BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2467
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2467 (Hueso) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Authorizes a court to order Global Positioning System
(GPS) monitoring of a defendant in a domestic violence or
stalking case. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows a court to order a defendant to be placed on active GPS
monitoring in any criminal case where a protective order has
been issued to protect a victim of a violent crime committed
by the defendant.
2)Specifies that a protective order issued as the result of a
defendant's conviction of a crime of domestic violence may
include a provision for GPS monitoring of a defendant.
3)Provides that in cases where a defendant has violated a
restraining order in a criminal domestic violence or stalking
case, the court may order a defendant to deposit funds in a
county domestic violence and stalking surveillance fund
created in other provisions of this bill.
4)Authorizes a court to order GPS monitoring of a defendant in
any case in which a complaint, information, or indictment
charging a crime of domestic violence or stalking has been
filed.
5)Provides when a defendant has been convicted of felony
domestic violence, if probation is granted or the execution or
imposition of a sentence is suspended, the sentencing court
may order the defendant to be placed on active GPS monitoring.
It is the intent of the Legislature that, when making this
decision, the court consider the seriousness of the facts
before the court, the probability of future violations, and
the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family.
AB 2467
Page 2
6)Defines an "immediate family" as a spouse, parent child, or a
person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second
degree or another person who regularly resides in the
household or who, within the prior six months, regularly
resided in the household.
7)Provides when a defendant has been convicted of stalking, if
probation is granted or the execution or imposition of a
sentence is suspended, the sentencing court may order the
defendant to be placed on active GPS monitoring. It is the
intent of the Legislature that, when making this decision, the
court consider the seriousness of the facts before the court,
the probability of future violations, and the safety of the
victim and his or her immediate family.
8)Defines a "course of conduct" for purposes of stalking as two
or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short,
evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally
protected activity is not included within this meaning.
9)Defines a "credible threat" for purposes of stalking as a
verbal or written threat, including that performed through the
use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied
by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written,
or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made
with the intent to place the person who is the target of the
threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety
of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to
carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the
target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety
or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to
prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out
the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the
threat shall not be a bar to prosecution to this section.
Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the
meaning of "credible threat."
10)Defines an "electronic communication device" to include
telephones, cellular phones, computer, video recorders, fax
machines, or pagers.
11)States that if bail is ordered in a case where a defendant
has been charged with domestic violence or stalking, the court
may order the defendant to be placed on active GPS monitoring
as a condition of bail.
AB 2467
Page 3
12)Provides that the defendant shall pay the costs of active GPS
monitoring if the court determines that the defendant has the
ability to pay. However, the defendant's inability to pay for
active GPS monitoring shall not preclude the defendant from
being released on bail.
13)States that in lieu of a fine for domestic violence, but not
in lieu of the $400 payment required under Penal Code Section
1203.097(a)(5)(A), a defendant may be ordered to deposit funds
into a county's domestic violence and stalking surveillance
fund created in other provisions of this bill.
14)Authorizes local counties to create a domestic violence and
stalking surveillance fund and requires the funds collected
from the defendant for the cost of GPS monitoring to be
deposited in the fund administered by the county where the
offense took place.
15)Provides that moneys from the domestic violence and stalking
surveillance fund is to be used by the local sheriff's
department for the defendant's electronic monitoring.
16)Declares that the Legislature finds that domestic violence
and stalking is a pervasive and costly public health and
criminal justice problem in California. The Legislature is
committed to ensuring that domestic violence and stalking
incidents decrease significantly. One of the tools used to
protect victims are restraining orders. While they have
proven effective in some cases, they are violated over 50% of
the time, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence. The Legislature declares that victims of domestic
violence and stalking need tangible protection from their
offenders and is committed to ensuring that batterers are held
accountable for their violence.
17)Declares legislative intent to give courts and law
enforcement the tool to monitor offenders in domestic violence
and stalking cases through the use of GPS.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that any person who willfully inflicts upon a person
who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former
cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child,
AB 2467
Page 4
corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty
of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four
years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to $6,000 or by both that fine and imprisonment.
