Criminal procedure: release on defendant's own recognizance.
Summary
(1) Existing law provides that a defendant who is in custody and arraigned for a misdemeanor offense, or who has been arrested upon an out-of-county warrant arising from a case involving only misdemeanors, is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance unless the court finds that the release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant, in which case the court is required to set bail and specify conditions, if any, for release. This bill would authorize a court to determine, at the time of arraignment in any case that is before a court concerning the commission of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, whether a defendant who is still in custody may be released on his or her own recognizance. In making this decision, the bill would require the court to determine whether the release will compromise public safety. The bill would authorize the court to consider, in its discretion, imposing on the defendant any reasonable conditions it deems appropriate, and would authorize the court to require supervision by any designated local agency, to ensure public safety and to ensure the defendant's appearance. The bill, if release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant, would require the court to set bail. (2) Existing law requires a judge or magistrate, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's previous criminal record, and the probability of the defendant appearing at trial or a hearing. This bill would revise the factors that the judge or magistrate would be required to consider to, among other things, require the judge or magistrate to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant, and to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense. The bill would require a judge or magistrate to also consider those factors when determining conditions for pretrial release. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, with the concurrence of the county board of supervisors, to employ an investigative staff for the purpose of recommending whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance. In cases involving certain crimes, including violent felonies, an investigative report is required to be prepared that includes specified information, including outstanding warrants against the defendant and prior incidents where the defendant has failed to make a court appearance. This bill would also authorize a sheriff, county probation department, or other local governmental agency, with the concurrence of the board of supervisors, to employ an investigative staff for those purposes, and would require a pretrial investigative report to be prepared before a court may order a defendant released on his or her own recognizance in any case involving specified crimes, including a violent felony. The bill would authorize the preparation of a pretrial investigation report in all other cases in which a court, sheriff, county probation department, or other local governmental agency has employed an investigative staff to recommend whether the defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance. The bill would require any pretrial investigative report to include the results of an evidence-based pretrial risk assessment, as defined, evaluating the defendant's probability of appearing at trial and potential risk to public safety. The bill would prohibit, for purposes of preparing the report, a defendant from being interviewed about the facts and circumstances of the defendant's current offense, and would limit the use and availability of the information in the report. The bill would authorize a court, sheriff, county probation department, or other local governmental agency, with the concurrence of the board of supervisors, to employ supervision staff to monitor a defendant's compliance with release conditions ordered by the court, as specified. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by that limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to, among other things, the necessity of treating pretrial investigation reports as confidential in order for pretrial programs to function properly.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Apr 2012
Senate Passage
Jan 2012
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 8, 2011
Last action Aug 22, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Jan 26, 2012
How they voted
31–5
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 39
Jan 26, 2012
D
Democratic24
100% Yea
R
Republican15
46% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
22
Key actions
3
Committee
4
Amendments
1
Aug 6, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (July 3).
lower
Apr 12, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Jan 26, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (31-5-3)
senate
Jan 19, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 2. Page 2685.) (January 19).
upper
Jan 10, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 2624.) (January 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Feb 17, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 8, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Loni Hancock
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 210
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 210. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline