BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 63
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 63 (Patterson) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
SUMMARY : Creates an alternative felony/misdemeanor offense for
removal of a GPS monitoring device affixed as a condition of
post-release community supervision or parole. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Provides that unauthorized removal of an electronic, global
positioning system (GPS), or other monitoring device affixed
as a condition of post-release community supervision, parole,
or mandatory supervision is an offense punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or
in the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years.
2)Provides that a person on post-release community supervision,
parole, or mandatory supervision who is ordered pursuant to a
revocation hearing to serve a term of imprisonment,
incarceration, or confinement for violating the conditions of
release, when the violation was based on the removal or
disabling of an electronic, GPS, or other monitoring device
affixed as a condition of release, and the person has not been
prosecuted for that conduct, shall serve that term in the
state prison.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for a period of post-prison supervision immediately
following a period of incarceration in state prison. (Penal
Code Section 3000.)
2)Provides that persons released from state prison on or after
October 1, 2011, for any of the following crimes are subject
to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR): [Penal Code Section 3000.08 and Penal
Code Section 3451(b).]
a) A serious felony as described in subdivision (c) of
AB 63
Page 2
Section 1192.7.
b) A violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5.
c) A crime for which the person has been sentenced to a
life term under the 3-strikes law.
d) Any crime where the person eligible for release from
prison is classified as a High Risk Sex Offender.
e) Any crime where the person is required, as a condition
of parole, to undergo treatment by the Department of Mental
Health as a mentally ill offender.
f) Any felony committed while the person was on parole for
a period exceeding three years where the person was
required to register as a sex offender or was subject to
parole for life, as specified.
3)Provides that every inmate who has been convicted for any
felony violation of a 'registerable sex offense' or any
attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses and who
is committed to prison and released on parole shall be
monitored by a global positioning system for the term of his
or her parole, or for the duration or any remaining part
thereof, whichever period of time is less. [Penal Code
Section 3000.07(a).]
4)Specifies that inmates released on parole pursuant to this
section shall be required to pay for the costs associated with
the monitoring by a global positioning system, subject to
waiver by CDCR upon a finding of an inability to pay, as
specified. [Penal Code Section 3000.07(c).]
5)Provides, as enacted by Proposition 83 of 2006, that every
inmate who has been convicted for any felony violation of a
registerable sex offense or any attempt to commit (one of the
enumerated sex offenses) and who is committed to prison and
released on parole shall be monitored by a global positioning
system for life. [Penal Code Section 3004(b).]
6)Authorizes CDCR to utilize continuous electronic monitoring to
electronically monitor the whereabouts of persons on parole as
specified. (Penal Code Section 3010.)
AB 63
Page 3
7)Provides that whenever a parole officer supervising an
individual has reasonable cause to believe that the individual
is not complying with the rules or conditions set forth for
the use of continuous electronic monitoring as a supervision
tool, the officer supervising the individual may, without a
warrant of arrest, take the individual into custody for a
violation of parole. (Penal Code Section 3010.7.)
8)Authorizes parole to impose additional and appropriate
conditions of supervision, upon a finding of good cause that
the parolee has committed a violation of law or violated his
or her conditions of parole; those may include rehabilitation
and treatment services and appropriate incentives for
compliance, and impose immediate, structured, and intermediate
sanctions for parole violations, including flash incarceration
in a county jail. Flash incarceration is a period of
detention in county jail due to a violation of a parolee's
conditions of parole. The length of the detention period can
range between one and 10 consecutive days. Shorter, but if
necessary more frequent, periods of detention for violations
of a parolee's conditions of parole shall appropriately punish
a parolee while preventing the disruption in a work or home
establishment that typically arises from longer periods of
detention. [Penal Code Section 3000.08(d).]
9)Authorizes the following sanctions for parole violations, as
specified: [Penal Code Section 3000.08(f).]
a) Return the person to parole supervision with
modifications of conditions, if appropriate, including a
period of incarceration in county jail.
b) Revoke parole and order the person to confinement in the
county jail.
c) Refer the person to a reentry court pursuant to Section
3015 or other evidence-based program in the court's
discretion.
d) Confinement shall not exceed a period of 180 days in the
county jail.
10)Enacted as part of the 2011 realignment legislation
addressing public safety, includes the "Post-release Community
AB 63
Page 4
Supervision Act of 2011," ("PRCS") as specified. (Penal Code
Section 3450.)
11)Provides, through PRCS, that certain felons released from
prison on and after October 1, 2011 shall, upon release from
prison and for a period not exceeding three years immediately
following release, be subject to community supervision
provided by a county agency designated by each county's board
of supervisors which is consistent with evidence-based
practices, including, but not limited to, supervision
policies, procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by
scientific research to reduce recidivism among individuals
under post-release supervision. Felons released from prison
after having served a prison term for any of the crimes
described above are ineligible for PRCS, and therefore subject
to supervision by state parole. [Penal Code Section 3451
(a).]
12)Authorizes county agencies responsible for supervising
persons subject to PRCS to determine additional appropriate
conditions of supervision consistent with public safety,
including the use of continuous electronic monitoring , order
the provision of appropriate rehabilitation and treatment
services, determine appropriate incentives, and determine and
order appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can
include, but shall not be limited to, immediate, structured,
and intermediate sanctions up to and including referral to a
reentry court, or flash incarceration in a county jail.
Periods of flash incarceration are encouraged as one method of
punishment for violations of an offender's condition of
post-release supervision. 'Flash incarceration' is a period
of detention in county jail due to a violation of an
offender's conditions of post-release supervision. The length
of the detention period can range between one and 10
consecutive days. Flash incarceration is a tool that may be
used by each county agency responsible for post-release
supervision. Shorter, but if necessary more frequent, periods
of detention for violations of an offender's post-release
supervision conditions shall appropriately punish an offender
while preventing the disruption in a work or home
establishment that typically arises from longer term
revocations. [Penal Code Section 3454(b) and (c).]
13)Authorizes the following sanctions for PRCS violations, as
specified: [Penal Code Section 3455(a).]
AB 63
Page 5
a) Return the person to post-release community supervision
with modifications of conditions, if appropriate, including
a period of incarceration in county jail.
b) Revoke and terminate post-release community supervision
and order the person to confinement in the county jail.
c) Refer the person to a reentry court pursuant to Section
3015 or other evidence-based program in the court's
discretion.
14)Provides that confinement sanctions shall not exceed a period
of 180 days in the county jail for each custodial sanction.
[Penal Code Section 3455(d).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Data from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
definitively shows a significant increase in parolees cutting
off or disabling their GPS monitors since the implementation
of AB 109/Realignment. AB 63 would amend the Penal Code to
pre-2011 provisions to allow for parole revocation or
termination of postrelease community supervision in cases when
an individual removes, disables or willfully permits another
to remove or disable any GPS or electronic monitoring device.
This bill provides that sex offenders and other criminals who
willfully remove their GPS tracking devices may be sentenced
to time in state prison. This will ease the burden on our
county jails and ensure that the most dangerous criminals are
held accountable for violating the terms of their parole or
postrelease supervision."
2)Prison Overcrowding : This bill seeks to punish offenders who
remove GPS devices as specified, with punishment in state
prison for 16 months, two or three years in state prison, or
by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year. When
the offense is currently punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail, any increase to a prison term causes concern for
additional prison overcrowding. As California's prison crisis
worsens, close attention should be paid to legislation
increasing prison overcrowding. The California Policy
AB 63
Page 6
Research Center (CPRC) recently issued a report on the status
of California's prisons. The report stated, "California has
the largest prison population of any state in the nation, with
more than 171,000 inmates in 33 adult prisons, and the state's
annual correctional spending, including jails and probation,
amounts to $8.92 billion. Despite the high cost of
corrections, fewer California prisoners participate in
relevant treatment programs than comparable states, and its
inmate-to-officer ratio is considerably higher. While the
nation's prisons average one correctional officer to every 4.5
inmates, the average California officer is responsible for 6.5
inmates. Although officer salaries are higher than average,
their ranks are spread dangerously thin and there is a severe
vacancy rate." [Petersilia, Understanding California
Corrections, California Policy Research Center (May 2006).]
California's prison population will likely exceed 180,000 by
2010.
According to the Little Hoover Commission, "Lawsuits filed in
three federal courts alleging that the current level of
overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ask that
the courts appoint a panel of federal judges to manage
California's prison population. United States District Judge
Lawrence Karlton, the first judge to hear the motion, gave the
State until June 2007 to show progress in solving the
overpopulation crisis. Judge Karlton clearly would prefer not
to manage California's prison population. At a December 2006
hearing, Judge Karlton told lawyers representing the
Schwarzenegger administration that he is not inclined 'to
spend forever running the state prison system.' However, he
also warned the attorneys, 'You tell your client June 4 may be
the end of the line. It may really be the end of the line.'
"Inmates, who are willing to improve their education, learn a
job skill or kick a drug habit find that programs are few and
far between, a result of budget choices and overcrowding.
Consequently, offenders are released into California
communities with the criminal tendencies and addictions that
first led to their incarceration. They are ill-prepared to do
more than commit new crimes and create new victims." [Little
Hoover Commission Report, Solving California's Corrections
Crisis: Time is Running Out (2007), pg. 1, 2.]
On February 9, 2009, a United States District Court three-judge
panel issued a tentative ruling mandating the State of
AB 63
Page 7
California to resolve chronic prison overcrowding. In the
tentative ruling, the judges state "[t]he evidence is
compelling that there is no relief other than a prisoner
release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison
conditions." With prisons housing twice the population they
were built to accommodate, the prospect of early release of
inmates appears imminent unless the Legislature relieves the
current prison population.
The United State Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
three-judge panel, declaring that "without a reduction in
overcrowding, there will be no efficacious remedy for the
unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill" inmates in
California's prisons. [Brown v. Plata (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1910,
1939; 179 L.Ed.2d 969, 999.]
According to a recent report by the Legislative Analyst's
Office, "Based on CDCR's current population projections, it
appears that it will eventually reach the court-imposed
population limit, though not by the June 2013 deadline." [See
Refocusing CDCR After the 2011 Realignment, Feb. 23, 2012,
pp.3
.
] "In particular, the projections show the state missing the
final population limit of no more than 110,000 inmates housed
in state prisons by June 2013. Specifically, the projections
show the state exceeding this limit by about 6,000 inmates.
However, the projections indicate that the state will meet the
court-imposed limit by the end of 2014." (Id. at p. 9.)
"While the state has undergone various changes to reduce
overcrowding prior to the passage of the realignment
legislation-including transferring inmates to out-of-state
contract facilities, construction of new facilities, and
various statutory changes to reduce the prison population-the
realignment of adult offenders is the most significant change
undertaken to reduce overcrowding." (Id. at p. 8.) Because
the provisions of this bill require a defendant convicted for
peeping to serve his or her sentence in state prison, it
appears to aggravate the on-going problem of prison
overcrowding.
The Three Judge Panel, in issuing its most recent denial of
the State's request to modify and/or terminate the existing
population cap re-stated, "crowding creates numerous barriers
AB 63
Page 8
to the provisions of medical and mental health care that
result in the constitutional violations." (Coleman/Plata v.
Brown, April 11, 2013, Op. & Order Denying Defendants Motion
to Vacate or Modify Population Reduction Order, (No.
C01-1351:2590:4).]'
3)Concerns of the California Sex Offender Management Board that
this Legislation will Negatively Impact the Supervision of Sex
Offenders : According to California's Sex Offender Management
Board, "The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB),
a board created by the Legislature to consider best practices
for sex offender management in California, believes that your
bill, A.B. 63, may have unintended consequences that need to
be considered.
"A sex offender on parole for a registerable sex offense is
required to wear a GPS monitor. Your bill would create a new
criminal offense for removing, disabling, etc., such a
monitor. However, once any custody time is served on the new
offense and the offender is released, the person will no
longer be on parole (or probation) for the original sex
offense, but rather will be under "Post-Release Community
Supervision" status, as required by Realignment. The
consequence is that the mandatory provisions of the
Containment Model, as designed by the Legislature under
"Chelsea's Law," requiring sex offense-specific treatment
programs, dynamic and violence risk assessments, and polygraph
testing , will no longer apply to the released offender. (See
Penal Code sections 1203.067, 3008.) Further, since the
offender is on supervised release for the new offense of
removing a GPS, and not for a sex offense, the mandatory
requirement of GPS monitoring of such an offender will no
longer apply. (Penal Code section 3004.)
"The same consequence would follow if a paroled sex offender
committed any new non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offense
and was subsequently placed on parole or probation for the new
offense. In other words, commission of a new offense means the
new term of supervision is not connected to the sex offense,
and the Containment Model provisions no longer are mandatory
for the offender during supervision for the new offense.
"The evidence shows that public safety is best served by
requiring all sex offenders on supervision to participate in
the Containment Model. Permitting offenders to opt out of the
AB 63
Page 9
requirements of the Containment Model by committing a new
non-sex offense, including removal of a GPS unit, is not in
the best interest of the community. We urge you to consider
amendment of the bill to address these concerns."
4)Changes to Parole As a Result of Criminal Justice Realignment :
Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were
placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole
agents of CDCR. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated
a condition of parole, he or she would have a revocation
proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If
parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state
prison for violating parole.
Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation
departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for
inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is
limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or
violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are
classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to
undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who,
while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. [Penal Code
Sections 3000.08(a) and (c), and 3451(b).] All other inmates
released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS
under local supervision. [Penal Code Sections 3000.08(b) and
3451(a).]
Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for
violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be
returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision;
offenders serve the revocation term in county jail. [Penal
Code Sections 3056(a) and 3458.] There is a 180-day limit to
incarceration. [Penal Code Sections 3056(a) and 3455(c).]
