BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 26 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 26 (Padilla) As Amended August 31, 2011 2/3 vote. Urgency SENATE VOTE :39-0 PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Ammiano, Knight, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |Hagman, Hill, Mitchell, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |Skinner | |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | | | |Solorio, Wagner | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Provides that a person who possesses with the intent to deliver, or delivers, to an inmate or ward in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) any cellular telephone or other wireless communication device or any component thereof, including, but not limited to, subscriber identity module (SIM) cards and memory storage devices, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not to exceed $5,000 for each device, or both. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides that a person who is visiting an inmate or ward under the jurisdiction of CDCR who is found to be in possession of a cellular telephone, wireless communication device, or any component thereof, as specified, upon being searched or subjected to a metal detector, shall be subject to having that device confiscated and returned the same day the person visits the inmate or ward, except as specified. 2)States that if, upon investigation, it is determined that no prosecution will take place, the cellular telephone or other wireless communication device or any component thereof shall be returned to the owner at the owner's expense. 3)Requires notice of the above confiscation provisions to be posted in all areas where visitors are searched prior to SB 26 Page 2 visitation with an inmate or ward in the custody of the department. 4)Provides that any inmate who is found to be in possession of a wireless communication device shall be subject to time credit denial or loss of up to 90 days. 5)States that a person who brings, without authorization, a wireless communication device within the secure perimeter of any prison or institution housing offenders under the jurisdiction of CDCR is deemed to have given his or her consent to CDCR using available technology to prevent that wireless device from sending or receiving telephone calls or other forms of electronic communication. Notice of this provision shall be posted at all public entry gates of the prison. 6)Requires CDCR to obtain a search warrant before accessing any data or communications that have been captured using available technology from unauthorized use of a wireless communication device. 7)Prohibits CDCR from capturing data or communications or accessing data or communications that have been captured using available technology from an authorized wireless communication device, except as already authorized under existing law. 8)States that if the available technology to prevent wireless communications from sending and receiving telephone calls or other forms of electronic communication extends beyond the secure perimeter of the prison or institution, the CDCR shall take all reasonable actions to correct the problem. 9)Provides that any contractor or employee of a contractor or CDCR who knowingly and willfully, without authorization, obtains, discloses, or uses confidential information in violation of the above provisions shall be subject to an administrative fine or civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, or $10,000 for a second violation, or $25,000 for a third or subsequent violation. 10)Provides that the state shall require, until January 1, 2018, as part of the contract for the Inmate Ward Telephone System that the total cost for intrastate and interstate calls be SB 26 Page 3 equal to or less than the total costs of a call established in the contract in effect on September 1, 2011. Other than the conversation minute charges and prepaid account setup fees, there shall be no additional charges of any type, including administrative fees, call-setup fees, detail billing fees, hard copy billing fees, or any other fees. 11)Adds an urgency clause. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)Major one-time costs of about $1 million per prison ($33 million) for implementation of the managed access system. These costs, however, will be covered by new revenues as the cost of the system is being built into the new inmate telephone system contract, which pays the contractor based on inmate call volume. Ongoing maintenance costs will also be covered by the new contract. (The contract process is underway; CDCR expects to select and sign a new contractor in February 2012.) CDCR's rationale is that significantly reducing, if not eliminating, inmate access to illegal cell phones and wireless devices will dramatically increase use of the inmate telephone system, thereby allowing the contractor's profits to increase sufficiently to provide managed access at no new cost to the state and with no increase to inmate phone charges, which range from about 50 cents to $6.50 for a 15 minute phone call. Because the length of the contract will be at least six years, the contractor should have time to recoup its managed access costs. For the past two years the inmate call system has created revenues of about $30 million for the current contractor. 2)Significant annual General Fund (GF) costs, potentially in the range of $2 million, for longer prison terms as a result of credit forfeiture. This bill specifies any inmate who possesses a cell phone may lose up to 90 days of credit. Current law specifies up to 30 days of sentence credit may be forfeited for a single SB 26 Page 4 disciplinary offense as defined by CDCR. According to the Office of the Inspector General, in 2006, correctional officers seized 261 cell phones. In 2008, the number increased to 2,811. In 2011, CDCR is on pace to seize about 15,000 cell phones. Many of these phones were taken from staff and visitors; others were discovered on the grounds. If managed access reduces the current annual seizure pace by 50%, if 25% of the phones seized are from inmates, and if 25% of those seizures result in an additional two months in prison, the annualized GF cost would be about $2 million, based on overcrowding costs. 3)Unknown nonreimbursable local law enforcement and incarceration costs to the extent correctional staff and/or others are convicted of trafficking cell phones in state prisons. For example, if 33 persons served six months in county jail, local incarceration costs would be in the range of $600,000, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue. 4)In addition, to the extent that a person convicted of misdemeanor cell phone trafficking was on parole or probation, and is revoked to state prison as a result, state GF prison costs would increase. For example, if six persons were revoked to state prison as a result of this bill, annual costs would be in the range of $100,000. COMMENTS : According to the author, "Smuggled cell phones in our State prison system are a growing and dangerous problem. Inmates with access to cell phones have been ordering murders, organizing escapes, facilitating drug deals, controlling street gangs, and terrorizing rape victims. In 2006 the number of phones confiscated was 261. Last year it reached 11,000. This year we are on pace to exceed 13,000. 43 states and the federal government have taken action to tackle this problem in their prisons. Yet California which has the biggest problem has failed to act year after year." Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002295 SB 26 Page 5