days. The bill would also repeal the provisions authorizing the court to notify the department of a failure to pay a fine or bail. The bill would repeal certain provisions prohibiting the department from issuing or renewing a persons drivers license upon receipt of a notice of a defendants failure to pay, with respect to designated violations.

Existing law provides that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, or willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a certain lawfully imposed fine, as specified, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The bill would instead provide that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of an infraction if it is on more than one case in the past 5 years. The bill would require, for the first occurrence of any of these violations, the person to be instructed to appear before a judge or a clerk of the court to schedule a new hearing date within 60 days of the willful violation. The bill would make it an infraction to fail to appear within these 60 days. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a lawfully imposed fine.

This bill would declare that its provisions do not alter existing law related to suspension of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in connection with violations relating to reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Under existing law, a judgment that a person convicted of an infraction be punished by a fine may also provide for the payment to be made within a specified time or in specified installments. Existing law requires a court, in any case when a person appears before a traffic referee or judge of the superior court for adjudication of a violation of the Vehicle Code, upon request of the defendant, to consider the defendants ability to pay, as specified.

This bill would require the court, in any case involving an infraction under the Vehicle Code, to determine whether the defendant is indigent for purposes of determining what portion of the statutory amount of any associated fine, fee, assessment, or other financial penalties the person can afford to pay. The bill would provide that the defendant can demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing specified information, including attesting to his or her indigent status under penalty of perjury. Because a violation thereof would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the court to reduce the base fine and associated fees by 80% if the court establishes that the defendant is indigent, and to provide alternatives to immediate payment of the sentence, including a payment plan option. The bill would require the court to determine the amount a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator developed by the Judicial Council, as specified. For persons not found to be indigent, the bill would require that the monthly payment not exceed 5% of the defendants family monthly income, as provided. For defendants found to be indigent, the bill would require that monthly payments be $0 until the defendants financial circumstances change, and would require the remaining amount owed to be discharged after 48 months in the interest of justice.

Existing law authorizes any county or court to implement a comprehensive collection program as a separate revenue collection activity, and requires the program to meet certain criteria, one of which is that the program engages in specified activities in collecting fines or penalties. One of those activities is initiating suspensions or holds for drivers licenses, as specified.

This bill would delete initiating suspensions or holds for drivers licenses from the list of activities the program may engage in. The bill would require the program to provide a payment plan option based on the debtors ability to pay and requires the program to notify the defendant of his or her right to an indigency determination for Vehicle Code infractions.

Existing law requires, whenever a person is arrested for any nonfelony violation of the Vehicle Code, or for a violation of an ordinance of a city or county relating to traffic offenses and he or she is not immediately taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer to prepare in triplicate a written notice to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, as specified. Existing law further requires the officer to deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail.

This bill would require the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court and would require the reminder notice to include specified information, including an appearance date and location and the right to an indigency determination.

Existing law authorizes the court to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles when a person has failed to appear or failed to pay a fine or bail, with respect to various violations relating to vehicles. Existing law requires the department to suspend, and prohibits the department from issuing or renewing, a persons drivers license upon receipt of one of those notices, as specified.

This bill would instead require the court to issue a notice to the defendant that he or she must appear in court within 60 days, as specified, if the person has failed to appear, and authorizes the court to notify the department only when the defendant does not appear within those 60 days. The bill would also repeal the provisions authorizing the court to notify the department of a failure to pay a fine or bail. The bill would repeal certain provisions prohibiting the department from issuing or renewing a persons drivers license upon receipt of a notice of a defendants failure to pay, with respect to designated violations.

Existing law provides that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, or willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a certain lawfully imposed fine, as specified, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The bill would instead provide that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of an infraction if it is on more than one case in the past 5 years. The bill would require, for the first occurrence of any of these violations, the person to be instructed to appear before a judge or a clerk of the court to schedule a new hearing date within 60 days of the willful violation. The bill would make it an infraction to fail to appear within these 60 days. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a lawfully imposed fine.

This bill would declare that its provisions do not alter existing law related to suspension of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in connection with violations relating to reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: August 23, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 185

Author:(Hertzberg) – As Amended Ver:May 26, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill makes numerous significant changes to court-ordered fines and fees to require courts to determine a defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees charged for traffic infractions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court to determine a defendant’s ability to pay. If a defendant is found to be indigent (as specified), the court must reduce all fines and fees by 80% on all charges currently pending for the defendant. This bill requires the court to restore fines and fees to the full amount if it is determined that the defendant willfully provided fraudulent information with regard to his or her indigent status.
2. Requires the court to conduct an indigency determination on the same day as the individual’s court appearance, for cases that are adjudicated, or as soon as possible prior to determining whether a person willfully failed to pay.
3. Requires the court to offer payment plans to all defendants charged with infractions. For non-indigent defendants this means payments that are no more than 5% of the defendant's monthly income, as specified. For indigent defendants, this bill requires the court to provide a $0 monthly payment plan until the person’s financial circumstances change. If an indigent defendant’s financial circumstances do not change in 48 months, the courts must discharge any remaining amount owed. Requires the court to change any defendant's payment plan, upon request, if the individual's income is subsequently reduced.
4. Requires Judicial Council to develop a payment calculator to determine the amount defendants owe. This calculator is required to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and updated annually to reflect inflation.
5. Reduces the penalty for failure to appear and failure to pay a traffic citation from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
6. Requires the court to send various notices to defendants at different points in the hearing and collections processes.
7. Requires the court, when community service is provided in lieu of payment, to calculate the number of hours required after the appropriate reductions are established based on the defendant's indigency status and specifies how community service rate must be calculated.
8. Requires the court, if a person misses the deadline to pay or appear, to provide an "ability to pay determination", as specified, without first paying any bail, fine, or fee.
9. Removes the requirement that comprehensive debt collection programs must initiate a driver’s license suspension for a failure to appear in court. This bill also requires removal of a driver’s license hold for failure to appear in court if the defendant later appears in court or otherwise satisfies the order of the court. In addition, the court cannot issue a bench warrant for a failure to appear in court for traffic violations.
10. Declares that it is not the Legislature's intent to alter existing law related to suspension of the driving privilege for violations related to unsafe driving behaviors such as reckless driving or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Unknown significant reduction in fine and fee revenue, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars from reduced fine and fee amounts and from collecting revenue over time from payment plans instead of all at once. Fine and fee revenues are deposited in the GF, fund court operations, and fund numerous other programs. Depending on priorities and needs, the lost revenue to courts and other programs would likely need to be backfilled, at least partially, from the GF.
2. Unknown significant GF costs to the courts to conduct indigency determination hearings, determine ability to pay, offer payments plans, develop a payment calculator, send required notices, and handle other workload from the provisions of this bill.
3. Unknown, likely minor, costs to the Department of Motor Vehicles to implement the provisions related to driver’s license holds and suspensions.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. 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.
   

Until recently, when people with traffic tickets failed to pay the fine, the court notified DMV of the failure to pay. On the basis of that notification, DMV suspended the person’s driver license. Once the DMV suspended someone’s license, there was no way to lift the suspension and restore the license until after the court notified the DMV that the fine has been fully paid. The passage AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, eliminated the ability for the court’s and DMV to suspend an individual’s license based on failure to pay a traffic fine. AB 103 went into effect on June 27, 2017. However, courts retain the authority to notify DMV of a failure to appear in court and DMV will continue to suspend a driver’s license for a failure to appear.

1. Purpose. This bill establishes guidelines for courts to determine whether a defendant of a traffic violation is indigent and requires courts to reduce the fines of indigent defendants by 80%. For defendants that do not pay the assessed fines and fees, this bill requires court debt collection programs to have a payment plan option based on the debtor’s ability to pay. This bill also provides that the fines of an indigent defendant will be discharged after four years if the defendant remains indigent. According to the author, “Several high-profile studies have shown how damaging it is to low-and moderate-income families who are unable to resolve administrative and non-safety related driving offenses. Thousands of Californians were plunged deep into debt and lost their drivers licenses and income.”
2. Related Legislation. AB 503 (Lackey) creates a process that allows indigent individuals with outstanding parking citations to repay their fines and penalties while preserving their ability to register and drive their vehicles. AB 503 was set to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 21, 2017.

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 10, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 185

Author:(Hertzberg) – As Amended Ver:May 26, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 34-6

SUBJECT: Crimes: infractions

SUMMARY: For traffic fine violations, requires courts to determine a defendant’s ability to pay; also requires courts to make accommodations if the defendant is indigent, and prohibits courts from suspending or holding an individual's driver’s license for certain violations. Specifically, this bill:

1. Reduces the penalty for failure to appear and failure to pay a traffic citation from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
2. Requires the court to send reminder notices to defendants, as specified, for traffic violations.
3. Provides that failure to receive a reminder notice does not relieve the defendant of his or her obligation to appear.
4. Requires the court to send the defendant prior notice, as specified, if the case is sent to a comprehensive collection program to recover delinquent debt.
5. Requires the court, for traffic violations, to inform defendants that they may be eligible to have their fines and fees reduced if they are determined to be indigent, as defined.
6. Requires the court, if a defendant is found to be indigent, to reduce fines and fees by 80%.
7. Requires the court to restore fines and fees to the full amount if it is determined that the defendant willfully provided fraudulent information with regard to his or her indigent status.
8. Requires the court to conduct an indigency determination on the same day as their court appearance, for cases that are adjudicated, or as soon as possible prior to determining whether a person willfully failed to pay.
9. Requires the court to provide alternatives to immediate payment, including payment plans with monthly payments that do not exceed 5% of the defendant's monthly income, as specified.
10. Requires the court to offer $0 payment per month, as specified, if an indigent individual is unable to pay until his or her financial circumstances and to discharge the remaining amount owed if there is no change in the individual's financial status over a 48 month period.
11. Requires the court, when community service is provided in lieu of payment, to calculate the number of hours required after the appropriate reductions are established based on the defendant's indigency status.
12. Requires the court to calculate community service at a rate of 150% of minimum wage, as specified.
13. Requires the court to change a defendant's payment plan, upon request, if the individual's income is subsequently reduced.
14. Requires the court, if a person misses the deadline to pay or appear, to provide an "ability to pay determination", as specified, without first paying any bail, fine, or fee.
15. Requires the court to remove a driver's license hold or suspensions for individuals who enter into or resume a payment plan.
16. Recasts provisions preventing courts from suspending a defendant's driver's license for failure to pay a fine for a traffic citation.
17. Requires the court to mail a courtesy notice to the defendant, as specified, before sending a notice to DMV that the defendant failed to appear in court.
18. Prohibits DMV from refusing to issue or renew a defendant's driver's license for failure to pay a traffic citation.
19. Declares that it is not the Legislature's intent to alter existing law related to suspension of the driving privilege for violations related to unsafe driving behaviors such as reckless driving or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the court, in cases related to traffic violations, to consider the defendant's ability to pay, as specified.
2. Authorizes the court, for penalties involving fines, to allow payments to be made within a specified time or in specified installments.
3. Authorizes the court to impose penalties when a promise to appear in court is violated including holding or suspending the individual's driver's license.
4. Requires, when a person is arrested for any non-felony traffic violation, that the arresting officer prepare, in triplicate, a written notice to appear in court and deliver one copy of the notice to the arrested person and that the arrested person appear in court on the date specified.
5. Prohibits a driver's license suspension for failure to pay a fine on a traffic violation.
   

