AB 1266: Infractions: warrants and penalties.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2023-03-22
Current Status:
Failed
(2023-09-01: In committee: Held under submission.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
This bill stops courts from issuing bench or arrest warrants and from treating a missed court appearance as a misdemeanor when the original charge is an infraction, so it mainly affects people cited for low‑level traffic and other infractions. It also removes the misdemeanor and the authority to issue arrest warrants for failing to pay bail installments or fines for Vehicle Code infractions and removes the requirement that courts report those convictions to the DMV.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
(1)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction.
(2)Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction.
(3)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code. Code, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department.
(4)Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law. law, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department.
This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of these offenses to the department.
(5)Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear.
This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
(1)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction.
(2)Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction.
(3)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code.
This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction.
(4)Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law.
This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
(5)Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear.
This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Each year California processes over 3 million infractions, according to data from the Judicial Council of California.
(b)Infractions are low-level violations, enforced by tickets, and punishable only by a fine. Court appearances are not required for infractions so long as a person pays their ticket. When people fail to pay the ticket or alternatively appear in court, however, state law currently authorizes courts to issue bench warrants for their arrest.
(c)An infraction bench warrant converts an otherwise infraction offense into the basis for a persons incarceration. The punishment for failing to pay or appear is thus much more severe than the initial ticket or fine. A persons arrest and incarceration on an infraction bench warrant, resulting from nonpayment of a fine, is effectively a form of debtors prison.
(d)Many people who are issued infraction tickets have good reasons for failing to pay or appear in court. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, were not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or understandably are fearful of appearing in court.
(e)Many people issued infraction tickets cannot afford to pay. A 2022 Debt Free Justice California survey of people exiting traffic courts found that over 70 percent of people could not afford to pay a $300 assessment. The Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking found that over 40 percent of families do not have enough money saved to cover a $400 emergency expense.
(f)Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are disproportionately stopped, cited, and arrested by law enforcement for infractions. According to the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, Black people are nearly 10 times as likely to receive a citation for an infraction as White individuals. Data from the county of San Francisco show that, though Black people only make up 5.8 percent of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, 48.7 percent of those arrested for failure to appear or pay traffic court warrants are Black. Data obtained from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department through a Public Records Act request show that nearly 90 percent of the thousands of people arrested by the Sheriffs Department on traffic infraction bench warrants were Black or Latinx.
(g)A substantial body of social science research, including the research documented in the Ella Baker Center report Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families, shows that an arrest can have adverse and long-term consequences, such as negative impacts on ones ability to secure housing, employment, and higher education opportunities, and that even short periods of detention may make people more likely to become involved with the legal system again.
(h)Existing law provides courts with other tools to respond to nonpayment of infraction tickets, which do not involve arrest and incarceration, such as civil collections. Research from ideas42 and the University of Chicago CrimeLab shows that alternatives to warrants such as improved notices and reminders and common sense collections practices are more effective at generating timely court appearances and payments.
SEC. 2.It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions as a step towards ending debtors prisons in California.
SEC. 3.Section 19.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:19.7.Except as otherwise provided by law, all laws relating to misdemeanors, except for the authority to issue bench warrants, shall apply to infractions, including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial, and burden of proof.
SEC. 4.Section 853.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.7.Any person who willfully violates their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which they were originally arrested. This section shall not apply where the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 5.Section 853.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.8.When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Section 853.6, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 6.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 3 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(7)If a defendant has been cited or arrested for misdemeanor or felony theft from a store and has failed to appear in court in connection with that charge or those charges in the previous six months.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section does not apply to infractions.
(d)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 7.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section does not apply to infractions.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 2026.
SEC. 8.Section 1043 of the Penal Code is amended to read:1043.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony case shall be personally present at the trial.
(b)The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has commenced in their physical presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including, the return of the verdict in any of the following cases:
(1)Any case in which the defendant, after being warned by the judge that they will be removed if they continue their disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists on acting in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with the defendant present in the courtroom.
(2)Any prosecution for an offense which is not punishable by death in which the defendant is voluntarily absent.
(c)Any defendant who is absent from a trial pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) may reclaim the right to be present at the trial as soon as they are willing to act consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.
(d)Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not limit the right of a defendant to waive the right to be present in accordance with Section 977.
(e)If the defendant in a misdemeanor case fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court shall proceed with the trial, unless good cause for a continuance exists, if the defendant has authorized their counsel to proceed in their absence pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977.
If there is no authorization pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977 and if the defendant fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court, in its discretion, may do one or more of the following, as it deems appropriate:
(1)Continue the matter.
(2)Order bail forfeited or revoke release on the defendants own recognizance.
(3)Issue a bench warrant.
(4)(A)If the defendant is in custody, proceed with the trial in the defendants absence as authorized in subdivision (f).
(B)If the defendant is out of custody, proceed with the trial if the court finds the defendant has absented themselves voluntarily with full knowledge that the trial is to be held or is being held.
(f)(1)A trial shall be deemed to have commenced in the presence of the defendant for purposes of subdivision (b), or may proceed pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following to be true:
(A)The defendant is in custody and is refusing, without good cause, to appear in court on that day for that trial.
(B)The defendant has been informed of their right and obligation to be personally present in court.
(C)The defendant has been informed that the trial will proceed without the defendant being present.
(D)The defendant has been informed that they have the right to remain silent during the trial.
(E)The defendant has been informed that their absence without good cause will constitute a voluntary waiver of any constitutional or statutory right to confront any witnesses against them or to testify on their own behalf.
(F)The defendant has been informed whether or not defense counsel will be present.
(2)The court shall state on the record the reasons for the courts findings and shall cause those findings and reasons to be entered into the minutes.
(3)If the trial lasts for more than one day, the court is required to make the findings required by this subdivision anew for each day that the defendant is absent.
(4)This subdivision does not apply to any trial in which the defendant was personally present in court at the commencement of trial.
(g)This section does not limit the right of the court to order the defendant to be personally present at the trial for purposes of identification unless counsel stipulate to the issue of identity.
(h)This section does not apply when the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 9.Section 1803 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:1803.(a)(1)The clerk of a court in which a person was convicted of a violation of this code, was convicted of a violation of subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code pertaining to a mechanically propelled vessel but not to manipulating any water skis, an aquaplane, or similar device, was convicted of a violation of Section 655.2, 655.6, 658, or 658.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, or a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 5387 of the Public Utilities Code, was convicted of an offense involving use or possession of controlled substances under Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, was convicted of a felony offense when a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210, was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of the offense, or was convicted of a violation of any other statute relating to the safe operation of vehicles, shall prepare within five days after conviction and immediately forward to the department at its office at Sacramento an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was so convicted. If sentencing is not pronounced in conjunction with the conviction, the abstract shall be forwarded to the department within five days after sentencing and the abstract shall be certified by the person so required to prepare it to be true and correct.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a forfeiture of bail shall be equivalent to a conviction.
(b)The following violations are not required to be reported under subdivision (a):
(1)Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840).
(2)Section 21113, with respect to parking violations.
(3)Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11, except Section 22526.
(4)Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), except Sections 24002, 24004, 24250, 24409, 24604, 24800, 25103, 26707, 27151, 27315, 27360, 27800, and 27801 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 26301).
(5)Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), except Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35550).
(6)Violations for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.
(7)Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), except Sections 38301, 38301.3, 38301.5, 38304.1, and 38504.1.
