California Legislative Publications

California Legislative Publications

Each house shall keep and publish a journal of its proceedings.  The rollcall vote of the members on a question shall be taken and entered in the journal at the request of 3 members present.

California Constitution, art IV, section 7, subd. (b)

Throughout the history of our state, the California Constitution has required the legislators in Sacramento to keep a record of their official law-making activities.  Ink and paper worked well for many decades.  Today, a researcher is more likely to find the documentation of legislative actions by clicking a few keys on a computer.  A legislative history researcher needs to know at what point in time and for what document he or she should switch to a search in the library stacks.

Experienced California law librarians know that California legislative houses are not equal in their online organization of historical documents.  The California Senate and Assembly have different resources available for their Journal and related documentation.  The Assembly’s Office of the Chief Clerk has done a terrific job organizing internet resources of its current and historical publications.  A researcher will even find the Assembly’s website of use in researching California Senate historical documents.  Its website also provides PDFs of California Statutes and Amendments to the Codes back to 1850 – a valuable resource for any California legislative history researcher.

Below is a guide to help locate historical California legislative activity documents on the internet or at the Alameda County Law Library.

Resources for California legislative publications

A brief description of the official publications reporting on California legislative activity can be found HERE.

  • Daily File A Daily File is produced by both the Assembly and Senate.  The documents contain information on the Officers of the respective houses, the Order of Business, tentative schedule for the entire legislative session, the bills that are scheduled to be heard on the floor and during committee hearings. There are also Daily File publications for Assembly and Senate Extraordinary Sessions.
    • No paper versions at ACLL
    • Senate>Current http://senate.ca.gov/dailyfile
      • The Daily File is the agenda for the Senate. It contains information such as committee hearing notices and measures eligible for floor actions.  Details of the Daily File floor items can be found on the Calendar.  The Daily File is updated every legislative day.
    • Assembly>Current http://assembly.ca.gov/dailyfile
      • The Daily File contains information on the Officers of the respective houses, the Order of Business, the tentative schedule for the entire legislative session, the bills that are scheduled to be heard on the floor and during committee hearings. There are also Daily File publications for Assembly Extraordinary Sessions.
  • Daily Journal
  • Daily History
  • Weekly History
  • Final History
    • Arranged by bill number and listing action taken on all measures on file for the year.  Publications in paper form varied in delivery as government budgets changed and digital publications became standard.  Prior – issued daily and cumulated weekly, semi-annually, and annually.
    • Assembly> http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/archive-list?archive_type=histories  Both Assembly and Senate Final Histories 1881 – 2011
    • Senate> 2015 – 2009 various links at http://senate.ca.gov/content/senate-histories
    • Paper versions at ACLL>Senate>1953, very irregular subsequent holdings>Shelf 119B
    • Paper versions at ACLL>Assembly>1972 – 2012>Shelf 119B
  • Journals, California Legislative
    • Compilation of Daily Journal include an account of proceedings, list of measures taken up, texts of amendments to bills, committee reports, etc. No transcripts of debates
    • Senate> website states prior years may be on Assembly site> Irregular, must open year links to see if Senate info is available
    • Assembly> 1849 -2012 http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/archive-list
    • Paper/Bound volumes at ACLL>1849 – 2011>Senate and Assembly may have been bound together or separately depending on session>Compact storage beginning of KFC, check with staff for access
      • collection of Daily Journals with indices depending on year
      • Journals (Daily) by Session, may be multi-volumes
      • Index to State Agency Reports
      • Alpha Index
  • Appendix to Journal of the Assembly
    • Roll call votes
    • ACLL has bound miscellaneous Roll Call bound volumes, last session 2011
    • Some are found on the Assembly’s Office of the Chief Clerk site under the document listings for the session

Other information

Sample annotated Assembly Daily Journal – discussion of sections found in this publication http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/Annotated%20Journal.pdf

  • Summary Digest.
    Includes a short summary of each law enacted, and of each constitutional amendment, concurrent or joint resolution adopted by the Legislature during the year.  Arranged by chapter number and includes cross-reference tables, a detailed subject index and a statutory record.  Also published, since 1967, as part of Statutes of California.
  • Paper versions at ACLL>As a stand alone title> 1961 – 2008 irregular

How Estate Planning Helps You – HERA – ACLL September 21, 2017

How Estate Planning Helps You – While You Are Alive and Afterward will be a program offered by HERA – Housing & Economic Rights Advocates at Alameda County Law Library on Thursday, September 21, 2017 at Noon.

