Bill to slash fees in criminal cases passes legislative committee vote

A bill that would end the assessment and collection of administrative fees in criminal cases passed its first committee vote Tuesday. While SB 144 could have a significant impact on courts and other government entities, no one appears to have a firm grasp on the dollars involved.

Speaking at a press conference after her bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on a party line vote, co-author Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, said these fees create "high pain" for people trying to reintegrate into society but "low gain" for courts and local government.

She noted San Francisco has stopped collecting most of them and Los Angeles County is debating doing the same.

But she added the specific dollar amounts involved are difficult to measure.

"The vast majority of counties that collect it, their administrative costs to pursue the dollars exceed what they actually bring in," Mitchell said. "That complicates our ability to really get a fair, accurate assessment."

Many officials with the courts and local governments say they agree the current system creates problems, ranging from potential racial bias to making it harder for parolees to stay out of prison.

However, some courts and local governments say they have been painted into a corner by a Legislature that has passed these fees and left them dependent on the revenue.

"We absolutely believe and understand this is a worthy policy conversation to be had," Elizabeth Espinosa, a lobbyist with the California State Association of Counties who testified at the hearing. "We've been talking about this for years."

But Espinosa added her association is opposed to the bill until they get a financial assessment of how their revenues could be affected and what steps might be taken to backfill this money.

SB 144 is one of several bills that take on fines and fees. Others would predicate fees on ability to pay, end surcharges on base fines, and allow for new payment options including installment plans, credit cards and community service in lieu of money.

Mitchell's bill is the most comprehensive, though. According to the bill language, it would "make the unpaid balance of any court-imposed costs unenforceable and uncollectible" and "prohibit the imposition of trial court filing fees or costs related to the person's underlying criminal conviction." Offenders could not be charged for arrests, returned checks, home detention, electronic monitoring, laboratory fees, administrative costs or many other fees.

Several changes affect courts directly. SB 144 would bar civil penalties for failure to appear, administrative costs for petitions and motions, and multiple fees associated with moving violations and traffic school.

Former juvenile offender Matthew Trattner told the committee these fees have made it far harder to create a productive and law-abiding life after being incarcerated for more than five years. "In an institution, no one gives you the knowledge of how much you owe," Trattner said at the press conference.

Recent court decisions are also starting to cut into the ability to assess fines. Timbs v. Indiana, 2019 DJDAR 1337 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2019) found the Eighth Amendment could be used to limit excessive fines at the state level. In People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Jan. 8, 2019), a panel ruled fines assessed against an indigent homeless woman were unconstitutional.

"As discussed in recent decisions by the California Court of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court, monetary sanctions like fees are not meant to further any penal objective, but rather are only there to augment the state's revenue," Stephanie Campos-Bui, clinical supervising attorney with the Berkeley Law Policy Advocacy Clinic, told the committee, "And yet fees often don't even do this."

Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, said the agency has no position on the bill yet. "California's decades old criminal fines and fee structure no longer functions as intended - it's inefficient, ineffective, and can unintentionally do more harm than good - it needs improvement," he said in a prepared statement. "But, it also raises questions about how vital government services are funded. Because of its complexity, changes will require a full understanding of their impacts so that solving one problem doesn't create another."