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in unknown costs to the General Fund to provide new notices and to conduct determination hearings with regard to an individual's indigent status. Additionally, this bill is expected to also result in reductions, in millions and potentially tens of millions of dollars, in fine, fee, and assessment collection. This bill would also result in one-time costs to DMV of $330,000 and ongoing costs of $380,000 to verify licenses and failure to appear status.

COMMENTS: Base fines and penalties established in statute are generally tied to the seriousness of the violation. For example, minor motor vehicle infractions typically begin at $25 and increase with the severity of the offense. When a person cited for a motor vehicle infraction goes to pay their fine, however, they are often surprised that the total cost is substantially (oftentimes by three and four times) higher than the base fine. The increase (over and above the base fine) results from penalty assessments (or surcharges), authorized in statute, that are to help pay for state and local programs and services. For example, a jaywalking citation, which carries a base fine of $25, totals $197 once assessments are added. Similarly, parking near a sidewalk access ramp for disabled persons carries a base fine of $250 but totals $1,105 with penalty assessments.

While courts are responsible for determining the amount of fines and fees owed by individuals, local jurisdictions, for the most part, are statutorily responsible for collecting payment. Individuals who plead guilty or are convicted of traffic violations are typically required to provide full payment immediately or set up installment payment plans with a collection program. If an offender does not pay on time, the amount owed becomes delinquent, at which time, the law authorizes the collection program to use a variety of tools or sanctions (such as wage garnishments or holding or suspending driving privileges) to motivate offenders to pay their debt. Additionally, in lieu of issuing an arrest warrant, state law authorizes collection programs to impose a civil assessment of up to $300 against any offender who fails to either make payment or appear in court.

While paying costly fines is unpleasant, for low-income (or indigent) individuals these costly fines can represent a significant portion of their income. Not only is it difficult to pay the initial fine, mounting late fees and penalties can substantially increase what the individual owes, making payment even more difficult. This is particularly true when penalties result in the suspension of the driving privilege, since a person's ability to maintain a job and earn income often depend on their ability to use a vehicle. When an individual's driver's license is suspended, the person very often loses their employment and, with that, the ability to maintain their household, much less repay their debt.

To address this issue, in 2015, the Governor proposed an amnesty program to provide a legal remedy for persons who had their driver's licenses suspended for a failure to appear in court or pay a traffic fine. The Legislature adopted the Governor's proposal as part of the 2015-16 budget and, beginning in October 2015, the courts began accepting applications under the amnesty program. To date, the amnesty program has restored driving privileges to approximately 200,000 Californians; however, the amnesty program expired on March 31, 2017.

According to the Judicial Council, courts have taken a number of steps to promote procedural fairness. For example, the California Rules of the Court were recently modified to, among other things, require that trial courts send reminder notices to traffic defendants before their initial appearance, to standardize and improve court procedures and notifications regarding ability-to-pay determinations, and allow defendants who have outstanding traffic tickets to appear for arraignment and trial without a deposit of bail.

Despite the benefits of the amnesty program and the court's efforts, the author argues that statutory changes are needed to provide meaningful, sustained relief for indigent individuals who are not able to pay costly traffic fines. To achieve this, the author introduced this bill to provide a way for low-income defendants to retain their driving privilege, reduce their debt, and create a uniform ability to pay standard. This bill also includes a variety of provisions to help courts determine whether or not a defendant is indigent and to provide those individuals with accommodations to inform and help them come into compliance with the law.

As it relates to driver's license holds and suspensions, this bill contains provisions that are duplicative of provisions contained in the recently enacted budge bill [AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017], that, among other things, limited the courts to initiating driver's license suspension or hold actions only for failure to pay. Remaining provisions in this bill focus primarily on court procedures with respect modifying fine payment processes for indigent individuals which will be addressed in more detail when the bill is heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Writing in support of this bill, the Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP), the co-sponsor of the bill, notes that currently hundreds of thousands of Californian's have had their driver's license suspended for failure to appear in court or failure to pay a court-ordered debt. WCLP argues that once a driver's license is suspended, there is no legal remedy except paying off the entire amount owed, something that is difficult for poor individuals to do, creating a cycle of poverty that is nearly impossible to escape.

Writing in opposition to this bill, the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors (CACTTC), points out that without meaningful consequences, such as losing a driver's license, it is difficult, if not impossible, for County Treasurer's (who serve as the revenue recovery departments in most jurisdictions) to compel payment and that eliminating driver's license suspension as a tool will only server to diminish revenue recovery, creating a situation where there is no real consequence for persons who fail to appear in court or pay their citations. To illustrate this point, the CACTTC points to data from Butte County showing that 82% of 2015 amnesty program participants whose driver's licenses were suspended never returned to fulfill their remaining, albeit small, obligation.

Committee comments:

1. This bill should be amended to reflect recently-enacted provisions in AB 103 with respect to suspension of the driving privilege.
2. This bill is but one of many bills aimed at addressing issues related to excessively high fine amounts that result when penalty assessments are applied. While lowering fine amounts and adjusting penalties, as proposed in this bill, provides some relief to certain individuals, it does nothing to address the underlying problem that excessively high penalty assessments increase fine amounts well beyond what is needed to shape behavior and making the fines overly punitive. Rather than simply "nibbling around the edges" of this issue by modifying penalties and assessments, the Legislature may wish to consider addressing the practice of funding state and local programs and services through penalty assessments and restoring penalties to base fine amounts.

Double referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety should it pass out of this committee.

Related legislation: AB 503 (Lackey) creates a process that allows indigent individuals with outstanding parking citations to repay their fines and penalties while preserving their ability to register and drive their vehicles. AB 503 is set to be heard by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on July 11, 2017.

AB 412 (Ting) 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. AB 412 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the Suspense File.

AB 390 (Santiago) would authorize pedestrians to enter a crosswalk when pedestrian signal timers are displayed, in part, to address costly fines (due primarily to penalty assessments) that are issued to pedestrians. AB 390 is set to be heard by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on July 11, 2017.

Previous legislation: AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, among other things, limited the courts to initiating driver's license suspension or hold actions only for failure to appear in court.

SB 881 (Hertzberg), Chapter 779, Statutes of 2016, modified the traffic amnesty program as follows: a) requires a court, when notifying the DMV that an individual with a suspended license has appeared in court, paid the fine, or otherwise satisfied the requirements of the amnesty program, to do so within 90 days; b) required a court, for amnesty applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, that are still outstanding as of that date, to notify the DMV no later than March 31, 2017, of individuals who have satisfied the requirements of the program; c) provided, for applications submitted on or before March 31, 2017, that all terms and procedures related to the participant’s payment plans shall remain in effect after March 31, 2017; and,
d) required an individual to file a request with the court by March 31, 2017, in order to be eligible for the amnesty program.

SB 405 (Hertzberg), Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015, required courts to allow individuals to schedule court proceedings, even if bail or civil assessment has been imposed, and clarified the traffic amnesty program.

SB 85 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2015 authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty program, by October 1, 2015, for delinquent debt. The program expired on March 31, 2017.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union of California (Co-Sponsor)

Community Housing Partnership (Co-Sponsor)

East Bay Community Law Center (Co-Sponsor)

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights (Co-Sponsor)

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (Co-Sponsor)

Western Center on Law & Poverty (Co-Sponsor)

A New Way of Life

Alameda County Public Defender’s Office

Alliance for Children’s Rights

Bay Area Legal Aid

Black Women Organized for Political Action

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Catholic Conference, Inc.

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Opportunity Youth Network

California Partnership

Californians for Safety and Justice

Children’s Defense Fund, California

City and County of San Francisco

Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco

Coleman Advocates

Community Housing Partnership

Contra Costa County Defenders Association

County of Santa Cruz

Courage Campaign

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Equal Justice Society

Filipino Bar Association of Northern California

First Place for Youth

Foster Care Counts

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Homeboy Industries

Honorable Dave Jones, Commissioner, California Department of Insurance

Honorable Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender

Jobs with Justice San Francisco

Law Enforcement Action Partnership

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

League of California Community Foundations

Legal Aid Association of California

Legal Services of Northern California

Los Angeles Conservation Corps

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers

Mental Health Advocacy Services

Monterey County Public Defender’s Office

National Association of Social Workers

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Center for Youth Law

National Employment Law Project

Prison Policy Initiative

Rabbi Suzanne Singer

Root and Rebound

Rubicon Programs

San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Silicon Valley Community Foundation

Supportive Housing Providers Network

W. Haywood Burns Institute

Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services

Young Women's Freedom Center

4 private citizens

Opposition

California District Attorneys Association

California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 185

Author:(Hertzberg) – As Amended Ver:May 26, 2017

SUMMARY:

Requires a court to determine a defendant’s ability to pay traffic violations and make specified accommodations if it determines the defendant to be indigent. Requires the court to send a reminder notice of a defendant’s promise of appear on vehicle code violations, as specified. Reduces the penalty when a person, facing a vehicle code violation, willfully violates his or her written promise to appear court, from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Restates the prohibition on suspensions and holds on driver’s licenses for failure to pay a fine on a traffic violation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court to mail a courtesy warning notice to the defendant at least 20 days before sending a notice to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that the defendant failed to appear in court, when the court seeks to notify DMV of a failure to appear, pursuant to specified law.
   