(8)Subdivision (b) of Section 23221, subdivision (b) of Section 23223, subdivision (b) of Section 23225, and subdivision (b) of Section 23226.
(9)Section 40508.
(c)If the court impounds a license or orders a person to limit their driving pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 40508, the court shall notify the department concerning the impoundment or limitation on an abstract prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section or on a separate abstract, that shall be prepared within five days after the impoundment or limitation was ordered and immediately forwarded to the department at its office in Sacramento.
(d)If the court determines that a prior judgment of conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is valid or is invalid on constitutional grounds pursuant to Section 41403, the clerk of the court in which the determination is made shall prepare an abstract of that determination and forward it to the department in the same manner as an abstract of record pursuant to subdivision (a).
(e)Within five days of an order terminating or revoking probation under Section 23602, the clerk of the court in which the order terminating or revoking probation was entered shall prepare and immediately forward to the department, at its office in Sacramento, an abstract of the record of the court order terminating or revoking probation and any other order of the court to the department required by law.
SEC. 10.Section 40508 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40508.(a)A person willfully violating their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their 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 the person was originally arrested. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(b)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of subsequent compliance with the order.
(c)If a person convicted of an infraction fails to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5, or a fine or an installment thereof, within the time authorized by the court, the court may, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, impound the persons drivers license and order the person not to drive for a period not to exceed 30 days. Before returning the license to the person, the court shall endorse on the reverse side of the license that the person was ordered not to drive, the period for which that order was made, and the name of the court making the order. If a defendant with a class C or M drivers license satisfies the court that impounding their drivers license and ordering the defendant not to drive will affect their livelihood, the court shall order that the person limit their driving for a period not to exceed 30 days to driving that is essential in the courts determination to the persons employment, including the persons driving to and from the place of employment if other means of transportation are not reasonably available. The court shall provide for the endorsement of the limitation on the persons license. The impounding of the license and ordering the person not to drive or the order limiting the persons driving does not constitute a suspension of the license, but a violation of the order constitutes contempt of court.
SEC. 11.Section 40510.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40510.5.(a)The clerk of the court may accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 10 percent of the total bail amount for each infraction violation of this code prior to the date on which the defendant promised to appear, or prior to the expiration of any lawful continuance of that date, or upon receipt of information that an action has been filed and prior to the scheduled court date, if all of the following circumstances exist:
(1)The defendant is charged with an infraction violation of this code or an infraction violation of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.
(2)The defendant submits proof of correction, when proof of correction is mandatory for a correctable offense.
(3)The offense does not require an appearance in court.
(4)The defendant signs a written agreement to pay and forfeit the remainder of the required bail according to an installment schedule as agreed upon with the court. The Judicial Council shall prescribe the form of the agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments for infraction violations.
(b)When a clerk accepts an agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments, the clerk shall continue the appearance date of the defendant to the date to complete payment and forfeiture of bail in the agreement.
(c)Except for subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1269b and Section 1305.1, the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1268) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Penal Code do not apply to an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments under this section.
(d)For the purposes of reporting violations of this code to the department under Section 1803, the date that the defendant signs an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments shall be reported as the date of conviction.
(e)When the defendant fails to make an installment payment according to an agreement under subdivision (a) above, the court may impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code.
(f)Payment of a bail amount under this section is forfeited when collected and shall be distributed by the court in the same manner as other fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for infractions.
(g)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2022.
SEC. 12.Section 40512 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.(a)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2) and subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(2)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
(b)(1)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has entered into a bail installment agreement pursuant to Section 40510.5 but has not made an installment payment as agreed and does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may continue the arraignment to a date beyond the last agreed upon installment payment, or impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code for the failure to appear.
(2)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has paid all required bail funds and the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except that if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring them to appear, the magistrate may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(c)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings shall be had, all sums deposited as bail shall be paid into the city or county treasury, as the case may be.
(d)If a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate has been filed, the clerk of the court shall bill the issuer for the amount of bail fixed by the uniform countywide schedule of bail required under subdivision (c) of Section 1269b of the Penal Code.
(e)Upon presentation by a court of the bill for a fine or bail assessed against an individual covered by a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate, the issuer shall pay to the court the amount of the fine or forfeited bail that is within the maximum amount guaranteed by the terms of the certificate.
(f)The court shall return the guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate to the issuer upon receipt of payment in accordance with subdivision (d).
SEC. 13.Section 40512.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.5.(a)Except as specified in subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for trial the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, and has not requested in writing that the trial proceed in their absence, the court may declare the bail forfeited and may, in its discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or the court may act pursuant to Section 1043 of the Penal Code.
(b)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
SEC. 14.Section 40514 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40514.A warrant shall not issue on the charge for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, unless the person has violated the promise, the lawfully granted continuance of the promise, or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying offense is an infraction.
SEC. 15.Section 40515 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40515.(a)When a person signs a written promise to appear or is granted a continuance of their promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear or the continuance thereof, and has not posted full bail or has failed to pay an installment of bail as agreed to under Section 40510.5, the magistrate may issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days after the failure to appear before the magistrate or pay an installment of bail as agreed, or if the person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date on which they promised to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of the written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense.
(b)When the person violates their promise to appear before an officer authorized to receive bail other than a magistrate, the officer shall immediately deliver to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense charged the written promise to appear and the complaint, if any, filed by the arresting officer.
(c)This section does not apply if the underlying charge is an infraction.
REVISIONS: HeadingLine 2.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Each year California processes over 3 million infractions, according to data from the Judicial Council of California.
(b)Infractions are low-level violations, enforced by tickets, and punishable only by a fine. Court appearances are not required for infractions so long as a person pays their ticket. When people fail to pay the ticket or alternatively appear in court, however, state law currently authorizes courts to issue bench warrants for their arrest.
(c)An infraction bench warrant converts an otherwise infraction offense into the basis for a persons incarceration. The punishment for failing to pay or appear is thus much more severe than the initial ticket or fine. A persons arrest and incarceration on an infraction bench warrant, resulting from nonpayment of a fine, is effectively a form of debtors prison.
(d)Many people who are issued infraction tickets have good reasons for failing to pay or appear in court. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, were not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or understandably are fearful of appearing in court.
(e)Many people issued infraction tickets cannot afford to pay. A 2022 Debt Free Justice California survey of people exiting traffic courts found that over 70 percent of people could not afford to pay a $300 assessment. The Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking found that over 40 percent of families do not have enough money saved to cover a $400 emergency expense.
(f)Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are disproportionately stopped, cited, and arrested by law enforcement for infractions. According to the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, Black people are nearly 10 times as likely to receive a citation for an infraction as White individuals. Data from the county of San Francisco show that, though Black people only make up 5.8 percent of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, 48.7 percent of those arrested for failure to appear or pay traffic court warrants are Black. Data obtained from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department through a Public Records Act request show that nearly 90 percent of the thousands of people arrested by the Sheriffs Department on traffic infraction bench warrants were Black or Latinx.
(g)A substantial body of social science research, including the research documented in the Ella Baker Center report Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families, shows that an arrest can have adverse and long-term consequences, such as negative impacts on ones ability to secure housing, employment, and higher education opportunities, and that even short periods of detention may make people more likely to become involved with the legal system again.
(h)Existing law provides courts with other tools to respond to nonpayment of infraction tickets, which do not involve arrest and incarceration, such as civil collections. Research from ideas42 and the University of Chicago CrimeLab shows that alternatives to warrants such as improved notices and reminders and common sense collections practices are more effective at generating timely court appearances and payments.
