BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
5
5
SB 55 (Runner)
As Introduced December 21, 2010
Hearing date: May 3, 2011
Penal Code
JM:mc
RELEASED PRISON INMATES
NOT SUBJECT TO PAROLE REVOCATION:
REGISTRATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 18x3 (Ducheny) - Ch. 28, Stats. 2010
Support: Unknown
Opposition:Legal Services for Prisoners with Children;
California Public Defenders Association
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD ANY PAROLEE WHO CANNOT BE RETURNED TO PRISON FOR A PAROLE
VIOLATION BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE SHERIFF IN THE PERSON'S
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ESTABLISHING RESIDENCE OR
CHANGING RESIDENCE?
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that any parolee who
cannot be returned to prison for a parole violation shall
register with the sheriff of the county of the person's
residence within 10 days of establishing or changing his or her
residence.
Existing law generally provides that inmates serving a
determinate term of imprisonment shall be released on parole for
a period of three years. Specified sex offenders, those
released after serving a determinate term of imprisonment, shall
be released on parole for a period of 10 years. Sex offenders
who were convicted of specified crimes against children shall be
released on parole for a period of 20 years. (Pen. Code § 3000,
subd. (b)(1) and (3).)
Existing law generally provides that, subject to specified
exceptions, an inmate who is released on parole shall be
returned to the county that was the last legal residence of the
inmate prior to his or her incarceration. (Penal Code § 3003,
subd. (a).)
Existing law enumerates specified information, if available,
that must be released by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to local law enforcement agencies
regarding a paroled inmate who is released in their
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageC
jurisdictions.<1> (Penal Code § 3003, subd. (e).)
Existing law provides that prisoners on parole shall remain
under the legal custody of CDCR and shall be subject at any
time to being taken back within the enclosure of the prison.
(Penal Code § 3056.)
Current law provides that, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, CDCR shall not return to prison, place a parole hold, or
report any parole violation to the Board of Parole Hearings
regarding any person to whom all of the following criteria
apply:
--------------------------
<1> The enumerated information is: (A) Last, first, and middle
name. (B) Birth date. (C) Sex, race, height, weight, and hair
and eye color. (D) Date of parole and discharge. (E)
Registration status, if the inmate is required to register as a
result of a controlled substance, sex, or arson offense. (F)
California Criminal Information Number, FBI number, Social
Security number, and driver's license number. (G) County of
commitment. (H) A description of scars, marks, and tattoos on
the inmate. (I) Offense or offenses for which the inmate was
convicted that resulted in parole in this instance. (J) Address,
including all of the following information: (i) Street name and
number. Post office box numbers are not acceptable for purposes
of this subparagraph. (ii) City and ZIP Code (iii) Date that the
address provided pursuant to this subparagraph was proposed to
be effective. (K) Contact officer and unit, including all of the
following information: (i) Name and telephone number of each
contact officer. (ii) Contact unit type of each contact officer
such as units responsible for parole, registration, or county
probation. (L) A digitized image of the photograph and at least
a single digit fingerprint of the parolee. (M) A geographic
coordinate for the parolee's residence location for use with a
Geographical Information System (GIS) or comparable computer
program. (Penal Code § 3003(e)(1).)
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageD
The person is not required to register as a sex
offender;
The person was not committed to prison for a serious
felony or a violent felony, and does not have a prior
conviction for a serious felony or a violent felony, as
specified;
The person was not committed to prison for a sexually
violent offense, and does not have a prior conviction for a
sexually violent offense, as specified;
The person was not found guilty of a serious
disciplinary offense during his or her current term of
imprisonment, as specified;
The person is not a validated prison gang member or
associate, as specified;
The person did not refuse to sign any written
notification of parole requirements or conditions, as
specified; and
The person was evaluated by the department using a
validated risk assessment tool and was not determined to
pose a high risk to reoffend. (Penal Code § 3000.03.)
This bill provides that inmates released on parole who, pursuant
to Penal Code Section 3003.03, are not subject to being returned
to prison or referred to the Board of Parole Hearings, need not
be returned to the county of last legal residence.
This bill provides that inmates released on parole who, pursuant
to Penal Code Section 3003.03, are not subject to being returned
to prison or referred to the Board of Parole Hearings shall
comply with the following if residing in California:
Register a residential address with the sheriff of the
county in which the person resides.
Registration shall be initially done within 10 days of
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageE
entering the county.
Registration shall be updated within 10 days of a change
of address within the county.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageF
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 55 would require this newly created class of
non-revocable parolees-who are permitted to reside in
any county they choose-to provide his or her
residential address to the sheriff of that county
within 10 days of establishing or changing residence.