2. Reduces the penalty when a person, facing a vehicle code violation, willfully violates his or her written promise to appear court, from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
   
3. Reduces the penalty when a person willfully fails to pay a fine, without a lawful excuse, on or before the date the bail or fine is due, from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
   
4. States that any person who fails to appear on a traffic violation, and who has not shown good cause for a failure to appear within 20 days of the appearance date, may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any infraction.
   
5. Requires the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court on a vehicle code violation.
   
6. Requires the court to send this reminder notice, via United States Postal Service mail to the address shown on the notice to appear unless the defendant otherwise notifies the court of a different address.
   
7. Requires the court to also send the notice electronically, including, but not limited to, by email or text message, to the defendant if he or she provided an email address or telephone number to the court or to the law enforcement officer at the time of signing the written promise to appear.
   
8. States that failure to receive the reminder notice does not relieve the defendant of his or her obligation to appear in court by the date stated in the notice to appear.
9. Specifies the information that must be contained in the reminder notice.
   
10. States that if the court refers a case to a comprehensive collection program, as delinquent debt, the comprehensive collection program shall send a notice to the defendant containing specified information.
    
11. Provides that if a traffic violation case has not been adjudicated, the comprehensive collection program shall send a notice to the defendant containing information about how the defendant can schedule a hearing for adjudication of the underlying charges without payment of the bail amount.
    
12. States that in any case involving an infraction a defendant is eligible for the court to determine whether the defendant is indigent in order to establish the amount he or she can afford to pay.
    
13. Specifies that for purposes of this bill, a defendant is indigent if any of the following criteria is satisfied:
    
    1. The defendant’s income is 125% or less of the poverty guidelines, as specified;
       
    2. The defendant receives specified public benefits; or
       
    3. The defendant, as individually determined by the court, cannot pay court fees without using money that normally would pay for the common necessities of life for the defendant and his or her family.
       
14. The defendant can demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing any of the following information:
    
    1. Proof of income from a pay stub, bank statement, rent and grocery receipts, or other form of evidence of earnings;
       
    2. Eligibility cards or electronic benefit cards or other forms of evidence for the programs described above; or
       
    3. Attesting to his or her indigent status under penalty of perjury.
       
15. States if the court establishes that the defendant is indigent pursuant to the provisions of this bill, the court shall reduce the base fine, penalty assessments, any state or local fees, and any civil assessments by 80 percent on all charges pending against the defendant.
    
16. States that if a defendant’s indigent status is found to have been willfully fraudulent, his or her fines and fees reduction shall be overturned and the full amount of fines and fees shall be restored.
    
17. Specifies that this bill does not limit the discretion of a judicial officer to suspend or reduce fines and fees where appropriate or to dismiss actions in the interest of justice under Section 1385 of the Penal Code.
    
18. Requires the court to conduct the indigency determination as soon as possible prior to determining whether a person willfully failed to pay.
    
19. Specifies that defendants whose cases are adjudicated in court shall receive a determination on the same day as their court appearance.
    
20. Requires the court to provide alternatives to immediate payment of the sentence for any infraction violation filed with the court, including a reasonable payment plan option for the remaining amount owed after any reduction due to indigency or other reasons are applied.
    
21. States that a “Reasonable payment plan” for a person who is not found to be indigent means “monthly payments that are not more than 5 percent of a defendant’s family monthly income, excluding deductions for essential living expenses.”
    
22. States that “Essential living expenses” means, for purposes of this bill, “expenses for rent or house payment and maintenance, food and household supplies, utilities and telephone, clothing, medical and dental payments, insurance, school or child care, child or spousal support, transportation and auto expenses, including insurance, gas, and repairs, installment payments, laundry and cleaning, and other extraordinary expenses.”
    
23. Provides that a defendant who is found to be indigent shall be placed on a zero dollar ($0) payment per month until his or her financial circumstances change.
    
24. The court shall allow payments for more than 90 days if necessary to establish a reasonable plan in cases subject to a traffic school fee.
    
25. States that if, after 48 months, an indigent defendant’s financial circumstances have not changed, the court shall, in the interest of justice, discharge the remaining amount owed.
    
26. Requires the court to determine the amount a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator to be developed by the Judicial Council.
    
27. Specifies that an administrative fee shall not be assessed to enter into a payment plan or alternatives to payment.
    
28. States that if a defendant was found indigent whose fines and fees have been reduced or who has entered into a reasonable payment plan under this bill, or both, shall inform the court if his or her income substantially changes before the fines and fees are completely paid or discharged in the interest of justice, whichever occurs first.
    
29. States that if the court provides community service as an alternative to payment of the fines and fees, any calculation of the requisite number of hours must occur after the appropriate reductions due to indigency have been made.
    
30. States that sign-up fee shall not be assessed in order to participate in community service and community service shall include participation in programs required to receive public benefits, mental health services, job training, educational programs, or other social services programs deemed eligible by the court.
    
31. States that number of hours of community service shall be calculated at a rate of 150 percent of the state minimum wage or the local minimum wage, whichever is higher.
    
32. Requires the court to accept, in full satisfaction of the fine, fee, and assessment, performance of a number of community service hours corresponding to the base fine.
    
33. Allows a person who enters into a payment plan with the court and whose net income is subsequently reduced, to at any time after the judgment, request from the court a change in the payment plan due to his or her inability to pay the payment currently required.
    
34. Specifies that a person who has missed the deadline to pay or appear on a citation shall be granted an ability to pay determination that meets the requirements above, without first paying any bail, fine, or fee and if thereafter the person enters into or resumes a payment plan, the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case shall sign and file with the department a certificate to that effect and any driver’s license hold shall be removed.
    
35. States that a comprehensive collection program will provide a payment plan option based on the debtor’s ability to pay, as specified.
    
36. Restates language which prevents DMV from suspending a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay a fine on specified vehicle code offenses.
    
37. Restates language preventing courts from providing notice to DMV if a defendant has failed to pay a fine on specified vehicle code violations.
    
38. Prohibits DMV from refusing to issue or renew a driver’s license to any person who fails to pay a fine for specified vehicle code violations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was originally arrested. (Veh. Code, § 40508.)
   
2. Provides that a person willfully failing to pay bail in installments as agreed to or a lawfully imposed fine for a traffic violation within the time authorized by the court and without lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the bail or fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the full payment of the bail or fine after that time. (Veh. Code, § 40508, subd. (b).)
   
3. Specifies that if a person violates the promise to appear in court on a vehicle code violation or fails to pay a fine on a vehicle code violation the court may give notice of the failure to appear to DMV. (Veh. Code, §§ 40509 and 40509.5.)
   
4. Requires DMV to suspend the driving privilege of an individual if they receive notification from the court that the individual has failed to appear in court or failed to pay a fine on a traffic violation. (Veh. Code 13365, subd. (a).)
   
5. States that a suspension of driving privileges based on failure to appear in court shall not be effective before a date 60 days after the date of receipt by DMV of the notice from the court. (Veh. Code, § 13365, subd. (b).)
   
6. Specifies that the suspension of driving privileges shall continue until the suspended person’s driving record does not contain any notification of a failure to appear in court. (Veh. Code, § 13365, subd. (c).)
   
7. Existing law provides that any person who fails to appear (FTA) as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer. (Veh. Code, § 40903, subd. (a).)
   
8. States that DMV shall not issue or renew a driver's license to any person when a license previously issued to the person has been suspended until the expiration of the period of the suspension, unless cause for suspension has been removed. (Veh. Code, § 12807, subd. (a).)
   
9. States that the department shall, before issuing or renewing any license, check the record of the applicant for notices of failure to appear in court filed with it and shall withhold or shall not issue a license to any applicant who has violated his or her written promise to appear in court unless the department has received a certificate issued by the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case in which the promise was given showing that the case has been adjudicated or unless the applicant's record is cleared as provided. (Veh. Code, § 12808, subd. (b).)
   
10. 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).)
    
11. 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).)
    
12. 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).)
    
13. 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).)
    
14. 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).)
    
15. 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).)
    
16. Provides rules for counties to operate comprehensive collection program to collect delinquent fines. (Pen. Code, § 1463.007.)
17. 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).)
    
18. 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).)
    
19. 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).)
       
20. 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).)
    
21. 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).)
    
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. Requires courts, on traffic violations, to send a reminder notice to the address shown on the notice to appear, unless the defendant otherwise notifies the court of a different address. (Rule of Court 4.107, subd. (a).)
    
24. Allows that court to satisfy the reminder notice by sending the notice electronically, including by e-mail or text message, to the defendant. (Rule of Court 4.107, subd. (a).)
    
25. States that the failure to receive a reminder notice does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to appear by the date stated in the notice to appear. (Rule of Court 4.107, subd. (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Several high-profile studies have shown how damaging it is to low-and moderate-income families who are unable to resolve administrative and non-safety related driving offenses. Thousands of Californians were plunged deep into debt and lost their drivers licenses and income. The Legislature and Governor, in an attempt to resolve some $10 B in uncollected court-ordered debt, established an amnesty program. That program, which concluded in April, helped hundreds of thousands of people resolve their court debts. However, amnesty didn’t distinguish between those unwilling to pay their fines and those who were unable to. SB 185 makes part of amnesty permanent, so those individuals who are unable to pay high fines up front are given an opportunity to make amends without being punished simply for being poor. Because your access to justice shouldn’t be measured by the size of your wallet.”
2. Traffic Tickets and License Suspensions: 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.
   

Until recently, when people with traffic tickets failed to pay the fine, the court notified DMV of the failure to pay. On the basis of that notification, DMV suspended the person’s driver’s license. Once the DMV suspended someone’s license, there was no way to lift the suspension and restore the license until after the court notified the DMV that the fine has been fully paid. (http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-Courts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf.) The passage AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, eliminated the ability for the court’s and DMV to suspend an individual’s license based on a failure to pay the traffic fine. AB 103 went into effect on June 27, 2017. Courts retain the power to notify DMV of a failure to appear in court and DMV will continue to suspend driver’s licenses on receipt of such information.

