County Asks State to Pay for 3-Strikes Costs

Los Angeles County on Thursday delivered a clear message to the state: It’s time to pay the mounting local legal bill triggered by enforcement of California’s three-strikes sentencing law. The cost so far: a couple hundred million dollars and rising.

A squad of county officials urged an obscure but powerful state finance board to order California to pony up the funds to meet skyrocketing costs of arresting, prosecuting and defending criminals under the law enacted four years ago.

The three-strikes law requires prison terms of 25 years to life for many criminals convicted of their third felony. County officials say that translates into more legal research on cases, more defendants seeking trials, more appeals and more inmates spending extra time in county jails.

“As an unintended consequence of three strikes, the county of Los Angeles . . . [has] had to provide a newer and higher level of service,” said Leonard Kaye, an accountant with the county auditor-controller’s office. As a result, he said, law enforcement costs have mushroomed.

But after a nearly two-hour hearing, the Commission on State Mandates delayed a decision until May.

The financial stakes are enormous for Los Angeles County, which sketched out its case in 10 telephone book-size volumes, and the rest of the state. In the first year of the three-strikes law, for example, the county estimated its added costs at $64 million. One county official said the price tag is now about $200 million.

*

Moreover, should the commission embrace the county’s position, the state’s 57 other counties, many financially strapped, are expected to piggyback and seek reimbursement too, which would cost the state millions more.

Both the state Department of Finance and the commission’s staff urged board members to reject the county’s claim, saying that the three-strikes law did not impose any additional duties on local law enforcement.

Whatever the commission decides, the losing side is expected to challenge the ruling in court.

The Legislature established the quasi-judicial seven-member commission to handle the politically difficult question of whether a new law imposes financial mandates on local governments. If a claim qualifies, the board must figure out the amount of money owed and give the bill to the Legislature to set aside the funds.

With voters worried about crime, the Legislature in March 1994 passed the three-strikes sentencing law. A nearly identical measure mandating life terms for three-time offenders was approved by voters the next November.

When the anti-crime measure was debated, the impact on prisons was often cited, but the question of local expenses was largely ignored.

Seeing the early impact of the three-strikes law, Los Angeles County in 1995 first sought reimbursement from the state--triggering a behind-the-scenes struggle outlined in legal briefs Thursday.

In essence, Los Angeles County officials contend that the law unintentionally has had a severe impact on local law enforcement. As a result, they say, the law constitutes a state-mandated program requiring reimbursement from the California treasury.

They cite a growing workload forced on the county’s criminal justice system.

The state “pretty much said, ‘There’s a law; go out and enforce it,’ ” said Alex A. Ricciardulli, an attorney in the Los Angeles public defender’s office.

But Cyrus J. Rickards, a deputy attorney general representing the Department of Finance, sharply disagreed.

He argued that the costs associated with the three-strikes law should be disqualified from state reimbursement because of two exemptions in state law.

First, Rickards said, costs related to duties imposed by a ballot measure approved by voters are not eligible for reimbursement under the law.

County officials countered that this provision is not applicable because the ballot measure merely affirmed the three-strikes law passed earlier in 1994 by the Legislature.

The Finance Department’s other main argument is that the three-strikes law approved by the Legislature only changed the penalty for existing crimes.

“The Legislature and the voters knew there were going to be additional costs going in,” said Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer.

“They wanted these people off the streets for a long, long time,” Palmer added. He also said that taking criminals off the streets has cut crime, creating potential cost savings.