The bill would make failure to register a misdemeanor.
Last year CDCR began releasing thousands of inmates to
non-revocable parole each month. Unlike a traditional
parolee, a non-revocable parolee is not subject to
parole conditions and may not have his or her parole
revoked even if he or she is suspected of murder.
Not surprisingly, law enforcement voiced concerns
about the inability of local law enforcement to
monitor this new unsupervised parole population. In
response, CDCR supported a statutory requirement that
the non-revocable parolees would be subject to
warrantless search during the parole period.
Since implementation of the program, unforeseen
complications have arisen due to the fact that these
parolees are not subject to residency restrictions.
CDCR presumes that parolees will return to the county
in which they resided prior to incarceration and
notifies local law enforcement agencies in that county
when the parolee is released. The problem, of course,
is that CDCR does not actually know where
non-revocable parolees are residing. The ability of
law enforcement personnel to conduct a warrantless
search of a parolee's residence is an illusory
safeguard if no one knows where the parolee resides.
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageG
Under the non-revocable parole policy, local law
enforcement agencies have become the de facto parole
authority without being provided additional resources
or even basic information. SB 55 would simply
require a non-revocable parolee to register his or her
address within 10 days of establishing or changing
residence.
2. Background: Non-Revocable Parole
(More)
This bill appears to be intended to allow law enforcement to
monitor parolees who are under minimal supervision in the
community and who cannot be returned to prison for a parole
violation. For such parolees, a return to prison would involve
a new conviction and formal judicial sentence.
The parolees subject to this bill are those who present a low
risk of re-offense. Such parolees are still subject to
warrantless search and seizure. If a law enforcement officer
contacts such a parolee, the officer can search the person,
limited only by the requirement that the search not be
arbitrary. (People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 752.)
Further, the officer must know that a person is on parole when
the search is conducted. A warrantless search cannot be
justified as a parole search after-the-fact. (People v. Sanders
(2003) 31 Cal4th 318 335.)
The question is thus raised whether or not this new registration
process would be of real value to local law enforcement.
Parolees who are involved in no other criminal activity, but who
fail to register upon establishing or changing residence, would
be subject to a misdemeanor prosecution.
AS THE PAROLEES SUBJECT TO THIS BILL HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
AT LOW RISK FOR RE-OFFENSE, WOULD THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT
IN THE BILL BE OF SUBSTANTIAL VALUE TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN
REDUCING OR INVESTIGATING CRIME?
COULD REGISTRATION WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OF PAROLEES NOT
SUBJECT TO PAROLE REVOCATION AND RETURN TO PRISON DETER SUCH
PAROLEES FROM ENGAGING IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
3. Argument in Opposition
Legal Services for Prisoner with Children argues in opposition:
California has looked to incarceration as a solution
to a myriad of social and economic problems. It seems
that our only approach to bad behavior is to draft a
(More)
SB 55 (Runner)
PageI
new crime, expand an existing crime or increase
penalties. Harsher penalties will neither deter crime
nor rehabilitate the convicted.
In 2009 the establishment of non-revocable parole was
a step in the right direction. Under this program,
certain pre-selected parolees are released into the
community without administrative terms and conditions
imposed on people on formal parole. Such terms and
conditions are a significant cause of the revolving
door back to prison for parolees. Parolees are sent
back to prison for missing appointments, associating
with prohibited persons and other matters that are not
crimes. A person on non-revocable parole cannot be
sent back to prison for violation of administrative
conditions or even a misdemeanor.
SB 55 waters down the benefits of non-revocable parole
by imposing statutory parole conditions, violations of
which are misdemeanors. This bill would require
parolees to report their addresses to the sheriff in
the county of residence. Many parolees do not have
stable housing upon release and are forced to move
frequently. Many parolees are focused on surviving
day-to-day. Adding additional administrative hoops
for them to jump through that can set them up for
failure. The Legislature should support other
solutions, such as record clearance to improve
employment opportunities for parolees.
Finally, SB 55 will aggravate jail crowding at a time
when the re-alignment strategy seeks to shift
incarceration responsibility from prisons to jail.
WOULD THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT IN THIS BILL BE BURDENSOME
FOR PAROLEES WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY FINDING STABLE HOUSING?
WILL THIS BILL CREATE BARRIERS FOR PAROLEES IN SUCCESSFULLY
REINTEGRATING INTO SOCIETY?
SB 55 (Runner)
PageJ
***************