Based on a cumulative analysis of suspension and reinstatement actions reported by the DMV, currently an estimated 4.2 million drivers in California have suspended licenses.
That number includes license suspensions for reasons other than failure to pay. According to the DMV Newsroom, as of January 1, 2014 there were 24,643,432 driver’s licenses in California. Based on the above estimate of total suspensions, the data indicates that 17%, or approximately 1 in 6 licenses is suspended in California. (http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-Courts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf.)

1. AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, Eliminates License Suspensions When a Person Fails to Pay Their Traffic Fine: AB 103 was the public safety budget trailer bill for the 2017-2018 budget. AB 103 was signed by the Governor on June 27, 2017. AB 103 prohibits the use of driver’s license holds and suspensions when a person fails to pay a fine on a traffic ticket. The Budget Summary related to the prohibition on driver’s license suspensions for failure to pay a fine note such suspensions were not necessarily effective at meeting the purported goals. The Budget Summary noted that “there does not appear to be a strong connection between suspending someone’s driver’s license and collecting their fine or penalty.” The Budget Summary mentioned that the primary consequence of a license suspension is the inability to legally drive to work or take one’s children to school. (Governor’s Budget Summary, Public Safety, 2017-2018, p. 84.)
   Because AB 103 was a budget trailer bill its provisions went into effect immediately.
   
   The provisions of this bill which prohibit the use of license suspension because of failure to pay a traffic fine, are nearly identical to the provisions in AB 103 related to the same issue.
   
2. Use of Driver’s License Suspension to Collect Revenues, Prior to AB 103: Given the impacts that a license suspension has on an individual’s license, such a suspension is a significant incentive to pay fines and fees which have been imposed by the court. However, the same reasons that the suspension of a driver’s license provide an incentive to pay, create negative impacts on those individuals who are not in a financial position to pay the fines and fees imposed by the court. Individuals lacking the ability to pay the fine experience a punishment that results in further economic disruption which makes it even less likely that they will be able to pay in the future.
   
   There is concern that since an individual’s license can no longer be suspended for a failure to pay, there will be a drop in revenue collected on outstanding fines. If that is the case, it is appropriate to consider whether the drop in revenue is worth avoiding further economic disruption for Californians caused by suspension of their driving privileges for failure to pay the fine. Avoiding the negative economic consequences of a license suspension might allow individuals to meet the economic obligations of their outstanding court fine.
   
   Even without the ability to suspend a driver’s license for failure to pay (FTP), the courts have other tools ensure payment of fines from individuals that are working and bringing in income. Courts can pursue recovery through Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The FTB Court‑Ordered Debt Program identifies a debtor’s assets through automated searches of wage, employment, and financial records in order to administratively issue wage garnishments or bank levies. Courts are also authorized to operate comprehensive collection programs to collect delinquent fines.
   
   The provisions of this bill maintain courts’ authority to impound a person’s driver’s license for up to 30 days for failure to pay a fine. This bill allows the courts to charge an individual with new infraction if the individual willfully fails to pay the fine on their traffic violation. Courts can also impose a civil assessment of up to $300 if an individual willfully fails to pay their fine.
   
3. Debt Collection of Outstanding Fines:  Criminal fines, fees, and assessments have climbed steadily in recent decades.  Government entities tasked with collecting this debt have realized diminishing returns from collection efforts.  Government resources can be wasted in futile collection attempts.  A San Francisco Daily Journal article noted, "When it comes to collecting fines, superior court officials in several counties describe the process as 'very frustrating,' 'crazy complicated' and 'inefficient.'"  (See State Judges Bemoan Fee Collection Process, San Francisco Daily Journal, 1/5/2015 by Paul Jones and Saul Sugarman.)
   
   Simply put, criminal defendants can generally not produce a substantial flow of money for fines.  That well will quickly run dry.  In the same Daily Journal article, the Presiding Judge of San Bernardino County was quoted as saying "the whole concept is getting blood out of a turnip."   (Daily Journal, supra.)   The annual growth in delinquent debt partly reflects a supply of money that doesn't exist to be collected."  (Ibid.)
   
   More recently, in her March 2016 State of the Judiciary address to the Legislature, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye also addressed concerns with increasing fines and fees:
   

“We have a system of fines and fees that has morphed from a system of accountability to a system that raises revenue for essential government services. For example, we raise approximately 1.7 billion dollars in fines, fees, and assessments. More than 60 percent of that money goes to fund programs and services at the local and state level. The rest goes to the court system.

“This is an inequity when we have taken a fines, fees, and assessment accountability system and turned it into a revenue-generating system for government services.” (http://www.courts.ca.gov/34477.htm.)

In the majority of counties across the state, the responsibility for collecting traffic court debt has been delegated by the counties to the courts. When an individual fails to pay a ticket, the courts are empowered to immediately take two punitive measures: imposition of a late-penalty fine of $300, called a “civil assessment,” and suspension of the driver’s license. These measures are part of a broader scheme called the “comprehensive collection program,” which is set out in state law. Counties and courts that follow the “comprehensive collection program” scheme are authorized by law to recover the costs associated with the collection effort.

This bill establishes guidelines for courts to determine whether a defendant on a traffic violation is indigent. This bill requires comprehensive collection programs to have a payment plan option based on the debtor’s ability to pay. This bill requires courts to reduce the fines of indigent defendants by 80%. This bill also provides that the fines of an indigent defendant will be discharged after four years if the defendant remains indigent.

1. Collection Revenues Based on Lower Fine Amounts: This bill provides for more robust notice to individuals regarding their right to have an ability to pay determination on a traffic tickets and options for fine reductions than are currently provided for in the rule of court. If SB 185 becomes law, the increased use of such provisions would likely result in a lower amount of fines ordered by the court in connection with traffic violations. If fine amounts are lowered, that might result in decreased revenues for the state and counties from traffic violations.
   
   There is some California data showing that if low-income Californians are given a reduced debt and the option of a payment plan, the state could possibly collect more in revenue. The California Traffic Tickets / Infractions Amnesty Program collected three times more delinquent debt per case ($151 per amnesty case) than other criminal court-ordered delinquent debt collections ($45 per case). While in operation, the California Traffic Tickets / Infractions Amnesty Program reduced certain fines and fees for traffic infractions filed prior to 2013 with greater reductions for very low-income individuals. Debt is more costly and difficult to collect once it becomes delinquent. Even when accounting for the cost of collections, the ratio of collections per traffic amnesty case is 2.5 times greater than other delinquent court-ordered debt collections per case. A number of counties cited the California Traffic Tickets / Infractions Amnesty Program as a reason for increased collections. These initial results suggest that assessing ability to pay, providing more proportional sanctions and manageable installment payments, as well as hope for an end to punishment, facilitates greater delinquent debt collection. Paying More for Being Poor: Bias and Disparity in California’s Traffic Court System, LCCR Report, Based on analysis of collections reported by county for FY2015-2016 in Judicial Council of California, Report on the Statewide Collection of Delinquent Court-Ordered Debt for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (Feb. 3, 2017), (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2017-JC-StatewideCollection-of-Delinquent-Court-Ordered-FY2015-16.pdf)
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, “Current law allows for the suspension of drivers’ licenses based on inability to pay fines related to minor traffic tickets. This bill is aligned with the Governor’s January 2017-2018 budget proposal to eliminate license suspensions for failures to pay. SB 185 will strengthen the economic security of low-income people by restoring license suspensions for non-public safety violations.
   
   “Studies have shown that when an individual’s driver’s license is suspended, that person often loses his or her job, which significantly hinders the person’s ability to earn the money necessary to make financial amends on the ticket. Further exacerbating the economic drain caused by current traffic court practices, unnecessary driver’s license suspensions increase law enforcement expenses and further strain our overcrowded courthouses.
   
   “Across the country, rising court fines, fees, and penalties for minor infractions have proved especially burdensome to low income people, who can end up losing their licenses, jobs, and freedom – sometimes going to jail – simply because they could not afford a traffic fine or missed a court hearing. SB 185 ensures that all people, regardless of their income level, can satisfy court debt and move forward with their lives.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, “In many counties, the County Treasurer also serves as the revenue recovery department and is tasked with collecting fines and fees such as those in your measure. It is the ongoing experience of these offices that without meaningful consequences such as losing a driver’s license, it is difficult to compel payment. It is one of the few tools available to enforce collection. The elimination of this tool means that less revenue will be recovered and there will be little to no real consequence for failure to appear or to pay.
   
   “Additionally, the bill lacks language that specifically governs the standards of determining how the ability to pay will be assessed and then reassessed. Once that amount is set, the bill does not lay out what steps can be taken locally to enforce that, and setting up those payment plans may actually cost more at the County level than the revenue they would then recover. And finally, in the event that the driver’s license is reinstated, and then the individual does not meet the terms of the payment plan, there is no ability to reinstate the suspension.”
   
4. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, prohibits the use of driver’s license holds and suspensions when a person fails to pay a fine on a traffic ticket, among other things.
      
   2. AB 412 (Ting), would have required 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. AB 412 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
5. 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 provided that payment of a civil assessment is not required to schedule a court hearing on a pending underlying charge.
      
   2. SB 881 (Hertzberg), Chapter 779, Statutes of 2016, required a court, when notifying the DMV that an individual with a suspended license has appeared in court, paid the fine, or otherwise satisfied the requirements of the traffic amnesty program, to do so within 90 days;
      
   3. SB 85 (Budget Bill), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2013, created the traffic amnesty program. The program expired on March 31, 2017.
      
   4. 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.
      
   5. 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)
Californians for Safety and Justice (Co-Sponsor)
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (Co-Sponsor)
Western Center on Law & Poverty (Co-Sponsor)
A New Way of Life Re Entry Project
Alameda County Public Defender
Alliance for Children’s Rights
Bay Area Legal Aid
Black Women Organized for Political Action
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Department of Insurance
California Opportunity Youth Network
California Partnership
California Public Defenders Association
Children’s Defense Fund-California
Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth
Community Housing Partnership
Contra Costa County Defenders Association
Courage Campaign
East Bay Community Law Center
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Justice Society
Filipino Bar Association of Northern California
First Place for Youth
Foster Care Counts
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Homeboy Industries
Jobs with Justice San Francisco
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Legal Aid Association of California
Legal Services of Northern California
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.
Monterey County Public Defender’s Office
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Youth Law
National Employment Law Project
Prison Policy Initiative
Riverside Temple Beth El
Root & Rebound
Rubicon Programs
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc
San Francisco Public Defender
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Supportive Housing Providers Network
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services
Young Women’s Freedom Center

Three private individuals

Opposition

California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors
California District Attorneys Association

Analysis Prepared by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 185

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 12-1, 4/4/17

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, Bates, Gaines, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Morrell

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/25/17

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

NOES: Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union of California

Community Housing Partnership

East Bay Community Law Center

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Western Center on Law and Poverty

DIGEST:

This bill, in relation to traffic fine violations: (1) requires a court to determine a defendant’s ability to pay; (2) entitles a defendant to an indigency determination and requires the court to make specified accommodations if it determines the defendant to be indigent; (3) prohibits the court from issuing a driver’s license hold for a failure to pay or failure to appear; (4) requires the court to issue specified notices to a defendant in relation to requirements to appear or pay; and (5) makes provisions for cases where a defendant willfully fails to appear or pay.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Allows the court to initiate a driver’s license suspension or hold for a traffic infraction violation.
2. Provides that an individual willfully violating a promise to appear in court, or a continuance on a promise to appear, is guilty of an infraction.
3. Provides that an individual willfully failing to pay in installments as ordered, or failing to pay a lawfully imposed fine for a traffic violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of full payment after that time.
4. Provides that an individual who willfully fails to appear for the first time, or willfully violates a lawfully granted continuance on a promise to appear in court, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. Provides that if an individual has violated a written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of a promise to appear, the court may notify the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Requires the court, if the fine is thereafter fully paid, to notify DMV.

This bill:

Determination of ability to pay

1. Provides that each defendant in a traffic infraction case is eligible for, and shall be informed of his or her eligibility for, a court determination of whether he or she is indigent, as specified. Allows the defendant to opt out of the indigency determination.
2. Requires the court, if it determines that the defendant is indigent, to reduce the base fine, penalty assessments, any state or local fees, and any civil assessments, by 80% on all charges pending against the defendant.
3. Requires the court to provide alternative options, including a reasonable payment plan as specified. Requires the court to place a defendant who has been determined indigent on a payment plan of $0 per month until his or her financial circumstances change. Allows an individual who enters into a payment plan with the court and whose income is subsequently reduced to request a change in payment plan. Provides that if the defendant’s circumstances have not changed after 48 months, the court shall discharge the remaining amount owed.
4. Requires the court, if it provides community service as an alternative to payment of fees and fines, to calculate the requisite number of hours after making the 80% indigency reduction, as specified. Prohibits the court from charging a fee for the community service option. Provides that if a defendant selects community service, he or she shall choose the county in which to perform the service. Requires the court to consider the defendant’s ability to perform and provides that community service shall not conflict with employment, education, government-mandated activities, or any other obligation disclosed by the defendant.
5. Requires the court to determine ability to pay for any individual who misses a deadline to pay or appear on a citation without first paying any bail, fine, or fee. Requires the court, if the individual thereafter enters into or resumes a payment plan, to notify DMV and for any driver’s license hold to be removed.
6. Authorizes an individual to request at any time for a court review of the payment plan if he or she believes there was an error in the calculation. Requires the court to affirm, reverse, or modify any such judgment or order or direct a new trial or further proceeding.

Driver’s license holds or suspensions

1. Prohibits the court from initiating a driver’s license suspension or hold for a traffic infraction violation and removes existing law provisions authorizing the court to notify DMV of a failure to pay or a failure to appear.
2. Requires the court to notify DMV that an individual who is determined to be indigent and enrolls in a reasonable payment plan, or is participating in a comprehensive collection program, has satisfied the court and thus may have his or her driver’s license restored.

Notices to defendant

1. Requires the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court relating to a traffic infraction, in addition to the initial notice to appear. The reminder notice shall include specified information such as the total bail amount and payment options; the potential consequences for failure to appear and failure to pay a fine; the right to an indigency determination if the defendant has requested one, even if the court has already made a determination, if changed circumstances have affected the defendant’s ability to pay; and notice of the option to pay bail through community service and installment plans, among other provisions.
2. Requires the court, if it refers the case to a comprehensive collection program as delinquent debt, to send a specified notice to the defendant. Requires the comprehensive collection program, if the case is unadjudicated, to send a specified notice to the defendant.

Willful failure to appear or willful failure to pay

1. Requires the court, if the defendant willfully defaults on payments after coming into compliance with an installment payment plan, to send the defendant a specified notice that he or she has defaulted and has 60 days to either resume making payments or to request that the court modify the payment amount.
2. Reduces a willful violation of a written promise to appear or a willful violation of a lawfully granted continuance of a promise to appear, from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
3. Reduces a willful failure to pay bail in installments as agreed upon, or to pay a lawfully imposed fine on time, from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
4. Requires the court to fully restore all fines if it finds the defendant’s indigent status to be willfully fraudulent.
5. Allows the court to notify DMV if the defendant does not appear. Prohibits the court from issuing a bench warrant for a failure to appear. Requires DMV to remove any driver’s license hold if the case is thereafter adjudicated.

Comments

1. Purpose. The author states that according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, traffic offenses represent the largest number of cases in state and local courts across the country. California law allows the courts to impose hundreds of dollars in administrative penalties (civil assessments) if a defendant misses a court date or a payment, which may ultimately lead to a suspended driver’s license. The author states that suspending a license is appropriate for unsafe driving behavior, but is overly harsh for failure to pay since the practice undermines a defendant’s ability to earn the necessary wages to pay the ticket. The debt that working Californians are saddled with from these penalties pushes low-income individuals into poverty and even jail. Furthermore, courts frequently do not make a determination of a defendant’s ability to pay a ticket, as required by law; and when payment plans are offered, the required payments may be just as unaffordable for some defendants as the original costs. This bill addresses these issues by prohibiting courts from administratively suspending a driver’s license in order to collect court-related debt for non-safety offense and requiring courts to reinstate suspended licenses for anyone making a good faith effort to meet their obligations.
2. Amnesty program has expired. The author and sponsors have worked with the Administration for several years on how to address issue of onerous traffic fines (see Related/Prior Legislation below.) In 2015, the Governor proposed an amnesty program to provide a legal remedy for individuals who had their licenses suspended after a failure to appear or a failure to pay violation. The Legislature adopted this proposal as part of the 2015-16 Budget Act. Beginning in October 2015, the courts began to accept applications under the amnesty program and to date have restored driving privileges to more than 130,000 Californians. However, the amnesty program expired on March 31, 2017. This bill proposes to create a permanent legal remedy in its place.
3. Is driver’s license suspension an effective hammer? The intended purpose of suspending a driver’s license in response to a failure to appear or failure to pay is to coerce that individual into compliance. The DMV reports that 612,000 Californians currently have a license suspended solely for having a failure to appear or failure to pay. More than 4.5 million Californians have received a failure to appear or failure to pay since 2006 that could lead to their license being suspended at any time. The Western Center on Law and Poverty states that “if license suspension was an effective tool for encouraging cooperation, the state would not have such high numbers.” In addition, the state currently has billions of dollars of uncollected court-ordered debt, further calling into question the effectiveness of license suspension.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 881 (Hertzberg, Chapter 779, Statutes of 2016) modified the traffic amnesty program as follows: (a) requires a court, when notifying the DMV that an individual with a suspended license has appeared in court, paid the fine, or otherwise satisfied the requirements of the amnesty program, to do so within 90 days; (b) required a court, for amnesty applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, that are still outstanding as of that date, to notify the DMV no later than March 31, 2017, of individuals who have satisfied the requirements of the program; (c) provided, for applications submitted on or before March 31, 2017, that all terms and procedures related to the participant’s payment plans shall remain in effect after March 31, 2017; and (d) required an individual to file a request with the court by March 31, 2017, in order to be eligible for the amnesty program.

SB 405 (Hertzberg, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015) required courts to allow individuals to schedule court proceedings, even if bail or civil assessment has been imposed, and clarified the traffic amnesty program.

SB 85 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 26, Statutes of 2015) authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty program, by October 1, 2015, for delinquent debt. The program expired on March 31, 2017.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Courts: Unknown costs (General Fund – Trial Court Trust Fun) to provide new notices and to conduct new indigency determination hearings.
• Fine/penalty assessment impact: Unknown major reductions in collections of fines, fees, and assessments, likely in the millions and potentially tens of millions annually, by requiring collections programs to offer payment plans based upon the debtors ability to pay and removing license suspensions as an incentive to pay court-ordered debt, to the extent license suspension incentives payment. Revenue reductions related to the former provision would be mitigated partially by some revenue gains for partial payments on debt that may not have otherwise been paid. (General Fund, various special funds, local funds)
• DMV: Significant one-time costs of $330,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) to implement program modifications and ongoing costs of $380,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) related to increase call volume at headquarters and in call centers to verify license and failure to appear status.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/26/17)

American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-source)

Community Housing Partnership (co-source)

East Bay Community Law Center (co-source)

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (co-source)

Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-spource)

Alliance for Children’s Rights

A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project

Bay Area Legal Aid

California Catholic Conference

California Department of Insurance

California District Attorneys Association

California Opportunity Youth Network

California Partnership

Californians for Safety and Justice

Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth

Contra Costa County Defenders Association

Courage Campaign

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Equal Justice Society

Fifth Street Residents

Filipino Bar Association of Northern California

First Place for Youth

Foster Care Counts

Homeboy Industries

Jobs with Justice San Francisco

Law Enforcement Action Partnership

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

Legal Aid Association of California

Legal Services of Northern California

Los Angeles Conservation Corps

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Center for Youth Law

National Employment Law Project

Prison Policy Initiative

Root and Rebound

Rubicon Programs

San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program

St. Columbia Catholic Church

Supportive Housing Providers Network

W. Haywood Burns Institute

Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services

Young Women’s Freedom Center

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/26/17)

California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors

California District Attorneys Association

Trinity County Board of Supervisors

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Western Center on Law and Poverty, a co-sponsor of this bill, states that minor traffic violations should not become an undue financial burden, cause families to lose jobs, or lead to jail. While this bill will not solve every problem related to court-ordered debt, it will make the punishment fit the crime.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors states that without meaningful consequences such as losing a driver’s license, it is difficult to compel payment of fines and fees.