SEC. 2.It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions as a step towards ending debtors prisons in California.
SEC. 3.Section 19.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:19.7.Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law laws relating to misdemeanors misdemeanors, except for the authority to issue bench warrants, shall apply to infractions infractions, including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial trial, and burden of proof.
SEC. 4.Section 853.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.7.Any person who willfully violates his or her their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her their promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was they were originally arrested. This section shall not apply where the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 5.Section 853.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.8.When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Section 853.6, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his or her their arrest within 20 days after his or her their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after his or her their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance of his or her their promise to appear. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 6.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 3 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(7)If a defendant has been cited or arrested for misdemeanor or felony theft from a store and has failed to appear in court in connection with that charge or those charges in the previous six months.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section does not apply to infractions.
(c)(d)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 7.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section does not apply to infractions.
(c)(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 2026.
SEC. 8.Section 1043 of the Penal Code is amended to read:1043.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony case shall be personally present at the trial.
(b)The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has commenced in their physical presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including, the return of the verdict in any of the following cases:
(1)Any case in which the defendant, after being warned by the judge that they will be removed if they continue their disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists on acting in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with the defendant present in the courtroom.
(2)Any prosecution for an offense which is not punishable by death in which the defendant is voluntarily absent.
(c)Any defendant who is absent from a trial pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) may reclaim the right to be present at the trial as soon as they are willing to act consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.
(d)Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not limit the right of a defendant to waive the right to be present in accordance with Section 977.
(e)If the defendant in a misdemeanor case fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court shall proceed with the trial, unless good cause for a continuance exists, if the defendant has authorized their counsel to proceed in their absence pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977.
If there is no authorization pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977 and if the defendant fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court, in its discretion, may do one or more of the following, as it deems appropriate:
(1)Continue the matter.
(2)Order bail forfeited or revoke release on the defendants own recognizance.
(3)Issue a bench warrant.
(4)(A)If the defendant is in custody, proceed with the trial in the defendants absence as authorized in subdivision (f).
(B)If the defendant is out of custody, proceed with the trial if the court finds the defendant has absented themselves voluntarily with full knowledge that the trial is to be held or is being held.
(f)(1)A trial shall be deemed to have commenced in the presence of the defendant for purposes of subdivision (b), or may proceed pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following to be true:
(A)The defendant is in custody and is refusing, without good cause, to appear in court on that day for that trial.
(B)The defendant has been informed of their right and obligation to be personally present in court.
(C)The defendant has been informed that the trial will proceed without the defendant being present.
(D)The defendant has been informed that they have the right to remain silent during the trial.
(E)The defendant has been informed that their absence without good cause will constitute a voluntary waiver of any constitutional or statutory right to confront any witnesses against them or to testify on their own behalf.
(F)The defendant has been informed whether or not defense counsel will be present.
(2)The court shall state on the record the reasons for the courts findings and shall cause those findings and reasons to be entered into the minutes.
(3)If the trial lasts for more than one day, the court is required to make the findings required by this subdivision anew for each day that the defendant is absent.
(4)This subdivision does not apply to any trial in which the defendant was personally present in court at the commencement of trial.
(g)Nothing herein shall This section does not limit the right of the court to order the defendant to be personally present at the trial for purposes of identification unless counsel stipulate to the issue of identity.
(h)This section does not apply when the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 9.Section 1803 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:1803.(a)(1)The clerk of a court in which a person was convicted of a violation of this code, was convicted of a violation of subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code pertaining to a mechanically propelled vessel but not to manipulating any water skis, an aquaplane, or similar device, was convicted of a violation of Section 655.2, 655.6, 658, or 658.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, or a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 5387 of the Public Utilities Code, was convicted of an offense involving use or possession of controlled substances under Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, was convicted of a felony offense when a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210, was involved in in, or incidental to to, the commission of the offense, or was convicted of a violation of any other statute relating to the safe operation of vehicles, shall prepare within five days after conviction and immediately forward to the department at its office at Sacramento an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was so convicted. If sentencing is not pronounced in conjunction with the conviction, the abstract shall be forwarded to the department within five days after sentencing and the abstract shall be certified by the person so required to prepare it to be true and correct.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a forfeiture of bail shall be equivalent to a conviction.
(b)The following violations are not required to be reported under subdivision (a):
(1)Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840).
(2)Section 21113, with respect to parking violations.
(3)Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11, except Section 22526.
(4)Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), except Sections 24002, 24004, 24250, 24409, 24604, 24800, 25103, 26707, 27151, 27315, 27360, 27800, and 27801 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 26301).
(5)Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), except Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35550).
(6)Violations for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.
(7)Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), except Sections 38301, 38301.3, 38301.5, 38304.1, and 38504.1.
(8)Subdivision (b) of Section 23221, subdivision (b) of Section 23223, subdivision (b) of Section 23225, and subdivision (b) of Section 23226.
(c)If the court impounds a license or orders a person to limit his or her their driving pursuant to subdivision (d) (c) of Section 40508, the court shall notify the department concerning the impoundment or limitation on an abstract prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section or on a separate abstract, that shall be prepared within five days after the impoundment or limitation was ordered and immediately forwarded to the department at its office in Sacramento.
(d)If the court determines that a prior judgment of conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is valid or is invalid on constitutional grounds pursuant to Section 41403, the clerk of the court in which the determination is made shall prepare an abstract of that determination and forward it to the department in the same manner as an abstract of record pursuant to subdivision (a).
(e)Within five days of an order terminating or revoking probation under Section 23602, the clerk of the court in which the order terminating or revoking probation was entered shall prepare and immediately forward to the department department, at its office in Sacramento Sacramento, an abstract of the record of the court order terminating or revoking probation and any other order of the court to the department required by law.
SEC. 10.Section 40508 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40508.(a)A person willfully violating his or her their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her their 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 the person was originally arrested. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(b)A person willfully failing to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5 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. (c)(b)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of his or her subsequent compliance with the order.
(d)(c)If a person convicted of an infraction fails to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5, or a fine or an installment thereof, within the time authorized by the court, the court may, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, impound the persons drivers license and order the person not to drive for a period not to exceed 30 days. Before returning the license to the person, the court shall endorse on the reverse side of the license that the person was ordered not to drive, the period for which that order was made, and the name of the court making the order. If a defendant with a class C or M drivers license satisfies the court that impounding his or her their drivers license and ordering the defendant not to drive will affect his or her their livelihood, the court shall order that the person limit his or her their driving for a period not to exceed 30 days to driving that is essential in the courts determination to the persons employment, including the persons driving to and from his or her the place of employment if other means of transportation are not reasonably available. The court shall provide for the endorsement of the limitation on the persons license. The impounding of the license and ordering the person not to drive or the order limiting the persons driving does not constitute a suspension of the license, but a violation of the order constitutes contempt of court.
SEC. 11.Section 40510.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40510.5.(a)The clerk of the court may accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 10 percent of the total bail amount for each infraction violation of this code prior to the date on which the defendant promised to appear, or prior to the expiration of any lawful continuance of that date, or upon receipt of information that an action has been filed and prior to the scheduled court date, if all of the following circumstances exist:
(1)The defendant is charged with an infraction violation of this code or an infraction violation of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.
(2)The defendant submits proof of correction, when proof of correction is mandatory for a correctable offense.