İPenal Code Section 273.5(a).]
2)Provides for increased incarceration and a maximum fine of
$10,000 for subsequent convictions of the crime of domestic
violence which occur within seven years of a prior conviction
for a domestic violence-related offense. İPenal Code Section
273.5(e).]
3)States that any person who willfully, maliciously, and
repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses
another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent
to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety,
or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the
crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than
$1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by
imprisonment in the state prison. If there is a temporary
restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in
effect at the time of the stalking, the person shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or four years. İPenal Code Section 646.9(a) and (b).]
4)States that that the primary considerations in granting
probation shall be the safety of the public, which shall be a
primary goal through the enforcement of court-ordered
conditions of probation, the nature of the offense, the
interests of justice including punishment, reintegration of
the offender into the community, and enforcement of the
conditions of probation, the loss to the victim, and the needs
of the defendant. (Penal Code Section 1202.7.)
5)Authorizes the court to impose and require any . . .
reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and
proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be
made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done
to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and
specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the
probationer. Should the probationer violate any of the terms
or conditions imposed by the court in the matter, the court
shall have authority to modify and change any and all the
AB 2467
Page 5
terms and conditions and to reimprison the probationer in the
county jail within the limitations of the penalty of the
public offense involved. İPenal Code Section 1203.1(j).]
6)Requires certain conditions be imposed when a person found
guilty of a domestic violence-related offense is granted
probation. İPenal Code Section 1203.097.]
7)Requires persons granted probation for a domestic
violence-related offense to make a minimum payment of $400.
If, after a hearing in court on the record, the court finds
that the defendant does not have the ability to pay, the court
may reduce or waive this fee. İPenal Code Section
1203.097(a)(5).]
8)Provides that two-thirds of the moneys collected from the
domestic violence probation fee shall be retained by the
counties and deposited in the Domestic Violence Programs
Special Fund, and the remainder is transferred to the State
Controller to be deposited in equal amounts in the Domestic
Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund and the Domestic
Violence Training and Education Fund. İPenal Code Section
1203.097(a)(5).]
9)Specifies that the conditions of probation may include, in
lieu of a fine, but not in lieu of the fund payment, one or
more of the following requirements:
a) That the defendant make payments to a battered women's
shelter, up to a maximum of $5,000.
b) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable
expenses that the court finds are the direct result of the
defendant's offense. İPenal Code Section 1203.097(a)(11).]
10)Authorizes a county probation department to utilize
continuous electronic monitoring to electronically monitor the
whereabouts of persons on probation. İPenal Code Section
1210.7(a).]
11)Defines "continuous electronic monitoring" to include the use
of worldwide radio navigation system technology, known as GPS.
The Legislature finds that because of its capability for
continuous surveillance, continuous electronic monitoring has
been used in other parts of the country to monitor persons on
AB 2467
Page 6
parole who are identified as requiring a high level of
supervision. İPenal Code Sections 1210.7(d) and 3010(d)(1).]
12)Authorizes a chief probation officer to charge persons on
probation for the costs of any form of supervision that
utilizes continuous electronic monitoring devices that monitor
the whereabouts of the person pursuant to this chapter, upon a
finding of the ability to pay those costs. However, the
department shall waive any or all of that payment upon a
finding of an inability to pay. Inability to pay all or a
portion of the costs of continuous electronic monitoring
authorized by this chapter shall not preclude use of
continuous electronic monitoring, and eligibility for
probation shall not be enhanced by reason of ability to pay.
İPenal Code Section 1210. İPenal Code Section 1210.15(a).]
13)States that a chief probation officer may charge a person on
probation for the cost of continuous electronic monitoring as
a condition of probation provided the person has first
satisfied all other outstanding base fines, state and local
penalties, restitution fines, and restitution orders imposed
by a court. İPenal Code Section 1210.15(b).]
14)Authorizes the parole authority to require, as a condition of
release on parole or reinstatement on parole, or as an
intermediate sanction in lieu of return to prison, that an
inmate or parolee agree in writing to the use of electronic
monitoring or supervising devices for the purpose of helping
to verify his or her compliance with all other conditions of
parole. The devices shall not be used to eavesdrop or record
any conversation, except a conversation between the parolee
and the agent supervising the parolee which is to be used
solely for the purposes of voice identification. İPenal Code
Section 3004(a).]
15)Requires any inmate released on parole pursuant to this
section to pay for the costs associated with the monitoring by
GPS. However, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall waive any or all of that payment
upon a finding of an inability to pay. CDCR shall consider
any remaining amounts the inmate has been ordered to pay in
fines, assessments and restitution fines, fees, and orders,
and shall give priority to the payment of those items before
requiring that the inmate pay for the global positioning
monitoring. İPenal Code Section 3004(c).]
AB 2467
Page 7
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "It is
imperative that we give victims of domestic violence and
stalking the tools to protect themselves. Murders and attacks
associated with domestic violence are occurring at high rates
in CA. Protective orders, while helpful, are only words and,
sadly, are violated over 50% of the time. This bill will
offer victims of domestic violence and stalking tangible
protection by actively monitoring their perpetrators while
charges are pending, as a condition of bail, after violating a
restraining order and while on probation.
"At least 19 other states in the country have laws in place
which monitor domestic violence offenders through the use of
GPS monitoring. Eight others have existing proposals. While
this is not a 'solution' to domestic violence, it is another
tool to protect victims and turn them into survivors. In
Massachusetts, there was a 300% percent increase in domestic
violence homicides from 2005-07. In a city near Boston where
GPS monitoring was used, there were no such incidents. GPS
monitoring essentially eliminated domestic violence related
homicides rates."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"Domestic violence and stalking offenses continue to be a
significant public health and criminal justice problem. In
the U.S. each day three women are killed due to domestic
violence. In CA alone, about 700,000 women currently
experience domestic violence; this is three times the national
average. Domestic violence is the leading cause of serious
injury to women and is responsible for three times as many
emergency room visits as car crashes and muggings combined.
"In addition, nationally, 3.4 million people over the age of 18
are stalked each year. Thirty percent of stalking victims are
stalked by a current or former intimate partner. Recently,
there have been several incidences of murder-suicides and
attacks throughout the state. Courts and law enforcement
respond with protective orders. However, over 50% of them are
violated, according to the National Partnership to End
Domestic Violence. CA law also allows defendants convicted of
AB 2467
Page 8
crimes to be monitored electronically. The California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as well as
some counties attached GPS devices on defendants who are
violent sexual predators on parole or violent gang members,
respectively. CDCR, for example, has approximately 7,000 GPS
units. They do not, however, use them in domestic violence
and stalking cases.
" 'Active' GPS devices will be used so that the defendants are
tracked at all times. The offender will wear a device which
will be monitored by law enforcement and the victim will be
given a beeper. The monitoring system will be programmed with
exclusionary zones provided by the victim. If the offender
crosses the boundaries, the device goes will notify law
enforcement and the victim."
3)Background Information on GPS : GPS uses triangulation of
satellites orbiting the earth, similar to cellular phones.
Offenders wear ankle bracelets and carry with them packs
containing mobile receivers. When offenders are sleeping or
sitting, packs can be placed near them. A monitoring station
receives data from all offenders using the system and tracks
them. Tracking may be active or passive. Active GPS transmits
its location at near real-time intervals and can include
immediate alert notifications. Passive GPS transmits its
location at set intervals and alert notifications are usually
received the next day. İSee (accessed on April
10, 2012).] If the offender tampers with the equipment, moves
more than about 150 feet from the receiver, deviates from a
schedule, or ventures into forbidden territory, overseers are
automatically paged. Not only does GPS follow offenders, GPS
can also be programmed with "exclusion zones" where sex
offenders are not allowed - for example, the home of a victim
or the victim's place of employment.
