BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
2
1
SB 121 (Denham)
As Introduced February 3, 2009
Hearing date: March 31, 2009
Penal Code
AA:mc
CENTRAL COAST RURAL CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM
HISTORY
Source: California Farm Bureau Federation
Prior Legislation:Proposition 6 - defeated by voters Nov. 4,
2008
AB 2417 (Runner) - 2008, not moved by author
SB 657 (Runner) - 2008, not moved by author
SB 44 (Denham) - Chapter 18, Statutes of 2003
AB 374 (Matthews) - Chapter 719, Statutes of 2002
AB 530 (Reyes) - Chapter 845,
Statutes of 2001
AB 1727 (Reyes) - Chapter 310,
Statutes of 2000
AB 157 (Reyes) - Chapter 564, Statutes
of 1999
AB 2331 (Prenter) - 1998, held in the
Assembly
Support: Attorney General's Office; California State Sheriffs'
Association; San Benito County
Sheriff's Office; Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner; California
District Attorneys Association; American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageB
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SUNSET ON THE CENTRAL COAST RURAL CRIME PREVENTION
PROGRAM STATUTE BE EXTENDED FIVE YEARS, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to extend the existing sunset on the
Central Coast Rural Crime Prevention Program statutory
provisions five years, to 2016.
Current statute provides that the "Legislature encourages the
Counties of Monterey, San
Benito, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo to
develop, adopt, and implement a Central Coast Rural Crime
Prevention Program based upon the Central Valley Rural Crime
Prevention Program," as specified. (Penal Code 14180.)
Current statute authorizes the Counties of Monterey, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and San Benito to "develop
within its respective jurisdiction a Central Coast Rural Crime
Prevention Program," and to form the "Central Coast Rural Crime
Task Force," as specified, to "develop rural crime prevention
programs containing a system for reporting rural crimes that
enables the swift recovery of stolen goods and the apprehension
of criminal suspects for prosecution." (Penal Code 14181.)
Current statute provides that these provisions shall become
inoperative on July 1, 2010, and will be repealed as of January
1, 2011.
This bill will extend the sunset for these provisions for five
years, making them inoperative on July 1, 2015, and repealed as
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageC
of January 1, 2016.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125 percent (an
average of 4 percent annually) over the past 20 years, growing
from 76,000 inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the
state's population growth rate for the age cohort with the
highest risk of incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many prisoners
for the existing capacity. The Governor, the
principal defendant, declared a state of emergency in
2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44-the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration-grew by an average of less than 1 percent
annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageD
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageE
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
SB 121 would extend the Central Coast Rural Crime
Prevention Program through July 1, 2015.
The Agriculture industry in California contributes to
a large portion of the state's economy. With over
$36.6 billion dollars in revenue in 2007 the
agriculture industry deserves California's protection.
SB 121 will extend the Rural Crime Prevention Program
for five years and give this industry and the people
who work in it the protection it needs.
. . . Local task forces created by this bill bring
together crime prevention experts from across
jurisdictions to monitor, study, and prevent crime.
----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, 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 (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageF
This is an important step to ensuring the safety of
Californian agriculture.
. . . This bill would provide that the formed task
forces extend the provisions that develop a system to
monitor, report, investigate and deter rural crimes.
They would also be required to collect data in regards
to rural crimes for the purpose of monitoring the
effectiveness of the program.
In addition to theft of property, including chemicals,
equipment, and livestock, the rural crime task forces
combat the proliferation of methamphetamine labs.
Senator Denham authored SB 44 in 2003, which
established Rural Crime Prevention Task forces in
Monterey, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, San Benito,
and Santa Cruz counties. These task forces have been
effective in recovering property losses to the
agriculture community. In order to continue this
progress SB 121 must be passed. . . .
2. Background; Funding Recently Provided in Budget Measures
According to online information from the state entity that
administers state funding for the Central Coast Rural Crime
Prevention Program<3>:
This program is based on creating a replica of the
original Tulare County Rural Crime Prevention
Demonstration Project. As such, each county has the
overall discretion to tailor their specific program to
resolve local rural and agricultural crime needs. The
overall goal is to strengthen the ability of law
enforcement agencies in rural areas to detect and
monitor agricultural and rural-based crimes. Program
funding is contingent upon the execution of an
----------------------
<3> This had been the Office of Emergency Services. Pursuant
to legislation enacted last year (AB 38 (Nava)), this now is the
California Emergency Management Agency.
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageG
agreement to actively participate on a regional task
force and develop a County Rural Crime Prevention
Program. The regional task force will be comprised of
representatives from the District Attorney, Sheriff's
Office, Agricultural Commissioner, and interested
property owner groups and associations from each
participating county. Program control authority has
been conferred to each respective county district
attorney's office and the Monterey County Sheriff's
office, as indicated in statute.
(More)
According to the OES website, this program was awarded $720,000
from the state General Fund for a grant award period for the
current budget year. Funding for this program continues in the
budget year as part of the local public safety programs funded
through the increased Vehicle License Fee revenues dedicated to
support these local programs.<4>
The state General Fund authority for this program currently is
part of the VLF revenues that were part of the budget proposals
enacted in February. This funding authority is sunseted either
for July 1, 2011, or July 1, 2013, depending upon specified
notification requirements. This bill would extend the sunset
for the statutory provisions of these programs to make them
inoperative on July 1, 2015, and repealed as of January 1, 2016.
The author and/or members may wish to consider adjusting the
statutory sunset to align with the budget sunsets noted above.
SHOULD THE SUNSET EXTENSION IN THIS BILL BE REVISED TO ALIGN
WITH THE SUNSET PROVISIONS IN THE BUDGET BILLS RECENTLY PASSED
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM?
3. Measures of Effectiveness
Current law requires the following from this program:
(1) The Central Coast Rural Crime Task Force shall
develop rural crime prevention programs containing a
system for reporting rural crimes that enables the
swift recovery of stolen goods and the apprehension of
criminal suspects for prosecution. The task force
shall develop computer software and use communication
technology to implement the reporting system, although
the task force is not limited to the use of these
means to achieve the stated goals.
(2) The Central Coast Rural Crime Task Force shall
----------------------
<4> See SBx3 8 (Ducheny) - Ch. 4, Stats. 2009 and ABx3 3
(Evans) - Ch. 18, Stats. 2009.
(More)
SB 121 (Denham)
PageI
develop a uniform procedure for all participating
counties to collect, and each participating county
shall collect data on agricultural crimes. The task
force shall also establish a central database for the
collection and maintenance of data on agricultural
crimes and designate one participating county to
maintain the database. (Penal Code 14181(b).)
In light of these statutory provisions, the author may wish to
describe, and members of the Committee may wish to request,
information about how these strategies are being implemented,
including:
What rural crime reporting systems have been developed
under this program that did not previously exist?
Has this program enabled the swift recovery of stolen
goods, and how is swiftness in this context measured?
How can this program be evaluated in terms of its added
value in aiding the apprehension of criminal suspects for
prosecution?
What is the status of computer software and
communication technology to implement the reporting system,
and what are its key elements that are unique to other law
enforcement reporting technologies?
Has a uniform procedure for all participating counties
to collect data on agricultural crime been developed?
Does each participating county now collect data on
agricultural crimes?
Has a central database for the collection and
maintenance of data on agricultural crimes, with one
participating county maintaining the database, been
established?
Members additionally may wish to discuss whether or how these
efforts reflect evidence-based best practices for addressing
rural crime.
***************
SB 121 (Denham)
PageJ