(3)The offense does not require an appearance in court.
(4)The defendant signs a written agreement to pay and forfeit the remainder of the required bail according to an installment schedule as agreed upon with the court. The Judicial Council shall prescribe the form of the agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments for infraction violations.
(b)When a clerk accepts an agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments, the clerk shall continue the appearance date of the defendant to the date to complete payment and forfeiture of bail in the agreement.
(c)Except for subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1269b and Section 1305.1, the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1268) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Penal Code do not apply to an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments under this section.
(d)For the purposes of reporting violations of this code to the department under Section 1803, the date that the defendant signs an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments shall be reported as the date of conviction.
(e)When the defendant fails to make an installment payment according to an agreement under subdivision (a) above, the court may charge a failure to appear or pay under Section 40508 and impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code or issue an arrest warrant for a failure to appear. Code.
(f)Payment of a bail amount under this section is forfeited when collected and shall be distributed by the court in the same manner as other fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for infractions.
(g)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2022.
SEC. 12.Section 40512 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.(a)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2) and subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and may, in his or her the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and he or she the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(2)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
(b)(1)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has entered into a bail installment agreement pursuant to Section 40510.5 but has not made an installment payment as agreed and does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may continue the arraignment to a date beyond the last agreed upon installment payment, issue a warrant of arrest, or impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code for the failure to appear.
(2)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has paid all required bail funds and the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and he or she the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except that if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her them to appear, the magistrate may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(c)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings shall be had, all sums deposited as bail shall be paid into the city or county treasury, as the case may be.
(d)If a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate has been filed, the clerk of the court shall bill the issuer for the amount of bail fixed by the uniform countywide schedule of bail required under subdivision (c) of Section 1269b of the Penal Code.
(e)Upon presentation by a court of the bill for a fine or bail assessed against an individual covered by a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate, the issuer shall pay to the court the amount of the fine or forfeited bail that is within the maximum amount guaranteed by the terms of the certificate.
(f)The court shall return the guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate to the issuer upon receipt of payment in accordance with subdivision (d).
SEC. 13.Section 40512.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.5.(a)Except as specified in subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for trial the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, and has not requested in writing that the trial proceed in his or her their absence, the court may declare the bail forfeited and may, in its discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or the court may act pursuant to Section 1043 of the Penal Code. However, if the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and he or she has been previously convicted of a violation of the same section, the court may declare the bail forfeited, but shall issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(b)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
SEC. 14.Section 40514 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40514.No A warrant shall not issue on the charge for the arrest of a person who has given his a written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, unless he the person has violated the promise, the lawfully granted continuance of his the promise, or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying offense is an infraction.
SEC. 15.Section 40515 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40515.(a)When a person signs a written promise to appear or is granted a continuance of his or her their promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear or the continuance thereof, and has not posted full bail or has failed to pay an installment of bail as agreed to under Section 40510.5, the magistrate may issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his or her the persons arrest within 20 days after his or her the failure to appear before the magistrate or pay an installment of bail as agreed, or if the person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date on which he or she they promised to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of the written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense.
(b)When the person violates his or her their promise to appear before an officer authorized to receive bail other than a magistrate, the officer shall immediately deliver to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense charged the written promise to appear and the complaint, if any, filed by the arresting officer.
(c)This section does not apply if the underlying charge is an infraction.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2023 | In committee: Held under submission. |
| Aug 14, 2023 | In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file. |
| Jun 28, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 7, 2023 | Referred to Com. on PUB S. |
| May 26, 2023 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 25, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 50. Noes 19. Page 1741.) |
| May 11, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 10, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.) (May 10). |
| May 3, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 26, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Mar 28, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (March 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Mar 28, 2023 | Coauthors revised. |
| Mar 23, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 2, 2023 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 19. |
| Feb 16, 2023 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2023 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 27, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| May 25, 2023 | AB 1266 Kalra Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 10, 2023 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Mar 28, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| A New Way of Life Reentry Project | ** Support | |
| Aclu California Action | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Alameda County District Attorney's Office | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| All of Us or None | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Anti Recidivism Coalition | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Aouon Orange County | ** Support | |
| California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice | ** Support | |
| California Civil Liberties Advocacy | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| California Coalition for Women's Prisoners | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| California District Attorneys Association | * Against Unless Amend | Jun 27, 2023 |
| California Public Defenders' Association | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| California State Sheriffs Association | ** Against | |
| California-Hawaii State Conference Of The Naacp | ** Support | |
| Californians for Safety and Justice | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Care First California | ** Support | |
| Center for Employment Opportunities | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Children’s Defense Fund CA | ** Support | |
| City Of Sacramento | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Communities United for Restorative Justice | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto | ** Support | |
| Courage and Dream Beyond Bars Fellowship | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Dignity and Power Now | ** Support | |
| East Bay Community Law Center | ** Support | |
| Ella Baker Center For Human Rights | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Freedom 4 Youth | ** Support | |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Impact Our Youth | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Indivisible Ca: Statestrong | ** Support | |
| Initiate Justice | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Justice2jobs Coalition | ** Support | |
| Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Of The San Francisco Bay Area | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Legal Services for Prisoners with Children | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Los Angeles County District Attorney'S Office | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| milpa | ** Support | |
| National Association of Social Workers -California Chapter | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Padres Unidos | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
| Policing Project | ** Support | |
| Prosecutors Alliance of California | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Financial Justice Project | ** Support | |
| Secure Justice | ** Support | |
| Showing Up For Racial Justice - Bay Area | ** Support | |
| Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition | ** Support | |
| Smart Justice California | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| Stone Advocacy | * Against | Mar 28, 2023 |
| The Maven Collaborative | ** Support | |
| The W. Haywood Burns Institute | ** Support | |
| The Western Center on Law and Poverty | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| United Core Alliance | ** Support | |
| Young Women's Freedom Center | * Support | Mar 28, 2023 |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1266 (Kalra) - Infractions: warrants and penalties
Version: March 22, 2023 | Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 1 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: August 14, 2023 | Consultant: Matthew Fleming |
Bill Summary:
AB 1266 would eliminate misdemeanor liability for, and the court’s authority to issue a bench warrant for, the failure to pay, or to appear in court, for an infraction ticket.
Fiscal Impact:
- The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) reports unknown, one-time costs, potentially in the millions, in order to create temporary programming modifications to discontinue the electronic reporting of convictions for failure to appear to the department (Motor Vehicle Account).*
- Unknown, likely minor loss of revenue to the courts, local funds, various state special funds, and the General Fund as a result of fines going unpaid that would otherwise be collected absent the provisions of AB 1266.*
*See Staff Comments for additional detail.
Background:
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can issue if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.
Proposed Law:
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction.
Related Legislation:
- AB 1125 (Hart) eliminates the court’s authority to impound a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay the bail amount on infraction violations of the Vehicle Code. AB 1125 is pending hearing on the Senate Floor.
- AB 2746 (Friedman), Chapter 800, Statutes of 2022, removed the ability for a court to suspend a person's driver's license for failure to appear.
Staff Comments:
- DMV costs: DMV is currently reliant on aging legacy IT systems to support its operations. The obsolete technology continues to put the state at risk of major disruptions should these applications fail. The department is currently engaged in a multi-year effort to modernize IT systems and expects this Digital eXperience Project (DXP) to last through fiscal year 2025-26.
AB 1266 would eliminate the requirement that failure to appear convictions be reported to the DMV. Such convictions do not result in point violations against a person’s driver’s license, but they are do go on a person’s driving record for a period of three years. According to DMV, its current system automatically receives reports of failure to appear convictions under Vehicle Code 40508 from the courts. DMV reports that in order to discontinue these reports it would have to build a temporary solution outside of the core legacy systems. That programming will require the DMV to acquire new technology and services. DMV estimates costs in the low to multiple millions of dollars. Delayed implementation of the provisions of AB 1266 that affect the DMV until 2027, when the modernization efforts are expected to be complete, may significantly reduce the fiscal impact to the department.
- Revenue loss: Both the vehicle code and the penal code provide that a person who willfully violates a promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, even if the promise to appear is based upon a citation for an infraction. According to the JCC, these existing laws are used to incentivize defendants to appear in court and/or pay their fines. The base fine for these add-on charges starts at $25 for an infraction and may be increased either by county and/or at the judge’s discretion. By eliminating misdemeanor liability, the courts may experience a loss of revenue by not collecting the $25 add-on fine.
Additionally, to the extent that misdemeanor liability may motivate otherwise-unwilling defendants to pay their fines there could be a loss of revenue to a variety of special funds and the General Fund. For example, the infraction offense of driving a vehicle without current registration (Vehicle Code § 4000), carries a base fine of $25 that must be paid within a certain amount of time. Upon collection, that $25 is divided between the State Court Facilities Fund ($15.00), the State Penalty Fund ($3.40), and the local county and/or city general fund ($6.60). When a violation goes uncorrected, the penalty is ratcheted up to $285. Various additional funds are included in the distribution of those $285, including the General Fund, the Trial Court Trust Fund, the DNA Identification Fund, and others. The JCC’s 2021 Court Statistics Report indicates that there were more than 3.2 million infraction cases filed in California in 2019-20. It is unknown whether and how many of those cases may result in uncollected revenue in a given year as a result of AB 1266, but if even a fraction of one percent are affected, then revenue loss could be in the tens of thousands or more.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1266 (Kalra) - Infractions: warrants and penalties
Version: March 22, 2023 | Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 1 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: August 14, 2023 | Consultant: Matthew Fleming |
Bill Summary:
AB 1266 would eliminate misdemeanor liability for, and the court’s authority to issue a bench warrant for, the failure to pay, or to appear in court, for an infraction ticket.
Fiscal Impact:
- The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) reports unknown, one-time costs, potentially in the millions, in order to create temporary programming modifications to discontinue the electronic reporting of convictions for failure to appear to the department (Motor Vehicle Account).*
- Unknown, likely minor loss of revenue to the courts, local funds, various state special funds, and the General Fund as a result of fines going unpaid that would otherwise be collected absent the provisions of AB 1266.*
*See Staff Comments for additional detail.
Background:
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can issue if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.
Proposed Law:
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction.
Related Legislation:
- AB 1125 (Hart) eliminates the court’s authority to impound a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay the bail amount on infraction violations of the Vehicle Code. AB 1125 is pending hearing on the Senate Floor.
- AB 2746 (Friedman), Chapter 800, Statutes of 2022, removed the ability for a court to suspend a person's driver's license for failure to appear.
Staff Comments:
- DMV costs: DMV is currently reliant on aging legacy IT systems to support its operations. The obsolete technology continues to put the state at risk of major disruptions should these applications fail. The department is currently engaged in a multi-year effort to modernize IT systems and expects this Digital eXperience Project (DXP) to last through fiscal year 2025-26.
AB 1266 would eliminate the requirement that failure to appear convictions be reported to the DMV. Such convictions do not result in point violations against a person’s driver’s license, but they are do go on a person’s driving record for a period of three years. According to DMV, its current system automatically receives reports of failure to appear convictions under Vehicle Code 40508 from the courts. DMV reports that in order to discontinue these reports it would have to build a temporary solution outside of the core legacy systems. That programming will require the DMV to acquire new technology and services. DMV estimates costs in the low to multiple millions of dollars. Delayed implementation of the provisions of AB 1266 that affect the DMV until 2027, when the modernization efforts are expected to be complete, may significantly reduce the fiscal impact to the department.
- Revenue loss: Both the vehicle code and the penal code provide that a person who willfully violates a promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, even if the promise to appear is based upon a citation for an infraction. According to the JCC, these existing laws are used to incentivize defendants to appear in court and/or pay their fines. The base fine for these add-on charges starts at $25 for an infraction and may be increased either by county and/or at the judge’s discretion. By eliminating misdemeanor liability, the courts may experience a loss of revenue by not collecting the $25 add-on fine.
Additionally, to the extent that misdemeanor liability may motivate otherwise-unwilling defendants to pay their fines there could be a loss of revenue to a variety of special funds and the General Fund. For example, the infraction offense of driving a vehicle without current registration (Vehicle Code § 4000), carries a base fine of $25 that must be paid within a certain amount of time. Upon collection, that $25 is divided between the State Court Facilities Fund ($15.00), the State Penalty Fund ($3.40), and the local county and/or city general fund ($6.60). When a violation goes uncorrected, the penalty is ratcheted up to $285. Various additional funds are included in the distribution of those $285, including the General Fund, the Trial Court Trust Fund, the DNA Identification Fund, and others. The JCC’s 2021 Court Statistics Report indicates that there were more than 3.2 million infraction cases filed in California in 2019-20. It is unknown whether and how many of those cases may result in uncollected revenue in a given year as a result of AB 1266, but if even a fraction of one percent are affected, then revenue loss could be in the tens of thousands or more.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 1266 Hearing Date: June 27, 2023
Author: | Kalra | ||
Version: | March 22, 2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | MK | ||
Subject: Infractions: warrants and penalties
HISTORY
Source: Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Prior Legislation: AB 2746 (Friedman) Chapter 800, Stats. 2022
Support: ACLU California Action; California-Hawaii State Conference of The NAACP; City and County of San Francisco; Jose Cisneros, Treasurer, City and County of San Francisco; Democrats of Rossmoor; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Initiate Justice; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; National Consumer Law Center, INC.; Prosecutors Alliance California; Secure Justice; Smart Justice California
Opposition: California District Attorneys Association (unless amended); California State Sheriffs’ Association
Assembly Floor Vote: 50 - 19
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the authority to issue a bench warrant for the failure to pay, or to appear in court, on an infraction ticket.
Existing law provides that an infraction is not punishable by incarceration, and that a person charged with an infraction is not entitled to a jury trial or the representation by a public defender, except as specified. (Penal Code §19.6.)
Existing law states that, except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions. (Penal Code § 19.7.)
Existing law allows an officer who arrests a person for an infraction to require evidence of identification and then release the person on a written promise to appear contained in a notice to appear. (Penal Code § 853.5 (a).)
Existing law provides that a willful violation of a written promise to appear will result in a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which the defendant was originally arrested. (Penal Code § 853.7 & Vehicle Code § 40508 (a).)
Existing law provides that a bench warrant may be issued when a person signs a written promise to appear in court and does not. (Penal Code §§ 853.8 & 978.5.)
Existing law provides that the willful failure to pay a lawfully imposed fine for a violation of the Vehicle Code within the time authorized by the court and without a lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Vehicle Code § 40508 (b.)
Existing law requires the court to notify the DMV if a person was convicted of specified offenses. States that a forfeiture of bail on violations is equivalent to a conviction. (Vehicle Code, § 1803 (a).)
