AB 2428 requires every California county to run a one-time amnesty program for eligible unpaid fines and bail tied to certain infractions (and, if agreed locally, to some misdemeanors). The bill defines what counts as “fine or bail,” sets eligibility gates (including an initial due date cutoff and limits on outstanding warrants and restitution), and directs courts and counties how to implement the program.
The measure also prescribes how much a participant must pay to satisfy an eligible debt, directs the Judicial Council to issue program guidelines and reimburse DMV outreach costs, requires courts to file DMV certificates to allow license reinstatement, allocates collected funds to specific state training funds after an initial transfer to the Judicial Council, and makes amnesty administrative fees unenforceable beginning January 1, 2027. The policy shifts collectability, county workload, and funding flows while offering individuals a route to clear old debt and restore driving privileges.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates a mandatory, county-run one-time amnesty program for specified unpaid fines and bail tied to older infractions and limited misdemeanors, establishes eligibility rules and documentation duties, and accepts a reduced lump-sum or structured payment in full satisfaction of eligible debts. It requires Judicial Council guidelines, reporting by courts/counties, and DMV coordination to restore driving privileges for eligible participants.
Who It Affects
People with suspended driving privileges or outstanding infraction fines with initial due dates on or before January 1, 2013; county courts and county collection agencies that must implement and report on the programs; the Judicial Council and the Department of Motor Vehicles for outreach and certificate processing; and state entities that receive redistributed proceeds, including specified training funds.
Why It Matters
It converts long-dormant, hard-to-collect liabilities into near-term revenue and cleared caseloads while creating operational demands for courts and counties. It also changes how collected money is allocated (with a set initial transfer and fixed percentage splits) and eliminates the enforceability of amnesty administrative fees after 2027, creating budget and fairness implications for local government and for people who previously paid or remain indebted.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2428 establishes a one-time, county-level infraction amnesty program that applies to a narrowly defined set of old unpaid fines and bail. The bill instructs each county to run the program and keeps existing divisions of collection responsibility between courts and counties unless they agree otherwise in writing.
It defines “fine or bail” broadly to include base fines, state surcharges, penalty assessments, and several statutory assessments, while expressly excluding the civil assessment under Penal Code section 1214.1.
Eligibility is drawn tightly. To qualify, the underlying case must fall within listed categories (primarily infractions and specified misdemeanors where the county opts in), the initial payment due date must be on or before January 1, 2013, the person must have no outstanding felony or misdemeanor warrants in the county (with limited exceptions), must not owe victim restitution in the county, must not have made payments to a county comprehensive collection program after September 30, 2015, and must have filed a court request by March 31, 2017.
For qualifying participants, a county amnesty program may accept a reduced payment in full satisfaction of the debt.The bill prescribes how payments, plans, and enforcement work. Judicial Council guidelines must allow a payment-plan option based on ability to pay; defaults trigger a 30‑day cure notice and potential referral to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for collection of remaining balances, including FTB administrative costs.
Courts are required to issue and file certificates with the DMV within 90 days showing satisfaction so that driving privileges suspended under specified statutory provisions can be reinstated. The measure forbids bringing a new criminal action for a fine or bail that was paid under the amnesty.On the finance side, collected funds are deposited to the county and then distributed: the Judicial Council receives an initial transfer, after which monthly transfers allocate a fixed percentage of collections to the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Corrections Training Fund.
Judicial Council must reimburse DMV outreach and personnel costs up to a capped amount. Courts and counties must report program results to the Judicial Council on a prescribed timeline.
Finally, the bill provides that amnesty program administrative fees become unenforceable and any part of judgments imposing those costs will be vacated starting January 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Eligibility requires the initial due date of the fine or bail to be on or before January 1, 2013, and an application to the court filed by March 31, 2017.
The amnesty accepts, in full satisfaction of eligible debt, 50% of the fine/bail amount, or 20% if the participant certifies receipt of certain public benefits or meets specified low‑income conditions.
Courts must, within 90 days, issue and file DMV certificates establishing satisfaction (where applicable) so participants can seek driver’s license reinstatement; Judicial Council will reimburse certain DMV outreach/personnel costs up to $250,000.
Collected proceeds are first transferred: $250,000 to the Judicial Council, then monthly distributions send 82.20% of subsequent collections to the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and 17.80% to the Corrections Training Fund.
Beginning January 1, 2027, amnesty program administrative fees are unenforceable and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs must be vacated.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose, county implementation, and definition of ‘fine or bail’
Subdivisions (a) and (b) set the program’s intent (relief for individuals and clearing old cases) and require each county to establish the amnesty program, preserving existing collection responsibilities unless the county and court agree otherwise. Subdivision (c) gives a comprehensive definition of what counts as “fine” or “bail” for purposes of the program, explicitly folding in base fines, penalty assessments, state surcharges, court operations assessments, and criminal conviction assessments. Practically, that means the amnesty can operate on the full statutory assessment package attached to an old violation, not just the base fine.
Eligibility gates, exclusions, and optional misdemeanor coverage
Subdivision (g) lists the eligibility checklist: the violation type, initial due-date cutoff (on or before January 1, 2013), no county-level outstanding felony/misdemeanor warrants (with limited exceptions), no county victim restitution owed, no post-September 30, 2015 payments to a county comprehensive collection program, and timely court application (by March 31, 2017). Subdivision (d) excludes a specific civil assessment (Penal Code §1214.1) from collection through amnesty. Subdivision (f) lets a court and county jointly extend amnesty to certain misdemeanor charges added to qualifying cases, but expressly forbids applying the program to parking and specified serious vehicle offenses; this creates a locally optional expansion path rather than a statewide mandate.
Payment framework, reduced-pay option, fee, and payment-plan mechanics
Subdivision (h) sets the core settlement mechanics: by default the program accepts 50% of the eligible amount as full satisfaction, but it reduces that to 20% for participants who certify receipt of certain public benefits or meet statutory low-income conditions. The Judicial Council’s required guidelines (subdivision (i)) may allow a payment-plan option sized to ability to pay under Government Code provisions, permit a $50 amnesty fee collected with the first payment, and require outreach and web posting. If a participant defaults on a plan, courts or counties must notify the person and may refer unresolved balances to the Franchise Tax Board for collection, including recovery of FTB administrative costs.
DMV coordination, certificate timelines, and criminal-prosecution bar
Subdivision (e) contains retroactive operational instructions tied to 2015–2017 application windows: courts must issue and file DMV certificates within 90 days for participants whose driving privileges had been suspended, and the DMV is directed not to deny reinstatement when the certificate is in place. The Judicial Council must reimburse certain DMV outreach and administrative expenses up to $250,000 (subdivision (i)(5)). Subdivision (j) allows the Judicial Council, within resources, to recommend mechanisms to reinstate licenses for people with violations across multiple counties. Subdivision (k) expressly forbids bringing a criminal action for any delinquent fine or bail that was paid under the amnesty, eliminating one enforcement route for those resolved debts.
Collections, distribution formula, and reporting requirements
Subdivision (l) requires collected amounts to be deposited promptly to county treasury or specified accounts and then distributed pro rata as partial payments would be; it also prescribes a two-step distribution: the first $250,000 of funds collected goes to the Judicial Council, and thereafter monthly transfers send 82.20% to the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and 17.80% to the Corrections Training Fund. Subdivision (m) requires each implementing court or county to file a program report with the Judicial Council (due by May 31, 2017) and directs the Judicial Council to submit a consolidated report to the Legislature (by August 31, 2017). These rules concretely change how revenue from cleared debts is allocated and impose formal reporting duties on local implementers.
Administrative fees vacated beginning 2027
Subdivision (n) states that starting January 1, 2027, amnesty program administrative fees are unenforceable and uncollectible and that any judgment portion imposing those costs must be vacated. That provision effectively creates a future legal obligation for courts and counties to remove or cancel such fees from judgments or collection efforts once that date arrives.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with suspended driving privileges for eligible infractions: they can clear qualifying debts through a single reduced payment or court-approved plan and the court must file DMV certificates to enable license reinstatement.
- Low-income individuals and public-benefits recipients: the bill lowers the required lump-sum repayment to 20% of the eligible debt for qualifying participants, substantially lowering the entry barrier for satisfaction.
- County courts and local collection programs: the amnesty offers a practical mechanism to resolve long-dormant cases and clear court dockets, allowing staff to refocus limited collection resources on more recent debts.
- Peace Officers’ Training Fund and Corrections Training Fund: both funds receive a set percentage of collections (82.20% and 17.80% respectively after the initial Judicial Council transfer), providing a predictable revenue stream tied to amnesty receipts.
- Judicial Council and DMV outreach efforts: the Judicial Council receives the initial set-aside of funds and reimburses DMV outreach/personnel up to a cap, offsetting some administrative burden.
Who Bears the Cost
- Counties and superior courts implementing the program: they must perform eligibility screening, process applications, run outreach, and administer payment plans—work that requires staff time and systems changes even though some DMV costs are reimbursed.
- Local general fund priorities that previously relied on full assessment streams: because collections are accepted at a discount and proceeds are reallocated to state training funds, counties may see lower net revenue available for other local purposes.
- Franchise Tax Board and state collection infrastructure: FTB will be tasked with collecting defaulted balances and administrative costs under existing protocols, adding workload and potentially requiring system coordination with local courts.
- People who paid in full before the amnesty: individuals who satisfied their fines earlier receive no relief, raising equity concerns for those who paid while others may discharge debts for a fraction of the original amount.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between quickly relieving individuals and clearing stale court dockets by accepting reduced payments, and preserving long-term revenue streams and equitable treatment for prior payers—an outcome that forces counties to choose between immediate collections and the administrative and fiscal costs of implementing a complex, retroactive program that reallocates money away from some local uses.
The bill ties eligibility and operational deadlines to specific retroactive windows (notably filing deadlines through March 31, 2017 and payment-history cutoffs through September 30, 2015). That creates a complex record‑matching problem: implementing counties must verify payment histories, outstanding warrants, restitution status, and cross‑county violations against stale records that may be incomplete or inconsistently maintained.
Coordinating across hundreds of local case management systems will generate administrative friction and may limit actual participation rates.
Financially, AB 2428 converts long-tail, low-probability collections into immediate, smaller receipts and then reallocates those receipts away from some traditional assessment recipients toward statewide training funds and the Judicial Council. That trade-off speeds revenue capture but reduces the absolute dollar yield county-by-county and reshapes local budget expectations.
The 20% reduced-pay option for low-income participants raises equity goals but also tightens the funding available to respond to victims’ needs or court operations. Finally, the 2027 vacatur of administrative fees creates a future compliance and record-correction task for courts: they will need to identify and vacate those fees in judgments, which could spur litigation or require additional administrative effort.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.