4)GPS Surveillance May Already be Applied as a Term of Probation
or Parole : GPS may be used as a condition of probation or
parole. The parole authority is authorized to use electronic
monitoring for the purpose of helping to verify a parolee's
compliance. GPS surveillance may also already be applied as a
term of probation. In People v. Randolph (2006) 2006 Cal.
App. Unpub. LEXIS 9727 (Randolph), the defendant contended
that his GPS term was unreasonable. The court in Randolph
stated that "İt]he primary goal of probation is to ensure the
AB 2467
Page 9
safety of the public . . . through the enforcement of
court-ordered conditions of probation. Conditions of
probation are routinely imposed when the sentencing court
determines, in an exercise of its discretion, that a defendant
who is statutorily eligible for probation is also suitable to
receive it. In the granting of probation, the Legislature has
declared the primary considerations to be: the nature of the
offense; the interests of justice, including punishment,
reintegration of the offender into the community, and
enforcement of conditions of probation; the loss to the
victim; and the needs of the defendant. (Id. at *4-*5.)
In granting probation, courts have broad discretion to impose
conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public
safety pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.1. The court may
impose and require such reasonable conditions as it may
determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may
be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of
the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that
breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and
rehabilitation of the probationer.
However, the court in Randolph cautioned that the trial
court's discretion, although broad, nevertheless is not
without limits: a condition of probation must serve a purpose
specified in the statute. (Id. at *5.) In addition, Penal
Code section 1203.1 requires that probation conditions which
regulate conduct "not itself criminal" be "reasonably related
to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future
criminality." İPeople v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114,
1120-1121; see also § 1203.1; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th
228, 233; People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 682-683.]
As with any exercise of discretion, the sentencing court
violates the above standard when its determination is
arbitrary or capricious or "exceeds the bounds of reason, all
of the circumstances being considered." İPeople v. Carbajal,
supra, 10 Cal.4th 1114 at p. 1121.] While a probationer
retains rights of privacy and liberty under the federal
Constitution İPeople v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832,
overruled on other grounds in People v. Welch, supra, 5
Cal.4th at p. 237.], probationary conditions may nevertheless
place limits on constitutional rights if reasonably necessary
to meet the goals of probation. İPeople v. Bauer (1989) 211
Cal.App.3d 937, 940-941; see also Gilliam v. Municipal Court
AB 2467
Page 10
(1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 704, 708 ("İa] condition of probation
which requires a defendant to give up a constitutional right
is not per se unconstitutional").]
The California Supreme Court in People v. Lent (1975) 15
Cal.3d 481 established the rule on probationary conditions:
"A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it
'(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender
was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself
criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not
reasonably related to future criminality . . . .' " İId. at
p. 486, fn. omitted, abrogated by Proposition 8 on another
ground as recognized in People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th
284, 290-292.] It is well established that "probation
conditions which regulate conduct 'not itself criminal' must
be 'reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was
convicted or to future criminality.' " İPeople v. Welch,
supra, 5 Cal.4th 228, 233-234, quoting Lent, at p. 486.] All
three factors must be present for a condition of probation to
be invalid. İPeople v. Wardlow (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 360,
365-366.]
In People v. Jungers (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 698 (Jungers), the
defendant pleaded no contest to committing corporal injury
upon a cohabitant or child's parent. İPenal Code Section
273.5(a).] The defendant was granted probation, one of the
conditions of which was that he only have "mutual" contact
with the victim. After violating probation by, among other
things, contacting or attempting to contact the victim, the
court ordered that defendant have no contact with her, stating
that the victim could contact the defendant, but defendant
could not contact the victim. The defendant later married the
victim, Martinez, and sought modification of a probation
condition that had restricted association between them. The
court "clarified its ruling" by stating that the order did not
preclude any contact between the defendant and his wife but
precluded him from initiating the contact. The defendant
complained on appeal that the modified condition violated,
inter alia, his rights to association and marital privacy.
(Jungers, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 700-706.)
The Jungers court stated, "Probation is a privilege and not a
right. Because probation conditions foster rehabilitation and
protect the public safety, they may infringe the
constitutional rights of the defendant, who is 'not entitled
AB 2467
Page 11
to the same degree of constitutional protection as other
citizens. Certain intrusions by government which would be
invalid under traditional constitutional concepts may be
reasonable at least to the extent that such intrusions are
required by legitimate governmental demands. Consequently,
restrictions on a probationer's right of association are
permissible if reasonably required to accomplish the needs of
the state. However, probation conditions that restrict
constitutional rights must be carefully tailored and
'reasonably related to the compelling state interest' in
reforming and rehabilitating the defendant." (Jungers, supra,
127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 703-704.)
The Court of Appeal continued, "Here, Jungers's reasonable
expectations of free association and marital privacy have
necessarily been reduced by his conviction of a crime
specifically, a felony involving domestic violence against
Martinez. Nevertheless, the probation condition restricting
Jungers's ability to contact Martinez is valid only if it is
reasonably necessary to accomplish the needs of the state and
is narrowly tailored to accomplish this goal. We conclude it
is." (Jungers, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 704.)
Consistent with the Legislature's response to the problem of
domestic violence, Penal Code Section 273.5 punishes a
defendant who inflicts corporal injury on a spouse. The
statute reflects legislative recognition of the high incidence
of violence in intimate relationships and the state's interest
in encouraging non-violent, intimate relationships. Further,
when a defendant convicted of domestic violence is granted
probation, the terms of probation must include 'İa] criminal
court protective order protecting the victim from further acts
of violence, threats, stalking,
. . . and harassment, and, if appropriate, containing
residence exclusion or stay-away conditions." (Jungers,
supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 704.)
The Jungers court continued, "Here, the court was required to
issue a protective order for Martinez when it placed Jungers
on probation, despite Martinez's claim she did not fear for
her safety. Although the court's order curtailed Jungers's
rights of association and marital privacy, it legitimately and
reasonably operated to accomplish the needs of the state in
addressing domestic violence by rehabilitating Jungers and
protecting Martinez. The state's compelling interest in
AB 2467
Page 12
protecting victims of domestic violence justifies the
restriction on Jungers's right to initiate contact with
Martinez." (Jungers, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 705, fn.
omitted.)
Likewise, the court in Randolph held, the GPS term supports
the state's compelling interest in preventing future incidents
of domestic abuse. (Randolph, supra, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub.
LEXIS 9727 at p. *13.) The court did not prohibit any and all
contact or association between defendant and the victim.
Instead, the court imposed, as a probation condition, a term
that would protect the safety of the defendant's wife.
(Ibid.) The court noted that despite the fact that there is
no record of a restraining order against defendant by the
victim or a stay-away order prohibiting defendant from contact
with the victim, the crime of domestic violence justifies
increased surveillance and protection as noted by the
Legislature.
In furtherance, the Randolph court acknowledge that a GPS term
is no different than the probation conditions requiring a
defendant to submit to a polygraph examination, requiring a
defendant to wear a monitoring ankle bracelet, or requiring
defendant to submit to a warrantless search. İSee, e.g.,
People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 505-506 (warrantless
search); Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313,
319-321 (polygraph examination); People v. Zichwic (2001) 94
Cal.App.4th 944, 952 (tracking device); People v. Miller
(1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1311, 1314 (polygraph examination).]
This bill authorizes the court to place GPS monitoring on a
defendant who is on probation for a domestic violence or
stalking case. This provision is unnecessary. As it stands,
trial courts and probation departments may impose such a
device as they deem necessary on a case-by-case basis. This
bill also authorizes a court to place GPS on a defendant while
criminal charges are pending and when a defendant has violated
a protective order in a domestic violence or stalking case.
This is also unnecessary. A judge can already order a
defendant to be placed on GPS monitoring as a condition of
release as long as it is reasonable. İPenal Code Section
1318(a)(2).] Also, if a defendant violates a restraining
order, he or she may be criminally prosecuted for violating
that order and placed on GPS monitoring as a condition of
probation. İPenal Code Section 273.6.]
AB 2467
Page 13
5)Prioritization of Court-Ordered Debt : Penal Code Section
1203.1d prioritizes the order in which delinquent
court-ordered debt received is to be satisfied. Payments are
applied first to victim restitution, and then to the 20% state
surcharge to be deposited into the General Fund. (Penal Code
Section 1465.7.) Next, payments are applied to restitution
fines pursuant to Penal Code Section 1202.4 and any other
fines, penalty assessments, with payments made on a
proportional basis to the total amount levied for all of these
items. Once these debts are satisfied, payments are applied
toward any reimbursable costs as required by law, such as the
costs of probation, probation investigation, and attorney
fees. İPenal Code Section 1203.1d(b).] Because of the
prioritization of debt required by statute, it is unlikely
that the domestic violence fund fee will be collected when a
defendant is indigent, regardless of whether the court can
consider his or her ability to pay at the time of its
imposition.
This bill allows, in lieu of a fine for a domestic violence
offense, a defendant may be ordered to pay money into a
county's domestic violence and stalking surveillance fund.
Moneys from this fund must be used for the cost of monitoring
the defendant on GPS. As is evident from the criminal fine
structure described above, victim restitution is given
priority and then the general fund. The rest of the payment
is then disbursed among various state funds including funding
for law enforcement. Also, under existing law, a defendant
may be required to pay, in lieu of a fine, up to $5000 to a
battered women's shelter, or reimburse the victim of
reasonable costs incurred as a direct result of defendant's
actions. İPenal Code Section 1203.097(a)(11).] While the
current structure for penalties and assessments and
alternatives in lieu of a fine prioritize restitution to the
victim, this bill would divert funding from support services
that directly benefit victims to enforcement of defendants on
GPS monitoring.
6)Related Legislation :
a) AB 2016 (Morrell) makes it a felony or misdemeanor,
depending on the circumstances to disable a GPS device that
is affixed as part of a criminal sentence. AB 2016 will be
heard by this Committee today.
AB 2467
Page 14
b) AB 2094 (Butler) eliminates the court's discretion to
reduce or waive the $400 minimum domestic violence fund fee
based on the defendant's ability to pay. AB 2094 will be
heard by this Committee today.
c) AB 2483 (Blumenfield) deletes the requirement that a
person who is a victim of stalking and is applying for
address confidentiality to provide some evidence or proof
to support the claim. AB 2483 is pending hearing by the
Committee on Judiciary.
7)Previous Legislation :
a) AB 1081 (Torrico), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have allowed electronic monitoring through GPS
surveillance for those convicted of violating specified
protective orders, stalking, or felony domestic violence.
AB 1081 was held on the Committee on Appropriations'
Suspense File.
b) AB 1913 (Garcia), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have allowed a local law enforcement charged with
monitoring a person who must register as a sex offender
pursuant to existing law and who is transient, as
specified, to track that offender using a GPS device for as
long as the person is transient. AB 1913 failed passage in
this Committee.
c) AB 335 (Walters), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have created a three-year pilot program in San Diego
requiring the placement of an electronic monitoring system
device or GPS device on a defendant as a condition of
release on bail or when released on his or her own
recognizance, if the defendant has been charged with
specified sexual offenses. AB 335 failed passage in this
Committee.
d) SB 619 (Speier), Chapter 484, Statutes of 2005,
authorizes county probation departments and CDCR to use
continuous electronic monitoring which may include GPS
technology to supervise persons on probation and parole, as
specified.
e) SB 963 (Ashburn), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2005, adds
AB 2467
Page 15
GPS devices as a type of electronic monitoring that may be
used in a home detention program.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
One private individual
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744