Existing law does not require court notification to the DMV for other specified Vehicle Code violations. (Vehicle Code § 1803 (b).)
This bill states legislative intent to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions.
This bill exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
This bill prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
This bill prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
This bill removes the requirement that a court inform the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction.
This bill includes legislative findings and declarations.
This bill makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court and are merely inconvenienced, while those who can’t pay are arrested for minor tickets. AB 1266 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This will ensure minor citations only subject to a fine do not unfairly turn into jail time simply for what is essentially a crime of poverty.
2. Background
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. (Penal Code § 19.6.) Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. (Ibid.; see also People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp 19.) However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. (Penal Code § 19.7.)
Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. (Penal Code, § 853.6 (a).) After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can issue if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. (Penal Code §§ 853.6(f) & 853.8; see also Vehicle Code § 40514.) A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction. (Penal Code § 853.7.)
This bill would prohibit the court from issuing a bench warrant for failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear for an infraction.
3. Impact of Infractions on the Criminal Justice System
The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all the criminal case filings, comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions. There were 174,553 felony cases filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and 3,243,819 infraction cases. (2021 Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of California, pp. 3-4, 2021-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf (ca.gov).) And the majority of infractions were traffic infractions. (Id. at p. 55.) There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions. (Id. at p. 84.)
4. Argument in Support
According to the author:
ACLU California Action supports this bill stating:
AB 1266 tackles an important racial and economic justice issue. Under current state law, people who have money to pay fines for traffic violations or tickets for infractions like loitering never have to go to court, but courts can issue a bench warrant for a person’s arrest if they are unable to pay the penalty or if they experience barriers to appear in court. In California, Black people who earn low incomes are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal legal system, especially regarding bench warrants for infractions. For instance, data from San Francisco County shows that, though Black people only make up 5.8% of the local population, due to systemic racism and unjust policing, they make up 48.7% of those arrested for “failure to appear or pay” traffic court warrants. AB 1266 would help bring the state in line with the California Reparations Committee’s recommendation to “eliminate the over-policing of predominantly Black communities.”
Arresting someone who cannot pay does not give them the means to pay but only further punishes people living in poverty while also exacerbating racial inequality. Similarly, issuing a bench warrant for someone’s arrest ignores structural issues in people’s lives, especially as many people who earn low incomes —primarily Black and brown people—face barriers, including transportation, risk of losing employment, childcare, that can prevent them from being able to appear in court.
AB 1266 will continue the trajectory of fine and fee justice in California. Recognizing the broad harm caused by civil assessment fees, Governor Newsom signed AB 199 into law, which erased retroactive debt for civil assessment fees and capped the fee at $100. AB 1266 builds on this important work, ensuring that families won’t be separated because they cannot pay a traffic fine or make a court hearing.
Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end one pipeline to the legal system and allow families to focus on what matters –devoting their limited time and resources to meeting critical needs.
5. Argument in Opposition
The California District Attorneys Association opposes this bill unless amended stating:
The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) opposes AB 1266 (Kalra) unless amended because it would prohibit the issuance of an arrest warrant, bench warrant, or the filing of anew misdemeanor whenever the underlying offense is an infraction, and the offender violates a written promise to appear. This bill eliminates any consequence for the numerous offenders
who simply ignore appearing in court and prevents their underlying infraction from being adjudicated.
Requested Amendments: AB 1266 should either limit its application to the Vehicle Code (or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code) or propose an analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 4093 that is applicable to all California codes. If a mechanism were added to allow adjudication of the underlying infractions, AB 1266 could hold individuals accountable while, at the same time, doing so without the threat of incarceration or arrest.
Although AB 1266 would apply to all California codes, only infractions currently identified in the Vehicle Code may be adjudicated by declaration and, in the event the offender fails to appear, in the offender’s absence. Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 40903, “[a]ny person who fails to appear 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, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.” Therefore, the underlying vehicle code infraction may be adjudicated in the offender’s absence and, if found guilty, any associated penalty could be sent to civil collections without the need for the court to issue a warrant or the prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear. This is not the case, however, for the hundreds of infractions that are contained in other California codes.
Because there is no analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 in other California codes, eliminating the court’s authority to issue warrants ensures that numerous infractions will never be adjudicated, and offenders will not be held accountable. Oftentimes, these infractions directly impact public safety or public health.
In addition, AB 1266 may result in several unintended consequences that run contrary to the purpose of the bill:
- Currently numerous violations provide prosecutors with the discretion to file misdemeanor charges instead of an infraction (commonly known as a “wobblette”).Without a mechanism to adjudicate underlying infractions, AB 1266 would incentivize the filing of misdemeanor charges over unenforceable infractions.
- Several infractions currently contain an escalating penalty structure in which multiple infraction violations will ultimately lead to a misdemeanor offense. AB 1266 would nullify any graduated penalty schemes.
- Certain infractions currently involve the imposition of community service hours or other probation obligations, such as restitution, if convicted. By prohibiting courts from issuing a warrant, AB 1266 would deprive courts of their ability to monitor and ensure that offenders are in compliance with their post-conviction obligations.
-- END –
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 1266
Author:(Kalra)
As Amended Ver:March 22, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Eliminates the authority to issue a bench warrant for the failure to pay, or to appear in court, on an infraction ticket.
Major Provisions
- States legislative intent to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions.
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction.
COMMENTS
According to the Author
"Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor's prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court and are merely inconvenienced, while those who can't pay are arrested for minor tickets. AB 1266 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This will ensure minor citations only subject to a fine do not unfairly turn into jail time simply for what is essentially a crime of poverty."
Arguments in Support
According to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, a co-sponsor of this bill, "Under current state law, people who have money to pay fines for infractions like littering, loitering, or jaywalking never have to go to court, but under antiquated legal authority, courts can issue a bench warrant for a person's arrest if they are unable to pay the penalty. These warrants punish people who do not have the money for fines and fees by making them vulnerable to arrest at any time, for infringements that are not otherwise punishable by jail time. Essentially, the current law allows for a direct line to prison for people who are economically insecure. This is an urgent issue of racial and economic justice.
"We have seen over and over the negative impact this kind of warrant has on people's jobs, child care, and housing status, which led LCCRSF to successfully advocate for San Francisco and Alameda County to stop issuing this kind of warrant. Data from San Francisco show that after ending the practice, collections for the infraction fines and fees actually went up. It's time for the rest of California to meet these best practices.
"Police do this type of infraction enforcement disproportionately in communities of color, and therefore these warrants particularly impact Black and Brown people. For instance, in our report Cited for Being in Plain Sight, we show that before San Francisco ended this practice, though Black people only made up 5.8% of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they made up 48.7% of those arrested for 'failure to appear or pay' traffic court warrants. AB 1266 would help bring the state in line with the California Reparations Committee's recommendation to 'eliminate the over-policing of predominantly Black communities.'
"Arresting someone who cannot pay does not give them the means to pay but only further punishes people living in poverty while also exacerbating racial inequality. Similarly, issuing a bench warrant for someone's arrest ignores structural issues in people's lives, especially as many low income people—primarily Black and brown people—face barriers, including transportation, risk of losing employment, childcare, etc., that can prevent them from being able to appear in court to clear a warrant.
"Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court. Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other less punitive means to address these infractions under current law, such as trial by absentia and methods to address a failure to pay.
"AB 1266 will continue the trajectory of fine and fee justice in California. Recognizing the broad harm caused by civil assessment fees, Governor Newsom signed AB 199 into law, which erased retroactive debt for civil assessment fees and capped the fee at $100, effective July 1, 2022. AB 1266 builds on this important work, ensuring that families won't be separated because they cannot pay a traffic fine or make a court hearing.
"The overinvestment in law enforcement and simultaneous disinvestment in communities disproportionately targeted by the criminal legal system cannot continue. Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end one pipeline to the legal system and allow families to focus on what matters – to devote their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs."
Arguments in Opposition
According to the California District Attorneys Association, "this bill eliminates any consequence for the numerous offenders who simply ignore appearing in court and prevent their underlying infraction from ever being adjudicated. Excepting Vehicle Code infractions, as currently drafted, AB 1266 prohibits courts and prosecutors from using the necessary tools that ensure infractions identified in other California codes are properly adjudicated.
"Although AB 1266 would apply to all California codes, only infractions currently identified in the Vehicle Code may be adjudicated by declaration and, in the event the offender fails to appear, in the offender's absence. Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40903, "[a]ny person who fails to appear 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, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code." Therefore, the underlying vehicle code infraction may be adjudicated in the offender's absence and, if found guilty, any associated penalty could be sent to civil collections without the need for the court to issue a warrant or the prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear. This is not the case, however, for the hundreds of infractions that are contained in other California codes.
"Because there is no analogous provision to Vehicle Code Section 40903 in other California codes, eliminating the court's authority to issue warrants ensures that numerous infractions will never be adjudicated, and offenders will not be held accountable. Oftentimes, these infractions directly impact public safety or public health…
"In addition, AB 1266 may result in several unintended consequences that run contrary to the purpose of the bill.
- Currently numerous violations provide prosecutors with the discretion to file misdemeanor charges instead of an infraction (commonly known as a "wobblette").Without a mechanism to adjudicate underlying infractions, AB 1266 would incentivize the filing of misdemeanor charges over unenforceable infractions.
- Several infractions currently contain an escalating penalty structure in which multiple infraction violations will ultimately lead to a misdemeanor offense. AB 1266 would nullify any graduated penalty schemes.
- Certain infractions currently involve the imposition of community service hours or other probation obligations, such as restitution, if convicted. By prohibiting courts from issuing a warrant, AB 1266 would deprive courts of their ability to monitor and ensure that offenders are in compliance with their post-conviction obligations. ...
"In order to address the above concerns and ensure that underlying infractions are able to be adjudicated, AB 1266 should either limit its application to the Vehicle Code (or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code) or propose an analogous provision to Vehicle Code Section 4093 that is applicable to all California codes. If a mechanism were added to allow adjudication of the underlying infractions, AB 1266 could hold individuals accountable while, at the same time, doing so without the threat of incarceration or arrest."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "Potential minor impact on court revenue (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown amount, according to the Judicial Council.
Possible long-term savings (local funds) of an unknown amount in local incarceration costs. To the extent the elimination of bench warrants for infraction defendants reduces the number of infraction defendants who are incarcerated for failure to appear in court or pay fines, local detention facilities may experience cost savings. Similarly, because this bill eliminates a misdemeanor offense for failure to appear in court for an infraction, local detention facilities may experience cost savings."
VOTES
ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0
YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bonta, Bryan, Jackson, Santiago, Zbur
NO: Alanis, Lackey
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-3-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Addis, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Weber, Wilson
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Mathis
UPDATED
VERSION: March 22, 2023
CONSULTANT: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000350
Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1266
Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:March 22, 2023
Policy Committee: | Public Safety | Vote: | 6 - 2 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill limits a court’s ability to issue bench warrants for a defendant charged with an infraction, and eliminates the misdemeanor crime of failure to appear in court after promising to do so when the underlying offense is an infraction.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Potential minor impact on court revenue (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown amount, according to the Judicial Council.
Possible long-term savings (local funds) of an unknown amount in local incarceration costs. To the extent the elimination of bench warrants for infraction defendants reduces the number of infraction defendants who are incarcerated for failure to appear in court or pay fines, local detention facilities may experience cost savings. Similarly, because this bill eliminates a misdemeanor offense for failure to appear in court for an infraction, local detention facilities may experience cost savings.
COMMENTS:
- Author’s Statement. According to the author:
Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court and are merely inconvenienced, while those who can’t pay are arrested for minor tickets. AB 1266 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This will ensure minor citations only subject to a fine do not unfairly turn into jail time simply for what is essentially a crime of poverty.
- Background. An infraction is a low-level offense that is punishable by a fine but not incarceration. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction is released after they sign a notice promising to come to a court appearance. Existing law allows a court to issue a bench warrant for the person if they fail to appear in court as promised. A bench warrant allows any peace officer who comes into contact with the person to arrest them and bring them to court to adjudicate their violation. The person may then be charged with a misdemeanor violation of a promise to appear, even if their initial offense was an infraction.
This bill limits the court’s ability to issue a bench warrant for someone charged with an infraction, including prohibiting the court from issuing a bench warrant if the person violates an agreement to appear in court, fails to appear when ordered by a judge, or fails to pay an infraction ticket. It also eliminates the misdemeanor crime of failure to appear after promising to do so, if the defendant who failed to appear was originally charged with an infraction.
- Support and Opposition. According to the Western Center on Law and Poverty:
Under current state law, people who have money to pay fines for traffic violations or tickets for infractions like loitering never have to go to court, but courts can issue a bench warrant for a person’s arrest if they are unable to pay the penalty or if they experience barriers to appear in court. These warrants only serve to wield and increase police power for infringements that are not otherwise punishable by jail time. Essentially, the current law allows for a direct line to prison for people who are economically insecure. This is a racial and economic justice issue that must be addressed…AB 1266 will continue the trajectory of fine and fee justice in California. Recognizing the broad harm caused by civil assessment fees, Governor Newsom signed AB 199 into law, which erased retroactive debt for civil assessment fees and capped the fee at $100, effective July 1, 2022. AB 1266 builds on this important work, ensuring that families won’t be separated because they cannot pay a traffic fine or make a court hearing.
According to the California State Sheriffs’ Association:
If a person fails to appear in court, existing law generally allows a warrant to issue for the person’s arrest. AB 1266 would eliminate this authority if the underlying offense is an infraction. This bill would remove an important tool that encourages people who have been cited for infraction violations to appear in court or otherwise resolve their cases. AB 1266 sends the message that it is acceptable to fail to appear in court, even after having promised to do so. We understand there may be valid reasons why a particular person may not be able to pay the fine on a particular violation, but the answer is not to eliminate the ability of a court to compel the person’s attendance in every case. California has enacted numerous amnesty programs over the last several years and this bill goes too far in trying to address the stated problem.
Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing:
Chief Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1266
Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:March 22, 2023
SUMMARY:
Eliminates the authority to issue a bench warrant for the failure to pay, or to appear in court, on an infraction ticket. Specifically, this bill:
- States legislative intent to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions.
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
- Makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
EXISTING LAW:
- Provides that an infraction is not punishable by incarceration, and that a person charged with an infraction is not entitled to a jury trial or the representation by a public defender, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 19.6.)
- States that, except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
- Allows an officer who arrests a person for an infraction to require evidence of identification and then release the person on a written promise to appear contained in a notice to appear. (Pen. Code, § 853.5, subd. (a).)
- Provides that a willful violation of a written promise to appear will result in a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which the defendant was originally arrested. (Pen. Code, § 853.7, & Veh. Code § 40508, subd. (a).)
- Provides that a bench warrant may be issued when a person signs a written promise to appear in court and does not. (Pen. Code, §§ 853.8 & 978.5.)
- Provides that the willful failure to pay a lawfully imposed fine for a violation of the Vehicle Code within the time authorized by the court and without a lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Veh. Code § 40508, subd. (b.)
- Requires the court to notify the DMV if a person was convicted of specified offenses. States that a forfeiture of bail on violations is equivalent to a conviction. (Veh. Code, § 1803, subd. (a).)
- Does not require court notification to the DMV for other specified Vehicle Code violations. (Veh. Code, § 1803, subd. (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, “Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court and are merely inconvenienced, while those who can’t pay are arrested for minor tickets. AB 1266 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This will ensure minor citations only subject to a fine do not unfairly turn into jail time simply for what is essentially a crime of poverty.”
- Background: An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 19.6.) Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. (Ibid.; see also People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp 19.) However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. (Pen. Code, § 853.6, subd. (a).) After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can issue if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. (Pen. Code §§ 853.6, subd. (f) & 853.8; see also Veh. Code, § 40514.) A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
This bill would prohibit the court from issuing a bench warrant for failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear for an infraction. - Impact of Infractions on the Criminal Justice System: The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all the criminal case filings, comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions. There were 174,553 felony cases filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and 3,243,819 infraction cases. (2021 Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of California, pp. 3-4, 2021-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf (ca.gov).) And the majority of infractions were traffic infractions. (Id. at p. 55.) There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions. (Id. at p. 84.)
- Argument in Support: According to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, a co-sponsor of this bill, “Under current state law, people who have money to pay fines for infractions like littering, loitering, or jaywalking never have to go to court, but under antiquated legal authority, courts can issue a bench warrant for a person’s arrest if they are unable to pay the penalty. These warrants punish people who do not have the money for fines and fees by making them vulnerable to arrest at any time, for infringements that are not otherwise punishable by jail time. Essentially, the current law allows for a direct line to prison for people who are economically insecure. This is an urgent issue of racial and economic justice.
“We have seen over and over the negative impact this kind of warrant has on people’s jobs, child care, and housing status, which led LCCRSF to successfully advocate for San Francisco and Alameda County to stop issuing this kind of warrant. Data from San Francisco show that after ending the practice, collections for the infraction fines and fees actually went up. It’s time for the rest of California to meet these best practices.
“Police do this type of infraction enforcement disproportionately in communities of color, and therefore these warrants particularly impact Black and Brown people. For instance, in our report Cited for Being in Plain Sight, we show that before San Francisco ended this practice, though Black people only made up 5.8% of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they made up 48.7% of those arrested for ‘failure to appear or pay’ traffic court warrants. AB 1266 would help bring the state in line with the California Reparations Committee’s recommendation to ‘eliminate the over-policing of predominantly Black communities.’
“Arresting someone who cannot pay does not give them the means to pay but only further punishes people living in poverty while also exacerbating racial inequality. Similarly, issuing a bench warrant for someone’s arrest ignores structural issues in people’s lives, especially as many low income people—primarily Black and brown people—face barriers, including transportation, risk of losing employment, childcare, etc., that can prevent them from being able to appear in court to clear a warrant.
“Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court. Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other less punitive means to address these infractions under current law, such as trial by absentia and methods to address a failure to pay.
“AB 1266 will continue the trajectory of fine and fee justice in California. Recognizing the broad harm caused by civil assessment fees, Governor Newsom signed AB 199 into law, which erased retroactive debt for civil assessment fees and capped the fee at $100, effective July 1, 2022. AB 1266 builds on this important work, ensuring that families won’t be separated because they cannot pay a traffic fine or make a court hearing.
“The overinvestment in law enforcement and simultaneous disinvestment in communities disproportionately targeted by the criminal legal system cannot continue. Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end one pipeline to the legal system and allow families to focus on what matters – to devote their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.” - Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “this bill eliminates any consequence for the numerous offenders who simply ignore appearing in court and prevent their underlying infraction from ever being adjudicated. Excepting Vehicle Code infractions, as currently drafted, AB 1266 prohibits courts and prosecutors from using the necessary tools that ensure infractions identified in other California codes are properly adjudicated.
“Although AB 1266 would apply to all California codes, only infractions currently identified in the Vehicle Code may be adjudicated by declaration and, in the event the offender fails to appear, in the offender’s absence. Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 40903, “[a]ny person who fails to appear 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, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.” Therefore, the underlying vehicle code infraction may be adjudicated in the offender’s absence and, if found guilty, any associated penalty could be sent to civil collections without the need for the court to issue a warrant or the prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear. This is not the case, however, for the hundreds of infractions that are contained in other California codes.
“Because there is no analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 in other California codes,
eliminating the court’s authority to issue warrants ensures that numerous infractions will never be adjudicated, and offenders will not be held accountable. Oftentimes, these infractions directly impact public safety or public health….
“In addition, AB 1266 may result in several unintended consequences that run contrary to the purpose of the bill.
- Currently numerous violations provide prosecutors with the discretion to file misdemeanor charges instead of an infraction (commonly known as a “wobblette”).Without a mechanism to adjudicate underlying infractions, AB 1266 would incentivize the filing of misdemeanor charges over unenforceable infractions.
- Several infractions currently contain an escalating penalty structure in which multiple infraction violations will ultimately lead to a misdemeanor offense. AB 1266 would nullify any graduated penalty schemes.
- Certain infractions currently involve the imposition of community service hours or other probation obligations, such as restitution, if convicted. By prohibiting courts from issuing a warrant, AB 1266 would deprive courts of their ability to monitor and ensure that offenders are in compliance with their post-conviction obligations. ...
“In order to address the above concerns and ensure that underlying infractions are able to be
adjudicated, AB 1266 should either limit its application to the Vehicle Code (or any local
ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code) or propose an analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 4093 that is applicable to all California codes. If a mechanism were added to allow adjudication of the underlying infractions, AB 1266 could hold individuals accountable while, at the same time, doing so without the threat of incarceration or arrest.”
- Related Legislation: AB 1125 (Hart) eliminates the court’s authority to impound a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay the bail amount on infraction violations of the Vehicle Code. AB 1125 is pending hearing in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
- Prior Legislation: AB 2746 (Friedman), Chapter 800, Statutes of 2022, removes the ability for a court to suspend a person's driver's license for failure to appear.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Western Center on Law & Poverty (Co-Sponsor)
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
ACLU California Action
Aouon Orange County
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California for Safety and Justice
California-Hawaii State Conference of The NAACP
California Public Defenders Association
Care First California
Children’s Defense Fund CA
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Community Legal Sevices in East Palo Alto
Dignity and Power Now
East Bay Community Law Center
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Freedom 4 Youth
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Indivisible Ca: Statestrong
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of The San Francisco Bay Area
Legal Services for Prisoner With Children
Milpa (Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement)
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Policing Project
Prosecutors Alliance California
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
San Francisco Financial Justice Project
Secure Justice
Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Bay Area
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California
The Maven Collaborative
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
United Core Alliance
Young Women's Freedom Center
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Analysis Prepared by:
Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
Discussed in Hearing
1MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
9MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety
2MIN
Assembly Floor
2MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations
12MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):
