Opinion
Page 1567b
135 Cal.App.4th 1567b __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent ESTEBAN ALLENDE et al., Real Parties in Interest. A109209 California Court of Appeal, First District, Third Division January 31, 2006THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 4, 2006 (135 Cal.App.4th 488; __Cal.Rptr.3d__ ), be modified as follows:
On page 16, at the end of the first full paragraph [135 Cal.App.4th 505, advance report, carryover par.], after the sentence ending “accident response components,” add as footnote 11 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent
11 In a petition for rehearing, Allende does cite the legislative history in support of the contention that investigative costs are not recoverable. Even if such costs were excluded from recovery, the limitation would have little bearing on whether law enforcement officers must allocate their time between accident response and DUI response components because investigative costs do not fall exclusively into either category. Furthermore, the legislative history does not support Allende’s claim. Allende points to language in the original version of Senate Bill No. 735 imposing liability “for the expense of an emergency response by a public agency to investigate the incident.” (Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Mar. 4, 1985, p. 2, italics added.) The Legislature subsequently amended the bill to remove references to “investigating the incident,” leading Allende to speculate the bill was amended in response to the CHP’s concern that its budget would be reduced by amounts collected for accident investigation. (Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 18, 1985; Cal. Highway Patrol, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 4, 1985.) Allende points to commentary by the Department of Boating and Waterways stating the bill was “amended to preclude the cost of the ‘investigation’ of the incident . . . .” (Cal. Dept. Boating and Waterways, com. on Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 18, 1985.) Other than that department’s comment, we find no support for this conclusion. As the CHP commented at the time, the amendment eliminated the “requirement that the responding agency must investigate the accident.”
Page 1567c
(Cal. Highway Patrol, Supp. Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 18, 1985.) Thus, rather than precluding recovery for investigation costs, the amendment broadened the reach of the statute to authorize a responding public agency to seek cost recovery even if that agency did not participate in the investigation of the incident. Even after the bill was amended to delete references to incident investigation, the Department of Finance took the position that Senate Bill No. 735 would allow the CHP to recover investigation costs (but not administrative costs associated with collecting payments). (Cal. Dept. of Finance, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 12, 1985, p. 2; see also Cal. Highway Patrol, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 735 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) July 23, 1985.)
The petition for rehearing and the related request for judicial notice are denied.
The application of John Greenwood Brierton to file an amicus curiae brief requesting modification of the opinion is granted. Brierton’s request to modify the opinion is denied.
There is no change in the judgment.