Prepared by:

5/27/17 18:43:51

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 185 (Hertzberg) - Crimes: infractions

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 25, 2017

Bill Summary:

SB 185 would reform court procedures and fine determinations related to infraction offenses and prohibit the suspension or hold of a driver license for a failure to pay fines, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Courts: Unknown costs (General Fund*) to provide new notices and to conduct new indigency determination hearings.
• Fine / penalty assessment impact: Unknown major reductions in collections of fines, fees, and assessments, likely in the millions and potentially tens of millions annually, by requiring collections programs to offer payment plans based upon the debtors ability to pay and removing license suspensions as an incentive to pay court-ordered debt, to the extent license suspension incentives payment. Revenue reductions related to the former provision would be mitigated partially by some revenue gains for partial payments on debt that may not have otherwise been paid. (General Fund, various special funds, local funds)
• DMV: Significant one-time costs of $330,000 (special fund**) to implement program modifications and ongoing costs of $380,000 (special fund**) related to increase call volume at headquarters and in call centers to verify license and failure to appear status.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Motor Vehicle Account

Author Amendments:

Reduce postage costs and the number of indigency determination hearings. Make technical changes.

Committee Amendments:

Strike the mandate to the court to send certain notices. Strike the failure to appear hearing. Shorten to 20 days as the minimum length of time the court is required to mail a courtesy warning, as specified, before sending a notice to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Change the criteria to determine if a defendant is indigent.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 185 (Hertzberg) - Crimes: infractions

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 185 would reform court procedures and fine determinations related to infraction offenses and prohibit the suspension or hold of a driver license for a failure to pay fines, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Courts: Major costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually (General Fund*), to provide new reminder to appear, comprehensive collection program, promise-to-appear violation, and other notices and to conduct new indigency determination and willful failure to appear violation hearings.
• Fine / penalty assessment impact: Unknown major reductions in collections of fines, fees, and assessments, likely in the millions and potentially tens of millions annually, by requiring collections programs to offer payment plans based upon the debtors ability to pay and removing license suspensions as an incentive to pay court-ordered debt, to the extent license suspension incentives payment. Revenue reductions related to the former provision would be mitigated partially by some revenue gains for partial payments on debt that may not have otherwise been paid. (General Fund, various special funds, local funds)
• DMV: Significant one-time costs of $330,000 (special fund**) to implement program modifications and ongoing costs of $380,000 (special fund**) related to increase call volume at headquarters and in call centers to verify license and failure to appear status.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Motor Vehicle Account

Background:

Existing law provides that in addition to any other penalty in an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, the court may impose a civil penalty of 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. Existing law provides that if a person has failed to pay a fine within the time authorized by the court, the magistrate, or the clerk of the court may give notice to DMV for any violation. The court is required to inform DMV if the fine is later fully paid. Upon receipt of a notice from the courts, DMV is required to suspend the person’s driver’s license and may not issue or renew the license until the person’s driving record is cleared. The DMV estimates that there are approximately 550,000 individuals whose driving privileges have been suspended as a result of a failure to pay, failure to appear, or failure to comply with court orders.

In addition to base fines for traffic violations, existing law imposes numerous additional penalty assessments, fees, and surcharges for convictions of these infractions, all of which significantly increase the total bail owed as a result of violations. For example, the total bail on a violation with a base fine of $35 is $238, and the total bail on a violation with a base fine of $100 is $490 (not including fees associated with traffic violator schools). Existing law specifies a complex process for the distribution of fine and fee revenues to numerous state and local funds. Some of these add-on fines and fees were enacted to fund specific activities, such as emergency medical services or DNA-related activities, while others support general court operations, court facilities construction, or state and local general funds.

The following assessments and fees are a flat charge per conviction: a $4 Emergency Medical Air Transportation Penalty Assessment; a $40 Court Operations Assessment; A $30 Conviction Assessment Fee; and a $1 Night Court Fee. The following charges, however, are dependent upon amount of the base fine:
- State Penalty Assessment: $10 for every $10 of a base fine*
- County Penalty Assessment: $7 for every $10 of a base fine*
- Court Construction Penalty Assessment: $5 for every $10 of a base fine*
- Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment: $1 for every $10 of a base fine*
- DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment: $4 for every $10 of a base fine*
- Emergency Medical Services Penalty Assessment: $2 for every $10 of a base fine*
- State Surcharge: 20% of a base fine
(*The base fines are rounded up to the next $10 increment for purposes of calculating the assessment.)

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

• Require the court, in any case involving an infraction filed with the court, to determine whether the defendant is indigent for purposes of determining what portion of the statutory amount of any associated fine, fee, assessment, or other financial penalties the person can afford to pay. Provide that the defendant can demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing specified information.
• Require the court to reduce the base fine and associated fees by 80% if the court establishes that the defendant is indigent, and to provide alternatives to immediate payment of the sentence, including a payment plan option. Require the court to determine the amount a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator developed by the Judicial Council, as specified. For persons not found to be indigent, the bill would require that the monthly payment not exceed 5% of the defendant’s family monthly income, as provided. For defendants found to be indigent, require that monthly payments be $0 until the defendant’s financial circumstances change, and require the remaining amount owed to be discharged after 48 months in the interest of justice.
• Delete initiating suspensions or holds for driver licenses from the list of activities in which a county or court “comprehensive collection program” may engage. Require the program to provide a payment plan option based on the debtor’s ability to pay and require the program to notify the defendant of his or her right to an indigency determination for infractions.
• Require the court to send the defendant a reminder notice, that includes specified information, of his or her promise to appear in court in certain situations.
• Require the court to issue a notice to the defendant that he or she must appear in court within 60 days, as specified, if the person has failed to appear, and authorizes the court to notify DMV only when the defendant does not appear within those 60 days. Repeal the provisions authorizing the court to notify DMV of a failure to pay a fine or bail and provisions prohibiting the department from issuing or renewing a person’s driver license upon receipt of a notice of a defendant’s failure to pay, with respect to designated violations.
• Provide that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of an infraction if it is on more than one case in the past 5 years. Require, for the first occurrence of any of these violations, the person to be instructed to appear before a judge or a clerk of the court to schedule a new hearing date within 60 days of the willful violation and make it an infraction to fail to appear within these 60 days. Repeal the misdemeanor for willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a lawfully imposed fine.
• Declare that its provisions do not alter existing law related to suspension of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in connection with violations relating to reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as specified.

Related Legislation:

The Governor’s proposed 2017-18 budget includes three proposals related to the state’s criminal fine and fee system:

• Eliminate the statutory formulas dictating how State Penalty Fund revenues are distributed and instead appropriate these revenues directly to specific programs (not necessarily the same programs that currently receive these revenues).
• Provide a $1.1 million augmentation from the Court Collection Account for the Franchise Tax Board’s Court-Ordered Debt Collection Program to maintain existing service levels and eliminate a backlog.
• Eliminate the ability to use driver’s license holds and suspensions as a sanction for an individual’s failure to pay.

The Governor’s proposal is pending action by the Legislature.

Staff Comments:

As stated by the Legislative Analyst’s Office “[i]ndividuals convicted of criminal offenses, including traffic violations, are often required to pay various fines and fees. Collection programs operated by counties and trial courts are responsible for collecting payments and are able to make use of various collection tools and sanctions to do so. The collected revenues are then deposited into a number of state and local funds, such as the State Penalty Fund (SPF), to support various programs and services. In recent years, various funds that receive such revenue have faced operational shortfalls or fund insolvency.”

Criminal fines and fees collection has declined by roughly $200 million from the 2013-14 fiscal year to the 2015-16 fiscal year. A major recipient of these fines and fees is the State Penalty Fund. Absent new infusion of money, the State Penalty Fund is structurally imbalanced. Allowing the court to reduce the fines and fees defendants in infraction cases would owe, based on an ability-to-pay determination, could lead to less money deposited into the State Penalty Fund and other state and local funds. Alternatively, receipt of penalty payments that otherwise would not have been realized could result if defendants fines and fees are set at a price that they realistically could afford to pay.

This bill would require the court perform additional tasks that it currently does not, including mailing notices via certified mail with return receipt to those issued infraction citations and to determine indigency for each infraction case filed with the court. Taking Los Angeles County as an example, it sends out over 1.1 million notices annually, based on a three-year average, at the regular postage rate, which, totaled with the cost of the notice, comes out to $0.56 per notice, $616,000 total. The costs to send one notice by certified mail with return receipt is $6.71. If required to mail each of these notices via the method required by this bill, the court in Los Angeles alone would see an increase in costs of around $6.765 million ($7.381 million - $616,000).

As stated above, this bill would require the court to make an indigency determination for each infraction filed. In the 2014-15 fiscal year, the most recent year available, there were over 4.4 million infractions filed with the court. If the court were to spend an average of 10 minutes determining indigency for each defendant in these infraction cases, it would result in the increase of court workload costs of over $640 million.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 185 Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

Subject: Crimes: Infractions

HISTORY

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Californians for Safety and Justice

EBCLC

LCCR

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Western Center on Law and Poverty

Prior Legislation: SB 881 (Hertzberg) Chapter 779, Stats. 2016

SB 405 (Hertzberg) Chapter 385, Stats. 2015

Support: A New Way of Life Re Entry Project; Alameda County Public Defender; Alliance for Children’s Rights; Bay Area Legal Aid; Black Women Organized for Political Action; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Catholic Conference; California Department of Insurance; California Opportunity Youth Network; California Partnership; California Public Defenders Association; Children’s Defense Fund-California; Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco; Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Community Housing Partnership; Contra Costa County Defenders Association; Courage Campaign; East Bay Community Law Center; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Equal Justice Society; Filipino Bar Association of Northern California; First Place for Youth; Foster Care Counts; Homeboy Industries; Jobs with Justice San Francisco; Law Enforcement Action Partnership; Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; Legal Aid Association of California; Legal Services of Northern California; Los Angeles Conservation Corps; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.; Monterey County Public Defender’s Office; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; National Employment Law Project; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Youth Law; Prison Policy Initiative; Riverside Temple Beth El; Root & Rebound; Rubicon Programs; Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors; Santa Cruz County Public Defenders; San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc; San Francisco Public Defender; Supportive Housing Providers Network; W. Haywood Burns Institute; Western Center on Law and Poverty; Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services; Young Women’s Freedom Center; One Individual

Opposition: California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors; California District Attorneys Association

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to, with regards to vehicle violations: require a court to determine a defendant’s ability to pay and make specified accommodations if it determines the defendant to be indigent; prohibit the court from issuing a driver’s license hold for a failure to pay or failure to appear; require the court to issue specified notices to a defendant in relation to requirements to appear or pay; and make provisions for cases where a defendant willfully fails to appear or pay.

