NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
SPONSOR: |
Sharer |
DATE TYPED: |
2/06/03 |
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Evading an Officer Penalty |
SB |
81 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
Relates to HB 87 and HB 30.
Responses Received From
Department of Public Safety
Public Defenders Office
Attorney General’s Office
Administrative Offices of the Courts
Corrections Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
· Senate Bill 81 provides for new penalties for the crime of evading an officer. Currently, evading an officer is a misdemeanor. Pursuant to SB 81, the level of criminal offense for evading an officer would be determined by the nature of the criminal activity giving rise to the person in question to be sought by law enforcement. The level of offense breakdown is as follows:
§ A person who evades an officer in connection with a capital or first degree felony would be guilty of second degree felony evading.
§ A person who evades an officer in connection with a second degree felony would be guilty of third degree felony evading.
§ A person who evades an officer in connection with a third or fourth degree felony would be guilty of fourth degree felony evading.
§ A person who evades an officer in connection with a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor would be guilty of petty misdemeanor evading.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
SB 81 contains no appropriation. See ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS for costs to agencies administering SB 81.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
·
There
will likely be only a moderate number of defendants to whom these heightened /
additional charges would apply.
However, SB 81 will result in an increased workload for the District
Attorneys Office, the Public Defenders Office and the Courts.
·
The
bill will result in an increase in the length of terms of incarceration,
probation and parole. This equates to
the Corrections Department expending additional FTE and budget resources.
§
The
contract/private prison annual costs of incarcerating an inmate based upon
Fiscal Year 02 actual expenditures is $23,552 per year for males. The cost per client to house a female inmate
at a privately operated facility is $25,117 per year. Because state owned prisons are essentially at capacity, any net
increase in inmate population will be housed at a contract/private
facility.
§
The
cost per client in Probation and Parole for a standard supervision program is
$1,533 per year. The cost per client in
Intensive Supervision programs is $2,964 per year. The cost per client in department-operated Community Corrections
programs is $5,618 per year. The cost
per client in privately-operated Community Corrections programs is $10,953 per
year
TECHNICAL ISSUES
·
Seemingly,
the intent of SB 81 is to punish more severely the person who is sought by officers
for having committed a more serious underlying crime. Also, it appears that the underlying crime and the evading
activity are to be tied together (arise out of the same incident, though no t
at the same time).
However, the language of
the bill could more clearly tie the two events together. As written, SB 81 could be interpreted such
that a person who years earlier was convicted of a first degree felony, but is
presently / subsequently sought by officers for some other reason, could be
found guilty of second degree evading. The same is true for each of the four
levels of evading an officer set forth in SB 81.
· Another
potential problem with SB 81 arises if the person is not convicted of the underlying
offense for which he is sought by officers.
The language of the bill could be interpreted such that he could not be
convicted of evading, even if he did, in fact, attempt to evade an officer. In such a case the “highest crime committed
by a person who commits evading” would be nothing. Thus, arguably, he would not
be guilty of evading at any level of punishment pursuant to SB 81.
§
Language could be added to clearly denote that
the crime of evading may stand independent of a failure to obtain a guilty
verdict on the underlying charge.
SJM/sb