The HERA staff attorneys will explain key concerns and key documents that will help you address handling your belongings and your health the way you want to.

Those documents include:

  • Living trust
  • Will
  • Power of attorney
  • Advance health care directive
  • Transfer on death documents for certain kinds of accounts

About the Speakers: 

Aeyoung Kim is a staff attorney at Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) providing estate planning services and probate assistance.  Before becoming an attorney, Ms. Kim worked for 11 years in the Superior Court of San Diego County, primarily in the Probate Division as a Probate Examiner. Ms. Kim is bilingual in Korean and English.

Kendra Bowen is a staff attorney at Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) providing estate planning services.  With her Juris Doctor from UC Hastings School of Law, Ms. Bowen also brings general litigation and real estate experience.

$5.00 Registration Fee

Online registration at http://bit.ly/2heraestateplanning

 

Dorothea Lange Show At OMCA – Public Defender Images

Anyone interested in Alameda County legal history may want to consider a visit to the Oakland Museum of California’s show – “Dorothea Lange: Politics of Seeing.

The show (extended through August 27) includes some of the images Lange took in the Alameda County courts in the 1950’s for an assignment from Life magazine.  The series purpose was to document the actions of the Alameda County Public Defender’s office.    Life never published the photos.

Image – Dorothea Lange, Defender, Mother with Baby, 1957, OMCA, Gift of Paul S. Taylor

When Real Property Is The Defendant – Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture – property taken by law enforcement

“Forfeiture is the taking by the government, without compensating the owner, of property that was illegally used or obtained.”  CEB’s California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice §57.1.

Civil asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize and retain property – money, other financial instruments, real estate, cars, and boats – any property of value linked to criminal activity.  Civil forfeiture is in rem, meaning “against the thing.”   It is based on the legal fiction that the property itself is guilty of a crime and is punished by being confiscated.  After confiscation of the property, the owner has the burden of challenging the seizure in order to have the property returned.  When you come across a case title where one of the parties is a large amount of money or a beach house, there is a good chance that you have found a case involving civil asset forfeiture.  See People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One, 227 CA3d 1 (1991) and United States v. $8,221,877 in United States Currency, 330 F.3d 141 (2003).

The government is required to trace the seized property directly to a criminal offense that then gives rise to the forfeiture.  The government has possession of the property.  The owner must follow established legal procedure to challenge the seizure.  Depending on the assets, the cost of professional legal representation may be more than the value of the seized property.  This post is geared towards self-represented litigants who are trying to understand this area of law – why property was taken and how to proceed to attempt to get it back.  Civil asset forfeiture law is not simple.  The following is only a general guide to the topic.

Civil asset forfeiture – a legal special snowflake

A researcher of civil asset forfeiture law will find some interesting inconsistencies when beginning his or her research.  First, do not let the word “civil” lead you to civil law resources.  The best discussion of civil asset forfeiture will be found in criminal law titles.  There needs to be a nexus between the assets and criminal activity.  Second, check for publication dates of titles, as well as, any supplement or pocket parts for any current developments in the law.  The times, they are a’ changing under both state and federal law.  And, the states and federal governments are going in opposite direction in terms of policy.

Over the past years, activists have been lobbying for changes to the laws.  Last year the California legislature re-wrote the language of many of the code sections dealing with civil asset forfeiture.  (See below.)  More recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (who is still Attorney General as this post is being written) issued Department of Justice Order No. 3946-2017, “Federal Forfeiture of Property Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies” reversing the Obama Administration’s actions and liberalizing the policy for “federal adoption” of property seized by state and local law enforcement agencies.  Policy guidance can be seen here at asset_forfeiture_policy_directive_17-1.   A news article on the recent Sessions action is available here.

Under federal law, the government doesn’t need to convict, let alone charge, the property owner with any crime.  California requires a conviction but there are exceptions.  The conflict between federal and state law will take new meaning when the California cannabis industry moves into full production next year.

Looking at the issues involved in a claim

Claims for return of property will vary depending on the events surrounding the seizure.

  • Was the seizure by state or federal authorities?
  • Was the action a joint action by state and federal authorities?
  • What government entity seized the property?
  • What is the value of the property?
  • Is the property being retained as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is the claim a first party claim or a third party claim?
    • Third party claim – a person who claims that his or her property has been swept up as part of the action and the person is innocent of any possible criminal activity.  Examples – police raid a residence where a suspect stays with a domestic partner but the suspect is not the legal tenant of the property.  Large amounts of cash are found around the property.  (Whose money is it?)  Or a home owner whose adult child lives in a basement apartment in the home and is accused of using the room as a base for a drug operation.
  • Will the claim be heard as part of an administrative procedure or by the court?

California – some basics

California forfeiture provisions are modeled on federal law.  Consequently, California courts consider federal decisions on asset forfeiture to be persuasive authority. People v $497,590 U.S. Currency (1997) 58 CA4th 145, 151.   California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice §57.1.

Many civil forfeiture cases involve drug enforcement actions.  Many of the code provisions of interest to researchers will be found within the California Health & Safety Code.

Last fall, Senate Bill 443  was enacted, placing new limits on the civil asset forfeiture process. The Legislative Counsel’s Digest summarizes the intent of the bill:

  • This bill would require a prosecuting agency to seek or obtain a criminal conviction for the unlawful manufacture or cultivation of any controlled substance or its precursors prior to an entry of judgment for recovery of expenses of seizing, eradicating, destroying, or taking remedial action with respect to any controlled substance.
  • The bill would prohibit maintaining an action for recovery of expenses against a person who has been acquitted of the underlying criminal charges.
  • The bill would prohibit state or local law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency seeking adoption by the federal agency of the seized property – “federal adoption.”
  • The bill would further prohibit state or local agencies from receiving an equitable share from a federal agency of specified seized property if a conviction for the underlying offenses is not obtained, except as specified. The bill would require notices of a forfeiture action to contain additional details, such as the rights of an interested party at a forfeiture hearing.
  • The bill would change the burden of proof that a state or local law enforcement agency must meet to succeed in a forfeiture action with regards to cash or negotiable instruments of a value not less than $25,000, but not more than $40,000, from a clear and convincing standard to beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can read the article about the changes from The Sacramento Bee here.

California statutory provisions include:

Federal law – some basics

Under federal law, the government does not need to convict or charge the owner with any crime.  There needs to be sufficient evidence of criminal activity.  The standard used is whether there is “probable cause” that certain laws have been broken – the lowest standard of proof in the American judicial system.

Federal forfeiture law can be found in Title 18, Chapter 46, Sections 981 through 981.  You can browse the United States Code sections through the site here.

The US Department of Justice has a compilation of policies governing the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program available in Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual

Federal administrative agencies may also take property.  Procedures may vary depending on the individual agency.  US Customs’ regulations discuss how to make a claim for items seized by the agency in a non-judicial civil forfeiture proceeding administrative procedure. ( 19 C.F.R. § 162.94 “Filing of a claim for seized property.” )

Federal adoption

An “adopted” forfeiture – or “adoption” for short – occurs when a state or local law enforcement agency seizes property under state law, without federal oversight or involvement, and requests that a federal agency take the seized asset into its custody and proceed to forfeit the asset under federal law without further court process.   Policy Manual : Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (2016), Chap. 14, Sec. II.   The recent policy directive from the Attorney General mentioned above focuses on federal adoption.  This is restricted under California law.  See Section 11471.2 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Resources for research and templates

You can find a good, detailed discussion of civil asset forfeiture in CEB’s California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, Chapter 57  “Asset Forfeiture.”  (Available in paper  [KFC 1155 C36] and on OnLAW also available at ACLL.)  The chapter provides an overview of this area of law, as well as:
  • details on the types of forfeiture proceedings – administrative and judicial
  • procedure to make a claim to the forfeited property
  • discussion on third party claims
For discussion of claims opposing forfeiture, see California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice §§57.13–57.17, 57.23–57.29.  A discussion of third party claims can be found at §57.32.
Other resources for a discussion on this topic include:
  • Witkin’s California Criminal Law on Westlaw at ACLL
  • 3 Witkin, Cal. Crim. Law 4th Punishment § 188 (2012), “Forfeiture of Property”
  • 1 Witkin, Cal. Crim. Law 4th Defenses § 120 (2012), “Civil Forfeiture”
  • The Rutter Group-California Criminal Procedure, Chapter 32, on Westlaw at ACLL.

Forms and templates for filing claims

CA Judicial Council optional form – Claim Opposing Forfeiture MC-200 is filed in the county where the assets were seized.

Claim Opposing Forfeiture” from Sacramento Public Law Library is a guide for filing a claim.  Some of the information is specific to Sacramento County.  This guide provides an example, with instructions, of a completed Claim Opposing Forfeiture MC-200.

Filing a claim in a federal forfeiture action

American Jurisprudence Pleading & Practice Forms has a number of templates for filing claims for property subject to a federal forfeiture case.  Including:

  • Petition in federal court—For return of seized vehicle  12A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Forfeitures and Penalties § 19
  • Claim—In federal forfeiture action—For restitution and right to defend—By owner of property  12A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Forfeitures and Penalties § 22
  • Claim—In federal forfeiture action—By attorney for owner of property   12A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Forfeitures and Penalties § 23

Available through Westlaw at ACLL.

Articles on this topic

The issue of civil asset forfeiture is far from decided in this country.  Many civil rights advocates are concerned about a policy that allows law enforcement agencies to fund their departments with assets seized as part of its enforcement actions.  On the opposing side, others are concerned by the loss of funding to support continued police activities.

The following articles discuss the issues brought forth by the policies involving civil asset forfeiture.

“Search and seizure” distinguished from civil asset forfeiture

Seizure of property by law enforcement agents may also include property, taken with or without a warrant, that will be used as evidence in a criminal trial.  The government is not attempting to lay claim to the property because the party gained ownership as the profits or economic benefit of a criminal enterprise.   Property is retained by the government but no ownership may be claimed or forfeiture will be claimed by separate action.  Property may be returned to the identified owner who was a victim of the crime once the trial is over.

California search and seizure procedure is codified in Penal Code §1538.5.  Section 1538.5 authorizes a defendant to move for suppression of any evidence, tangible or intangible, that is the product of an illegal search and seizure, or for the return of property that has been illegally seized.  California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice §16.2.

There are procedures to request the government to return of property seized as evidence.  The San Diego Public Law Library has a guide on drafting California motions for return of seized property depending on the individual situations.

Recent federal cases of interest

A June 2017 Ninth Circuit case involving the Fourth Amendment and civil asset forfeiture is United States of America v. Gorman and $167,070.00 in United States Currency  Nos.15-16600 15-17103 D.C. No.3:13-cv-00324-LRH-VPC.  The panel affirmed the district court’s order in a civil forfeiture action granting claimant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a traffic stop; affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees; and held that the search of claimant’s vehicle following coordinated traffic stops violated the Constitution.

A major California federal civil asset forfeiture federal case in the news (reported on in New York Times article cited above) was recently filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. United States of America v. Certain Rights To and Interests In The Viceroy Hotel Group No. 17-cv-04438–DSF-PLA.  No claims have yet been filed for billions of dollars worth of property  (8/3/17).  The complaint (250 pages) and attachment for this  matter can be read here at viceroy 17_04438 complaint and here at in rem viceroy complaint attachment 17_04438-1.

library logo

Immi.org

Alameda County Law Library has received a supply of wallet-sized cards from immi.org that reminds anyone questioned by immigration or law enforcement officers that they have rights.

The cards will be available – while the supply lasts – on the table across from the Reference Desk.

Finding California Notaries – The Listing From The Secretary of State’s Office

Searching for California notaries

At the Alameda County Law Library reference desk, patrons frequently ask where to find a notary to serve as an impartial witness to the signing of important legal documents as required under state law.  Notaries are publicly commissioned as “ministerial” officials, meaning that they are expected to follow written rules without the exercise of significant personal discretion, as would otherwise be the case with a “judicial” official.  Notaries are licensed by the California Secretary of State’s (SOS) office.

We don’t offer notarial services at ACLL just as we do not provide legal advice.  How to find a notary?  A internet search for “notary” and the name of your city will pull up contact information for services.  A search on the web site, Yelp, will bring up listings.  At the reference desk, we can offer business Yellow Pages.  (Yes, they still print those.)  Individuals who are notaries may work “in-house” at government organizations, bank branches, or real estate agencies.  They may also work for  businesses that specialize in notary services or business support services companies such as Federal Express or UPS stores.  Because notaries work within so many different professions, there is not a professional organization web site – such as the California Association of Legal Document Assistants has set up – to help the consumer locate a professional.

Unlike what the California State Bar does for the attorneys they licensed, the SOS does not provide a user-friendly search screen to help a consumer locate or identify a person who is in good standing to perform the duties required by a notary.  The SOS does have an up-to-date statewide list of notaries.  But, this text list includes all notaries (150,000+) including the in-house notaries who do not make their services available to the public.   This list is available only by downloading the full text file with its fields designated by tags.  After you download, you are left with a huge text file to sort through for data.  There is too much data to download to an Excel spreadsheet.   If you have access to Microsoft’s Access database software, you can import the information and then sort the data by geographic location and other search strategies.  (The code for Alameda County is 01.)

We can hope that in the near future, the  SOS will make searching through the file simpler for the non-techies as other state agencies have done for court reporters and interpreters.

Here is the information from the SOS web page describing how to work with its file:

For a list of notaries public who hold active notary public commissions simply download this compressed file (ZIP). After decompressing the file, the file can be opened with any text editor. However, for optimum utility, import the active-notary.txt file into a database to permit better searching and sorting capability, since the number of records exceeds the maximum record limit for most spreadsheet programs.

The active-notary.txt file, which is updated daily, includes:

 

 

 

Congressional Record – Additional Digital Resources

Research news alert from the HeinOnline’s blog – Additions to the internet federal legislative history resources

The GPO has recently partnered with the Library of Congress to release an authenticated digital version of historical issues of the bound Congressional Record from Volume 97 (1951) to  Volume 153 (2007).  The issues are now available to the public via the GPO’s website.  The project digitized more than a million pages, covering debates and proceedings of the 81st through the 105th Congresses.  Search capabilities are also provided.

The Congressional Record was first published in 1873 and is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress, published by the United States Government Publishing Office (GPO) and issued when Congress is in session.  Indexes are issued approximately every two weeks.  At the end of a session of Congress, the daily editions are compiled in bound volumes constituting the permanent edition.

The Record is the most complete and accurate account of congressional matters to date.  At the end of each session of Congress, all of the daily editions are collected, re-paginated, and re-indexed into a permanent, bound edition.  This permanent edition, referred to as the Congressional Record (Bound Edition), is made up of one volume per session of Congress, with each volume published in multiple parts, each part containing approximately 10 to 20 days of Congressional proceedings.  The primary ways in which the bound edition differs from the daily edition are continuous pagination; somewhat edited, revised, and rearranged text; and the dropping of the prefixes H, S, and E before page numbers.

The Congressional Record consists of four sections:

  • Daily Digest
  • House section
  • Senate section
  • Extension of Remarks

What about coverage after 1998?

This site provides access to the text of the Congressional Record from Volume 140 (1994) to present.  The text is available by browsing but is not presented as PDFs of the bound volumes.

Before 1951?

The Internet Archive has a collection of the older Congressional Record.  Congressional Record – Bound (1873 to 1993 via Internet Archive – Search Title and Date then Browse volume parts and Find words and phrases – Magnify, Browse, Download)

Also Google Books, Congressional Record – Bound (1873 to current via Google Books – Search then Browse selected pages with some pages or whole volume parts missing and unsearchable) Print and online sources

The Legislative Research Special Interest Section of the Law Librarians’ Society of Washington, D.C., Inc. (LLSDC) as part of its Legislative Source Book has a list on the web entitled “Sources for the Congressional Record: Free and Commercial” (http://www.llsdc.org/sources-for-the-congressional-record–free-and-commercial).  The website contains a list with links to most all online sources for the Congressional Record, free and commercial, with dates of coverage, including the bound Record, the daily edition, the Congressional Record Index, and predecessors to the Congressional Record.  Also included are brief notations about search, browse, print, and cite retrieval capabilities of the sources as well information on libraries with paper and microform issues.  Finally there are a number of links to aid researchers in understanding the Congressional Record, its history, its volume numbers, and what is or is not included in the pages of the Record

Going back further?

The Congressional Record goes back to only 1873.  Before 1873, congressional debates were catalogued in the Annals of Congress (1789-1824), Register of Debates (1824-1837) and Congressional Globe (1833-1873).