Existing law authorizes a court to notify the state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) when an individual fails to pay a traffic fine (FTP), fails to appear in court (FTA), or fails to comply with a court order (FTC). Existing law requires the court to notify the DMV if the individual later pays the fine. (Vehicle Code § 40509.5)

Existing law requires DMV to suspend the driver’s license of an individual when DMV receives a notice from the court of an FTP or FTA for that individual, until the individual’s driving record is cleared. (Vehicle Code §§ 13365 et seq.)

Existing law provides that, in addition to any other penalty in infraction, misdemeanor, or felony cases, the court may impose a civil assessment of up to $300 against a defendant who fails, after notice and without good cause, to appear in court for 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. This assessment shall be deposited in the Trial Court Trust fund. (Penal Code § 1214.1 (a))

Existing law provides that the $300 assessment shall not become effective until at least 20 calendar days after the court mails a warning to the defendant by first-class mail to the address on the notice to appear to the defendant’s last known address. If the defendant appears within the time specified in the notice and shows good cause for the failure to appear or the failure to pay a fine or installment of bail, the court shall vacate the assessment. (Penal Code § 1241.1 (b))

Existing law provides that payment of bail, fines, penalties, fees, or a civil assessment shall not be required to schedule a court hearing on a pending underlying charge. (Penal Code § 1241.1(b)(2)

Existing law provides that the $300 civil assessment shall be subject to the due process requirements governing defense and collection civil money judgments generally. (Penal Code § 1241.1(d))

Existing law provides that any county or court that operates a comprehensive collection program may deduct the costs of operating that program, excluding capital expenditures, from any revenues collected under that program. (Penal Code § 2463.007)

Existing law provides that a comprehension collection program is a separate and distinct revenue collection activity that meets the following criteria: the program identifies and collects amounts arising from delinquent court-ordered debt, whether or not a warrant has been issued against the alleged violator. (Penal Code 1463.007(c))

This bill provides that comprehension collection program also shall meet the following criteria: for infraction violations of the Vehicle Code, the program provides a payment plan option based on the debtor’s ability to pay and the program shall not assess an administrative fee for entering into a payment plan or making recurring payments. The program is responsible for notifying the defendant of his or her right to an indigency determination.

Existing law provides that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was originally arrested. (Vehicle Code § 40508)

This bill provides instead that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear on more than one case within the past five years, or willfully violating a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail on more than one case in the past five years, is guilty of an infraction regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was originally arrested.

Existing law provides that a person willfully failing to pay bail in installments as agreed to or a lawfully imposed fine for a violation of a provision of this code or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code within the time authorized by the court and without lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the bail or fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the full payment of the bail or fine after that time. (Vehicle Code § 40508 (b))

This bill deletes Vehicle Code section 40508(b) and provides instead that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear for the first time, or willfully violating a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail for the first time, is not guilty of an infraction. The person shall be instructed to appear before a judge or a clerk of the court to schedule a new hearing date within 60 days of the willful violation. A person failing within the 60 days is guilty of an infraction.

Existing law provides that if a person violates the promise to appear or pay a fine the court may give notice of the FTA or FTP to DMV and if the fine is subsequently paid the court shall inform DMV of that fact. (Vehicle Code §§ 40509 and 4509.5)

This bill provides instead that if a person has violated a FTA the court shall issue a notice that the person has to appear in court within 60 days. That notice shall include notice of the right to an indecency determination.

This bill provides that if the person does not appear after the 60 days then the court may notice DMV of the FTA. If the person later appears or otherwise satisfies the order then the DMV shall be notified and any driver’s license hold shall be removed.

This bill states that the court shall not issue a bench warrant for an FTA.

Existing law provides that any person who FTA as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer. (Vehicle Code § 40903 (a))

This bill states that the trial by written declaration only after the person has not shown good cause for faire to appear within 20 days of the appearance date.

This bill requires the court to determine whether a defendant in any traffic infraction case is indigent, as specified, no less than 20 days prior to determining whether the defendant willfully failed to pay.

This bill prohibits the court from determining a defendant to have willfully failed to pay if it has determined that the defendant is indigent.

This bill requires the court, if it determines that the defendant is indigent, to reduce the base fine, penalty assessments, any state or local fees, and any civil assessments, by 80% on all charges pending against the defendant.

This bill requires the court to provide alternative options, including a reasonable payment plan as specified, for the amount remaining after the indigency reduction, or for a person who has been found not to be indigent. It prohibits the court from charging a fee for the payment plan.

This bill requires the court to place a defendant who has been determined indigent on a payment plan of $0 per month until his or her financial circumstances change.

This bill allows an individual who enters into a payment plan with the court and whose income is subsequently reduced to request a change in payment plan.

This bill provides that if the defendant’s circumstances have not changed after 48 months, the court shall discharge the remaining amount owed.

This bill requires the court, if it provides community service as an alternative to payment of fees and fines, to calculate the requisite number of hours after making the 80% indigency reduction, as specified.

This bill prohibits the court from charging a fee for the community service option.

This bill provides that if a defendant selects community service, he or she shall choose the county in which to perform the service.

This bill requires the court to consider the defendant’s ability to perform and provides that community service shall not conflict with employment, education, government-mandated activities, or any other obligation disclosed by the defendant.

This bill requires the court to determine ability to pay for any individual who misses a deadline to pay or appear on a citation without first paying any bail, fine, or fee.

This bill requires the court, if the individual thereafter enters into or resumes a payment plan, to notify DMV and for any driver’s license hold to be removed.

This bill authorizes an individual to request at any time that the court review the payment plan if he or she believes there was an error in the calculation. Requires the court to affirm, reverse, or modify any such judgment or order or direct a new trial or further proceeding.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Nationwide, traffic offenses represent the largest number of cases in state and local courts, according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). California law allows the courts to impose hundreds of dollars in administrative penalties (civil assessments) if a defendant misses a court date or misses a payment. This may ultimately lead to a suspended driver’s license – not for driving behavior but as administrative punishment.

Suspending a license is appropriate for unsafe driving behavior, but is overly harsh for failure to pay since the practice undermines a defendant’s ability to earn the necessary wages to pay the ticket; most people who lose their licenses also lose income. The debt that working Californians are saddled with from these penalties push low-income individuals into poverty and even jail. The practice disproportionally affects the middle class, poor people, and communities of color, and represents a significant burden for those who can least afford it.

Furthermore, courts frequently do not make a determination of a defendant’s ability pay a ticket, as required by law; and when payment plans are offered, the payments required may be just as unaffordable for some defendants as the original costs due to the lack of an ability to pay determination.

This bill prohibits courts from administratively suspending a driver’s licenses to collect court-ordered debt for non-safety offenses. SB 185 also requires courts to re-instate suspended licenses for anyone making a good-faith effort to meet their obligations. The bill excludes reckless and drunk driving offenses. The bill requires courts to (1) provide affordable payment plans, (2) assess an individual’s ability to pay, (3) reduce the total amount owed by low-income individuals, (4) change payment plans according to an individual’s changing economic circumstances, and (5) eliminate debt after 4 years for low-income individuals who are unable to make payments due to economic status.

2. Driver’s License Suspension for not Paying Fine

The intended purpose of suspending a driver’s license in response to a failure to appear or failure to pay is to coerce that individual into compliance. The DMV reports that 612,000 Californians currently have a license suspended solely for having an FTA or FTP. More than 4.5 million Californians have received FTAs or FTPs since 2006 that could lead to their license being suspended at any time. WCLP states that “if license suspension was an effective tool for encouraging cooperation, the state would not have such high numbers.” In addition, the state currently has billions of dollars of uncollected court-ordered debt, further calling into question the effectiveness of license suspension.

3. Background

In the 2015-2016 budget act the Legislature adopted the Governor’s proposal for amnesty program to provide a remedy for people who got their licenses suspended for an FTA or FTP. Beginning in October 205 the courts began accepting applications and approximately 200,000 California’s have taken advantage of the program and had their driving privilege restored. That amnesty program ended April 4.

4. Permanent Solution

Even while amnesty was in effect, the courts were still imposing civil assessments for FTA and FTP and suspending licenses. This bill would set up a permanent solution for people who have trouble paying fines including:

• Requiring a court to make a determination of indigency and to reduce the payments accordingly.
• Require reasonable payment plans and no fees for participating in such a plan.
• To not require a payment of fees before coming to court to show that the FTA was not willful
• To prohibit fees for participating in community service.
• Allowing suspension for FTA only if the defendant willfully failed to appear twice in 5 years.
• Eliminates the ability to suspend a license for failure to pay debts but maintains authority for the courts to suspend licenses for up to 30 days for a failure to pay.
• Require a 60 day notice to appear in court or to make payments.
• If a person is still indigent after 4 years require the debt be dismissed.

Western Center on Law and Poverty argues that this bill:

[W]ill increase the ability of courts to collect court ordered debt. If signed into law, SB 185 will allow people to keep their job, get new jobs, and establish payment plans at an amount that our clients can actually afford to make. Reinstating driver’s licenses as called for by SB 185 will extend the benefits of the amnesty will help these individuals and prevent countless others from falling into the same debt trap.

5. Current Budget proposal

The Governor’s proposed 2017-18 budget includes three proposals related to the state’s criminal fine and fee system:

• Eliminate the statutory formulas dictating how State Penalty Fund revenues are distributed and instead appropriate these revenues directly to specific programs (not necessarily the same programs that currently receive these revenues).
• Provide a $1.1 million augmentation from the Court Collection Account for the Franchise Tax Board’s Court-Ordered Debt Collection Program to maintain existing service levels and eliminate a backlog.
• Eliminate the ability to use driver’s license holds and suspensions as a sanction for an individual’s failure to pay.

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/4/2017

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill, in relation to traffic fine violations: (1) requires a court to determine a defendant’s ability to pay and make specified accommodations if it determines the defendant to be indigent; (2) prohibits the court from issuing a driver’s license hold for a failure to pay or failure to appear; (3) requires the court to issue specified notices to a defendant in relation to requirements to appear or pay; and (4) makes provisions for cases where a defendant willfully fails to appear or pay.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Allows the court to initiate a driver’s license suspension or hold for a traffic infraction violation.
2. Provides that an individual willfully violating a promise to appear in court, or a continuance on a promise to appear, is guilty of an infraction.
3. Provides that an individual willfully failing to pay in installments as ordered, or failing to pay a lawfully imposed fine for a traffic violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of full payment after that time.
4. Provides that an individual who willfully fails to appear for the first time, or willfully violates a lawfully granted continuance on a promise to appear in court, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. Provides that if an individual has violated a written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of a promise to appear, the court may notify DMV. Requires the court, if the fine is thereafter fully paid, to notify DMV.

This bill includes the following provisions:

Determination of ability to pay

1. Requires the court to determine whether a defendant in any traffic infraction case is indigent, as specified, no less than 20 days prior to determining whether the defendant willfully failed to pay. Prohibits the court from determining a defendant to have willfully failed to pay if it has determined that the defendant is indigent.
2. Requires the court, if it determines that the defendant is indigent, to reduce the base fine, penalty assessments, any state or local fees, and any civil assessments, by 80% on all charges pending against the defendant.
3. Requires the court to provide alternative options, including a reasonable payment plan as specified, for the amount remaining after the indigency reduction, or for a person who has been found not to be indigent. Prohibits the court from charging a fee for the payment plan. Requires the court to place a defendant who has been determined indigent on a payment plan of $0 per month until his or her financial circumstances change. Allows an individual who enters into a payment plan with the court and whose income is subsequently reduced to request a change in payment plan. Provides that if the defendant’s circumstances have not changed after 48 months, the court shall discharge the remaining amount owed.
4. Requires the court, if it provides community service as an alternative to payment of fees and fines, to calculate the requisite number of hours after making the 80% indigency reduction, as specified. Prohibits the court from charging a fee for the community service option. Provides that if a defendant selects community service, he or she shall choose the county in which to perform the service. Requires the court to consider the defendant’s ability to perform and provides that community service shall not conflict with employment, education, government-mandated activities, or any other obligation disclosed by the defendant.
5. Requires the court to determine ability to pay for any individual who misses a deadline to pay or appear on a citation without first paying any bail, fine, or fee. Requires the court, if the individual thereafter enters into or resumes a payment plan, to notify DMV and for any driver’s license hold to be removed.
6. Authorizes an individual to request at any time that the court review the payment plan if he or she believes there was an error in the calculation. Requires the court to affirm, reverse, or modify any such judgment or order or direct a new trial or further proceeding.

Driver’s license holds or suspensions

1. Prohibits the court from initiating a driver’s license suspension or hold for a traffic infraction violation and removes existing law provisions authorizing the court to notify DMV of a failure to pay or a failure to appear.
2. Requires the court to notify DMV that an individual who is determined to be indigent and enrolls in a reasonable payment plan, or is participating in a comprehensive collection program, has satisfied the court and thus may have his or her driver’s license restored.

Notices to defendant

1. Requires the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court relating to a traffic infraction, in addition to the initial notice to appear. The reminder notice shall include specified information such as the total bail amount and payment options, the potential consequences for failure to appear and failure to pay a fine, the right to an indigency determination, and notice of the option to pay bail through community service and installment plans, among other provisions.
2. Requires the court, after the case has been adjudicated, to send the defendant a reminder notice, including specified information, regarding payment of fines, no later than 30 days prior to the payment deadline.
3. Requires the court, if it refers the case to a comprehensive collection program as delinquent debt, to send a specified notice to the defendant. Requires the comprehensive collection program, if the case is unadjudicated, to send a specified notice to the defendant.

Willful failure to appear or willful failure to pay

1. Requires the court, if the defendant willfully defaults on payments after coming into compliance with an installment payment plan, to send the defendant a specified notice that he or she has defaulted and has 60 days to either resume making payments or to request that the court modify the payment amount.
2. Reduces a violation of willful failure to appear on more than one case within the past five years, from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
3. Provides that an individual who willfully fails to appear for the first time, or willfully violates a continuance on a promise to appear, is not guilty of an infraction unless the individual fails to appear before the court to schedule a new hearing date within 60 days.
4. Requires the court to fully restore all fines if it finds the defendant’s indigent status to be willfully fraudulent.
5. Provides that if an individual has violated a promise to appear or a continuance of a promise to appear, the court shall issue a specified notice to the defendant that he or she is required to appear within 60 days. Allows the court to notify DMV if the defendant does not appear within 60 days. Prohibits the court from issuing a bench warrant for a failure to appear. Requires DMV to remove any driver’s license hold if the case is thereafter adjudicated.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author states that according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, traffic offenses represent the largest number of cases in state and local courts across the country. California law allows the courts to impose hundreds of dollars in administrative penalties (civil assessments) if a defendant misses a court date or a payment, which may ultimately lead to a suspended driver’s license. The author states that suspending a license is appropriate for unsafe driving behavior, but is overly harsh for failure to pay since the practice undermines a defendant’s ability to earn the necessary wages to pay the ticket. The debt that working Californians are saddled with from these penalties pushes low-income individuals into poverty and even jail. Furthermore, courts frequently do not make a determination of a defendant’s ability to pay a ticket, as required by law; and when payment plans are offered, the required payments may be just as unaffordable for some defendants as the original costs. This bill addresses these issues by prohibiting courts from administratively suspending a driver’s license in order to collect court-related debt for non-safety offense and requiring courts to reinstate suspended licenses for anyone making a good faith effort to meet their obligations.
2. Amnesty program expiring. The author and sponsors have worked with the Administration for several years on how to address issue of onerous traffic fines (see “Related Legislation” below.) In 2015, the Governor proposed an amnesty program to provide a legal remedy for individuals who had their licenses suspended after a failure to appear or a failure to pay violation. The Legislature adopted this proposal as part of the 2015-16 budget act. Beginning in October 2015, the courts began to accept applications under the amnesty program and to date have restored driving privileges to more than 130,000 Californians. However, the amnesty program expires on March 31, 2017. This bill proposes to create a permanent legal remedy in its place by utilizing many of the provisions of amnesty.
3. Is driver’s license suspension an effective hammer? The intended purpose of suspending a driver’s license in response to a failure to appear or failure to pay is to coerce that individual into compliance. The DMV reports that 612,000 Californians currently have a license suspended solely for having an FTA or FTP. More than 4.5 million Californians have received FTAs or FTPs since 2006 that could lead to their license being suspended at any time. WCLP states that “if license suspension was an effective tool for encouraging cooperation, the state would not have such high numbers.” In addition, the state currently has billions of dollars of uncollected court-ordered debt, further calling into question the effectiveness of license suspension.
4. Governor’s budget proposals. The Governor’s proposed 2017-18 budget includes three proposals related to the state’s criminal fine and fee system:
   1. Eliminate the statutory formulas dictating how State Penalty Fund revenues are distributed and instead appropriate these revenues directly to specific programs (not necessarily the same programs that currently receive these revenues).
   2. Provide a $1.1 million augmentation from the Court Collection Account for the Franchise Tax Board’s Court-Ordered Debt Collection Program to maintain existing service levels and eliminate a backlog.
   3. Eliminate the ability to use driver’s license holds and suspensions as a sanction for an individual’s failure to pay.
5. A question of constitutionality? Howard Herships, an individual who lost his driver’s license in relation to a 2014 red light camera violation, is seeking a federal court order to block the practice of, as he describes it, California’s courts using traffic fines as self-funding revenue streams. Herships alleges that this practice is a conflict of interest and is unconstitutional. His case will be heard in federal court in May 2017.
6. Double referral. This bill has also been referred to the Committee on Public Safety.

Related Legislation:

SB 881 (Hertzberg, Chapter 779, 2016) — modifies the traffic amnesty program as follows: (a) requires a court, when notifying the DMV that an individual with a suspended license has appeared in court, paid the fine, or otherwise satisfied the requirements of the amnesty program, to do so within 90 days; (b) requires a court, for amnesty applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, that are still outstanding as of that date, to notify the DMV no later than March 31, 2017, of individuals who have satisfied the requirements of the program; (c) provides, for applications submitted on or before March 31, 2017, that all terms and procedures related to the participant’s payment plans shall remain in effect after March 31, 2017; and (d) requires an individual to file a request with the court by March 31, 2017, in order to be eligible for the amnesty program.

SB 405 (Hertzberg, Chapter 385, 2015) — required courts to allow individuals to schedule court proceedings, even if bail or civil assessment has been imposed, and clarifies the traffic amnesty program.

SB 85 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 26, 2015) —authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty program, by October 1, 2015, for delinquent debt. This program expires on March 31, 2017.

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

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

March 29, 2017.)

SUPPORT:

American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-sponsor)

Community Housing Partnership (co-sponsor)

East Bay Community Law Center (co-sponsor)

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (co-sponsor)

Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-sponsor)

Alliance for Children’s Rights

A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project

Bay Area Legal Aid

California Catholic Conference

California District Attorneys Association

Californians for Safety and Justice

Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth

Contra Costa County Defenders Association

Courage Campaign

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Equal Justice Society

Fifth Street Residents

Filipino Bar Association of Northern California

Foster Care Counts

Homeboy Industries

Jobs with Justice San Francisco

Law Enforcement Action Partnership

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

Legal Aid Association of California

Legal Services of Northern California

Los Angeles Conservation Corps

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Center for Youth Law

National Employment Law Project

Prison Policy Initiative

Rabbi Suzanne Singer

Root and Rebound

Rubicon Programs

San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program

Supportive Housing Providers Network

W. Haywood Burns Institute

Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services (WORKS)

Young Women’s Freedom Center

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --