HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01311995 - 1.21 TO: �'s BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Costa
County
January 24, 1995 � _
DATE: 2`Giii+`�
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 129 (Rainey) - REPEAL LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR A
SEPARATE $50 ASSESSMENT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BY THE COURT UPON
EACH DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SPECIFIED PROVISIONS
RP.T.ATP.T) Tn nRTVTNG UNDER THE TNPT.TTrmrr
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors is the SPONSOR of AB 129
by Assemblyman Richard Rainey, which, as introduced, would repeal
language which provides for a separate $50 assessment in Contra
Costa County by the Court upon each defendant convicted of a
violation of specified provisions related to driving under the
influence.
BACKGROUND:
In 1987, we were successful in obtaining language which allowed
Contra Costa County to impose an additional penalty assessment in
order to replace the $50 per conviction of driving under the
influence which is removed from the fine and forfeiture pot and
dedicated to the Criminalistics Laboratory. At that time, the
County retained all of its share of the fines and forfeitures and
thereby we were able to reimburse ourselves for the funds which
were transferred to the Crime Lab. Since that time, the State has
moved to take the .major share of our fine and forfeiture revenue,
thereby rendering this special provision of little use to the
County. All other counties are allowed to impose an additional
penalty which is not shared with the State. We are seeking to
eliminate the special provision we had for ourselves so that we can
now share in the provision which applies to all other counties .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S :
ACTION OF BOARD ON nua_ _ri 31, 199-5 APPROVED'ASRECOMMENDED OTHER
`J
1
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED jk%
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 3 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Rv� IJDM- DEPUTY
V 2
-2-
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was first enacted in 1978 [SB 1127 - Presley,
Chapter 790, Statutes of 1978] . Prior to this time, a person
convicted of DUI could be punished with a fine of $250 or
imprisonment, or both, and suspension of the individual ' s driver' s
license. This bill, which went .into effect September 18, 1978,
increased the fine to $275 and specified for the first time that
$25 for each conviction was to be placed in a special account to
reimburse the Department of Justice or local agencies for
performing blood, breath, or urine analysis to test for alcohol
content. The bill contained a sunset date of July 1, 1980 .
It is important to also note that this $25 comes out of the overall
fine and forfeiture pot, based on the number of convictions, not
the number of cases in which the defendant pays the fine.
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was amended in 1979 [AB 1324 - Nolan, Chapter
849, Statutes of 1979 ] . This amendment simply moved the sunset
date up one year to July 1, 1981 .
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was amended in 1980 [SB 1429 - Presley,
Chapter 276, Statutes of 1980] . This bill went into effect
immediately, although the amendments to § 1463 . 14 became operative
July 1, 1980 . This bill increased the $25 transfer to pay for the
alcohol testing to $35 and extended the provision for the fee until
July 1, 1982 .
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was amended twice in 1982 [The first was SB
1311 - Johnson, Chapter 331, Statutes of 1982 ] . This bill went
into effect June 30, 1982 . This bill increased the $35 transfer
for drug or alcohol testing to $50 and eliminated the July 1, 1982
sunset date entirely.
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was amended twice in 1982 [The second was AB
3405 - Moorhead, Chapter 1339, Statutes of 1982 ] . This bill became
effective September 24, 1982 . This bill simply made a technical
correction to the language in Chapter 331, Statutes of 1982, to
clarify that the $50 transfer was to be for each conviction for the
listed offenses . This language had inadvertently been deleted in
enacting Chapter 331 .
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was amended in 1987 [AB 2519 - Campbell,
Chapter 1158, Statutes of 1987 ] . This bill became effective
January 1, 1988 . It was sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors in an effort to restore to the overall fine and
forfeiture pot the funds which were being transferred to the
criminalistics laboratory. This section added subdivision (b) to
P.C. § 1463 . 14 and provided that Contra Costa County could impose
an additional $50 "assessment" on each defendant convicted of the
designated alcohol or drug offenses and this money would be
deposited into the overall fine and forfeiture pot. This had the
advantage of being of benefit to both the County and the cities
since the P.C. § 1463 pot was divided between the cities and County
according to a formula specified in the statute.
Penal Code § 1463 . 14 was amended in 1990 [SB 2305 - Ayala, Chapter
1303, Statutes of 1990] . This bill became effective January 1,
1991 . This bill extended the provision we had added in 1987 to all
counties . However, a very significant difference was made in the
language used for the other counties - as it turned out later. The
formula allowed pursuant to this bill for all other counties was to
allow a "penalty" in an amount equal to the cost of testing but not
to exceed $100, minus the $50 transferred from the fine and
forfeiture pot pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section. In
most cases, that meant a $100 "penalty" , minus the other $50 or a
new "penalty" of $50, the same result as that imposed by Contra
Costa County pursuant to subdivision - (b) . The difference here is
that the entire $100 in the other counties went to the
criminalistics laboratory to offset the cost of alcohol testing.
In Contra Costa County, only the first $50 went to the
criminalistics laboratory. The other $50 went to the general P.C.
§ 1463 fine and forfeiture pot.
-3-
Penal Code S 1463 . 14 was repealed in 1991 [AB 1297 - Isenberg,
Chapter 90, Statutes of 1991 ] . This section was repealed effective
June 30, 1991 along with most of the other special spinoffs from
the fine and forfeiture pot in the enactment of the Trial Court
Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991 .
Penal Code S 1463 . 14 was added back later in 1991 [AB 544 - Chapter
189, Statutes of 1991] . This section was effective July 29 , 1991 .
The section was restored in the form it had been at the time it was
repealed a month earlier. The problem, however, is that Chapter
90, Statutes of 1991 also changed the split of the P.C. S 1463 fine
and forfeiture pot and allowed the State to take 75% of the funds
in this general pot from the counties and 50% of the money from the
cities . No other county' s criminalistics laboratory was affected
by this provision insofar as P.C. 5 1463 . 14 was concerned. Their
entire costs, up to $100, were set aside for the criminalistics
laboratory before the split with the State was made. However,
Contra Costa County' s exception for itself meant that we then lost
75% of the $50 additional "assessment" we had gained because this
additional $50 went into the general fine and forfeiture pot,
rather than into the special criminalistics laboratory fund. As a
result, Contra Costa County' s criminalistics laboratory is now
disadvantaged because the State is getting 75% of the County's
share of the additional $50 and 50% of the cities ' share of the
additional $50, only in this County.
What we are seeking is to repeal the special language for Contra
Costa County so that we can be treated again the same as all other
counties are. Our alcohol testing program costs us about $330,000
a year. We recover about $160,000 a year from the first $50 which
is taken out of the fine and forfeiture pot for each conviction of
the specified offenses . Note that this is for each conviction and
bears no relationship to whether the individual pays the fine which
is imposed. This leaves us with a balance of about $170,000 . We
now recover only 25% of the County' s share of the second $50 and
then only when the defendant pays the fine.
Enactment of the requested amendments will allow the County' s
criminalistics laboratory to receive the full $50 for each
defendant who pays the fine which is imposed. The State will lose
the 75% of the $50 for each case where the County would receive the
funds . The State and cities would lose the $50 for those cases
where the city and State now split the $50 . Since the amount
recovered is based on the amount actually paid by the defendant, it
will be substantially below the $160,000 we receive from the first
$50 . The maximum loss to the State and cities if every defendant
had the $50 imposed and each defendant actually paid the fine would
be $160,000 . The total actual loss is probably less than $100,000
because the County does receive some of these funds now and not all
defendants have the additional $50 imposed nor do all of those who
have it imposed actually end up paying it.
In view of the fact that the Board of Supervisors included this
provision in its 1995 Legislative Program, it is appropriate for
the Board of Supervisors to now acknowledge that it is the sponsor
of AB 129 .
cc: County Administrator
Sheriff-Coroner
Auditor-Controller
Interim Municipal Court Administrator
Kathryn Holmes, Chief, Criminalistics Laboratory
Sheriff ' s Department
George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Les Spahnn, Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
CJ
t
1 ii
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1995-96 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 129
w Introduced by Assembly Member Rainey
January 12, 1995
An act to amend Section 1463.14 of the Penal Code, relating
to drunk.driving assessments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
a AB 129, as introduced, Rainey. Driving under the
influence: assessments: Contra Costa County.
Existing law authorizes the Board of Supervisors of Contra
jCosta -County, to authorize by resolution the imposition of a
ti $50 assessment by the court upon each defendant convicted
of a. violation of specified provisions related to driving under
the influence.
This bill would repeal this provision.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
r :t State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
1 SECTION 1. Section 1463.14 of the Penal Code is
2 - amended to read:
3 1463.14. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of
4 Section 1463, of the moneys deposited with the county
5 treasurer pursuant to Section 1463, fifty dollars ($50) for
6 each conviction of a violation of Section 23103, 23104,
7 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code shall be deposited in
8 a special account which shall be used exclusively to pay
99
§ ...1....ss.....s�,1.1..??`+_is ,s..i�sys"n=:;+�aGsc'Sc..E<:;}.r r.a.✓.r_....._.G':.;.c.:.... ......... .r..Q:>,.{>._}L>...,rS.,v. .. .... ..i.............._....-..s.._..... ....... ..
p5
AB 129 — 2 —
s
1 for the cost of performing for the county, or a city or
2 special district within the county, analysis of blood,breath
3 or urine for alcohol content or for the presence of drugs,
4 or for services related to that testing. The sum shall not
5 exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services. for
6 which the sum is intended.
7 On November 1 of each year, the treasurer of each
8 county shall determine those moneys in the special,
9 account which were not expended during the preceding
10 fiscal year, and shall transfer those moneys into the
11 general fund of the county. The county may,retain an
12 amount of that money equal to its administrative cost
13 incurred pursuant to this section, and shall distribute the
14 remainder pursuant to Section 1463.
15 (b) The Beff d of Stiperviso s of.Gantt: #
16 fftay, by r6seltitien, a..,th, riz the iffloesitioe of ft fl
17ar- asse,,_ffi e by t ie eetrrt eaeh defenda
18 eon-vieted of ft yiela6eft of Seetieft 23152 ef of the
19 Vehiele Gede fef depesit ift the aeeeunt fr-effi whieh,the -
'i 20 fifty dellaf ($50) distribut speeified in subdM
21 is d:
22 -{e* The board of supervisors of a county e
23 GefttraGest irty may, by resolution, authorize an
24 additional penalty upon each defendant convicted of a
25 violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, of
26 an amount equal to the cost of testing for alcohol content,
27 less the fifty dollars ($50) deposited as provided in
28 subdivision (a) . The additional penalty authorized by this
29 subdivision shall be imposed only in those instances
30 where the defendant has the ability to pay, but in no case
31 shall the defendant be ordered to pay a penalty in excess
32 of fifty dollars ($50) . The penalty authorized shall be
33 deposited directly with the county, or city or special
34 district within the county, which performed the test, in
35 the special account described in subdivision (a) , and shall
36 not be the basis for any additional assessment pursuant to
37 Section 1464 or 1465, or Chapter 12 (commencing with
38 Section 76014) of Title 8 of the Government Code.
39 For purposes of this subdivision; "ability to pay" means
40 the overall capability of the defendant to pay the
99
Wc�
r� — 3 — AB 129
1 additional penalty authorized by this subdivision, taking
2 into consideration all of the following:
3 (A) Present financial obligations, including family
4 support obligations, and fines, penalties, and other
5 obligations to the court.
6 (B) 'Reasonably discernible future financial position
`. 7 over the next.12 months.
8 (C) Any other factor or factors which may bear upon
' 9 the defendant's financial ability to pay the additional
10 penalty.
11 .{ }
j
12 (c) The Department of Justice shall promulgate rules
13 and regulations to implement the provisions of this
14 section.
1
r -
O
99