BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair A 2009-2010 Regular Session B 2 2 9 AB 2295 (De La Torre) 5 As Amended May 28, 2010 Hearing date: June 29, 2010 Penal Code AA:dl SEX OFFENDERS: PAROLEE RECORDS HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: None Support: Unknown Opposition:None Known Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUE SHOULD THE LONG-TERM RETENTION OF CDCR RECORDS CONCERNING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS PAROLED FROM PRISON BE STATUTORILY REQUIRED, AS SPECIFIED? PURPOSE (More) AB 2295 (De La Torre) PageB The purpose of this bill is to ensure the long-term retention of CDCR records concerning registered sex offenders paroled from prison, as specified. Current law creates in state government the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), headed by a secretary who is appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation, and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. CDCR consists of Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Juvenile Justice, the Corrections Standards Authority, the Board of Parole Hearings, the State Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison Industry Authority, and the Prison Industry Board. (Government Code 12838 (a).) Current law provides that "the supervision, management and control of the state prisons, and the responsibility for the care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and employment of persons confined therein are vested in the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation." (Penal Code 5054) Existing law generally provides that inmates serving a determinate term of imprisonment shall be released on parole for a period of three years.<1> (Penal Code 3000, subd. (b)(1).) Existing law provides that any person released from prison on parole may be released from parole after 1 year, or 2 years for violent felonies, unless CDCR recommends to the contrary. (Penal Code 3001.) --------------------------- <1> Sex offenders who have served a determinate term of imprisonment are released on parole for a period of five years. Specified sex offenders serving indeterminate (life) terms are released on parole for a period of 10 years. (Penal Code 3000, subd. (b)(1) and (3).) (More) AB 2295 (De La Torre) PageC Existing law provides that longer periods of parole apply to specified crimes, for example lifetime parole for persons sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. (Penal Code 3000.1.) Existing law includes these additional provisions: Prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the enclosure of the prison. (Penal Code 3056.) Any person who has been returned to prison after revocation of parole may be held for 12 months, and an additional 12 months for prison misconduct. The person shall then be released on parole for the balance of the period of parole. (Penal Code 3057.) That prisoners, with the exception of life prisoners, may earn custody credits for work and approved programs to reduce the period of custody following revocation of parole. (Penal Code 3057.) The parole authority - now the Board of Parole Hearings - shall have full power to suspend or revoke any parole, and to order returned to prison any prisoner upon parole. The written order of the parole authority shall be a sufficient warrant for any peace or prison officer to return to actual custody any conditionally released or paroled prisoner. (Penal Code 3060.) This bill would require CDCR to "permanently retain all files, including handwritten or typed field files, prepared by the Division of Adult Parole Operations regarding any person who has been released on parole from the state prison who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act." (More) AB 2295 (De La Torre) PageD RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009, that court stated in part: "California's correctional system is in a tailspin," the state's independent oversight agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased the population of California's prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a result, the state's prisons have become places "of extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, . . . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while contributing little to the safety of California's residents, . . . . California "spends more on corrections than most countries in the world," but the state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . . Although California's existing prison system serves neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. (Some citations omitted.) . . . The massive 750% increase in the California prison population since the mid-1970s is the result of political decisions made over three decades, including (More) AB 2295 (De La Torre) PageE the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole system. Unfortunately, as California's prison population has grown, California's political decision-makers have failed to provide the resources and facilities required to meet the additional need for space and for other necessities of prison existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the state could safely reduce its prison population, their recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend the necessary funds to support the population growth has brought California's prisons to the breaking point. The state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to this day, California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<2> The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal in this case. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. --------------------------- <2> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California United States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009). (More) AB 2295 (De La Torre) PageF COMMENTS 1. Author's Amendment The author intends to amend this bill in Committee to provide that its provisions require CDCR sex offender record retention for 75 years. 2. Stated Need for This Bill The author states: Recent high-profile crimes, like those of John Albert Gardner, have illustrated the value of parole information to law enforcement in identifying and apprehending dangerous suspects. In the Gardner case, CDCR destroyed the suspect's Field File months before he was sought in connection with the murders of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois. CDCR has since changed its parole file retention policy to require the indefinite retention of sex offender parole files. This bill will implement a recommendation of the California Sex Offender Management Board and ensure that CDCR will not change this policy again without Legislative approval. "The law does not currently require CDCR or local law enforcement agencies, which register sex offenders, to retain records on sex offenders for any specified time period. In order to have all the facts about a registered sex offender, it is essential that all agencies involved in investigating, supervising, monitoring and registering such offenders retain records for at least 75 years, or until the death of the registrant. Current law requires that the courts, the California Department of Justice, and district attorneys' offices retain these records for 75 years." (Source: Response to Gov. Schwarzenegger's Request for Review of the John Gardner Case, California Sex (More) AB 2295 (De La Torre) PageG Offender Management Board, May 1, 2010) 3. Recommendation of the Sex Offender Management Board As noted by the author, this bill is consistent with the recommendations of the California Sex Offender Management Board in its May 1, 2010 report, Response to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Request for Review of the John Gardner Case. The Board noted that, "CDCR has since promulgated a policy requiring that parole notes on sex offenders be retained indefinitely," and recommended that "(r)egistering agencies (sheriffs and police departments), county probation departments, and CDCR should be added to the law requiring that these records be retained for 75 years." This bill addresses CDCR sex offender records; it does not include records maintained by registering agencies and county probation departments. The author and/or members of the Committee may wish to discuss whether the provisions of this bill should be extended to these records as well. *************** (More)