AB 1375 (2017)

AB 1375 (2017)
Title	AB 1375 (2017)
Enacted by	California State Assembly
Introduced by	Kevin McCarty
Introduced date	2017
Status	enacted

AB 1375 (2017) was a California statute authored by Kevin McCarty addressing juvenile justice procedures and detention alternatives in California. The bill intersected with debates among California State Legislature, Governor Jerry Brown, and advocacy groups including American Civil Liberties Union and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It engaged stakeholders such as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, San Diego County, and national organizations like Juvenile Law Center and Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Background and Legislative Context

AB 1375 emerged amid reform efforts following reports by Sentencing Project, Pew Charitable Trusts, and research from RAND Corporation showing disparities in juvenile detention among African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. Debates recalled precedents such as SB 678 (California), Proposition 36 (2000), and recommendations from National Council on Crime and Delinquency and Child Welfare League of America. Lawmakers referenced rulings by the California Supreme Court and federal jurisprudence including In re Gault, Roper v. Simmons, and directives from the United States Department of Justice. Advocacy and opposition involved coalitions from NAACP, California Catholic Conference, California Public Defenders Association, and county probation departments like those in Alameda County and Sacramento County.

Provisions of the Bill

The bill modified procedures governing detention hearings, bail-equivalent decisions, and use of risk assessment tools used by probation departments in jurisdictions such as Los Angeles County and Orange County. Provisions emphasized alternatives to secure confinement, referencing models promoted by MacArthur Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and research from Urban Institute and Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. It required enhanced reporting to agencies like the California Board of State and Community Corrections and coordination with service providers including Public Counsel and Legal Aid Society affiliates. The text affected interactions with statutes such as Welfare and Institutions Code provisions and legislative frameworks similar to those in SB 260 (2013) and SB 261 (2013).

Legislative History and Vote

Introduced in the California State Assembly by Kevin McCarty, the bill proceeded through committees including Assembly Judiciary Committee and Assembly Public Safety Committee. Hearings included testimony from representatives of California State Association of Counties, County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, and youth advocacy groups like Youth Law Center. Amendments were negotiated with offices such as California Governor's Office and legislative staff for members including Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer Sr. and Al Muratsuchi. The Assembly and California State Senate recorded votes that reflected alignments like those seen in prior bills sponsored by California Legislative Black Caucus and California Latino Legislative Caucus.

Support and Opposition

Supporters included civil rights groups American Civil Liberties Union, juvenile law advocates like Juvenile Law Center, philanthropy-funded initiatives such as MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, and elected officials in urban counties like San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Opponents featured local law enforcement associations including California Police Chiefs Association, some district attorneys such as those from Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and Orange County District Attorney, and organizations representing victims’ families comparable to Parents of Murdered Children. Business and municipal organizations including League of California Cities and California State Sheriffs' Association engaged in testimony and lobbying.

Implementation and Impact

Implementation required county-level adjustments in jurisdictions including Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Riverside County, and Sacramento County, with operational changes for entities such as probation departments and juvenile courts in counties like Santa Clara County. Evaluations used metrics from Stanford Criminal Justice Center, UCLA School of Law, and data systems maintained by the California Department of Justice. Early reports compared outcomes to national studies from Urban Institute and Pew Charitable Trusts on recidivism and racial disparities. Fiscal analyses cited impacts on county budgets, drawing on methodologies from Legislative Analyst's Office (California) and fiscal notes similar to those for SB 823 (2018).

Legal Challenges and Litigation

Litigation referenced precedents including In re Gault and federal civil rights enforcement actions by the United States Department of Justice. Lawsuits and petitions involved plaintiffs represented by organizations such as ACLU of Northern California and Public Counsel, and defendants including county probation departments and the Judicial Council of California. Courts considered evidentiary issues, statutory interpretation of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and constitutional claims invoking the Fourteenth Amendment and state constitutional provisions adjudicated by the California Supreme Court.

Category:California statutes Category:2017 in California