The only offenders who are eligible for return to prison for
violating parole are life-term inmates paroled pursuant to
Penal Code Section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers, specific life term
sex offenses).
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings, but this change is being implemented in phases.
Until July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state
agents continue to have revocation hearings before the Board
of Parole Hearings (BPH). After July 1, 2013, the trial
courts will assume responsibility for holding all revocation
AB 63
Page 10
hearings for those individuals who remain under the
jurisdiction of CDCR. In contrast, since the inception of
realignment, individuals placed on PRCS stopped appearing
before the BPH for revocation hearings. Their revocation
hearings are handled by the trial court. PRCS currently
provides for lesser or "intermediate" sanctions before PRCS is
revoked for a violation. This includes "flash incarceration"
for up to 10 days. (Penal Code Section 3454.) Intermediate
sanctions, including flash incarceration, will also be
available for state parolees after July 1, 2013. [Penal Code
Section 3000.08(d), effective July 1, 2013.]
5)How this Bill Would Impact Criminal Justice Realignment :
Realignment made changes in how felons coming out of prison
are supervised in the community. Realignment generally
provides that post-prison supervision for felons is the
responsibility of parole or probation; whether a felon
newly-released from prison is supervised by state parole or
county probation (under postrelease community supervision
["PRCS"]) generally depends upon the crime that sent them to
prison or other factors.
Custody sanctions for PRCS violations are served in county
jail. No person who is on PRCS may be returned to prison for
a violation of any condition of the person's post-release
supervision agreement. Similarly, no person who is on parole
for less than life may be returned to prison for a violation
of any condition of the person's parole.
With respect to parole violators, who are the subject of this
bill, the Governor's Budget Summary for 2011-2012 describes
the administration's reasoning for realignment's provisions
limiting the return of parole violators to state prison: "The
large number of short-term, lower-level offenders and parole
violators in prison has resulted in overloaded reception
centers, inefficient prison operations, and difficulties with
rehabilitation efforts?"
The February 2013 analysis of the Governor's budget proposals
provided by the Legislative Analyst's Office includes the
following background regarding projections concerning
California's prison population: "The average daily prison
population is projected to be about 129,000 inmates in
2013-14, a decline of roughly 3,600 inmates (3 percent) from
the estimated current-year level. This decline is largely due
AB 63
Page 11
to the 2011realignment of lower-level felons from state to
local responsibility. Although decreasing, the projected
inmate population for 2013-14 is still about 3,200 inmates
higher than was projected by CDCR in spring 2012. According to
the department, this is due in part to higher-than-expected
admissions to state prison."
As noted above, on April 11th of this year, the federal court
reasserted its order that California reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of capacity by the end of this
year.
6)Funding for Realignment has Already been Shifted to Local
Governments : As part of realignment the state shifted certain
revenues to local governments. As explained by the LAO:
"(T)he 2011-12 budget package included statutory changes to
realign several criminal justice and other programs from state
responsibility to local governments, primarily counties.
Along with the shift, or realignment, of programs, state law
realigned revenues to locals. Specifically, current law
shifts a share of the state sales tax, as well as Vehicle
License Fee revenue, to local governments. The passage of
Proposition 30 by voters in November 2012, among other
changes, guaranteed these revenues to local governments in the
future. The Governor's budget includes an estimate of
revenues projected to go to local governments over the next
few years. These estimates are generally in line with prior
estimates. (T)otal funding for the criminal justice programs
realigned is expected to increase from $1.4 billion in 2011-12
to $2.2 billion in 2013-14."
Additionally, this bill provides for an alternate
felony/misdemeanor wherein conviction for the felony must be
served in state prison, whereas conviction of the misdemeanor
must be served in county jail. This bill provides an economic
incentive for violators to be charged with felonies in lieu of
misdemeanors for county prosecutors.
Proponents of this legislation also point to a variety of
examples where people who violated parole, or PRCS and
sentenced to local custody time were released prior to their
full commitment and re-offended. However, local jurisdictions
have the authority to decide which people in their jails
should or should not be released prior to their full
commitment. If local law enforcement officials are
AB 63
Page 12
determining that these offenders are eligible for release, is
it appropriate for the Legislature to mandate they be sent
back to state prison? Counties have been provided with
funding to handle these offenders and should prioritize who
remains in custody based on who is the most dangerous to the
community.
7)Warrants for Absconding : A snapshot of the CDCR parolee
population data shows that on December 31, 2012, there were
58,656 parolees. Of those, 9,756, or 16.6 percent were
required to register as sex offenders.
CDCR has assembled data describing both the number of sex
offender parolees for whom one or more warrants have been
sought for absconding, and the number of warrants issued for
this population. The number of warrants exceeds the number of
parolees because one parolee can generate multiple warrants.
GPS tampering or disabling is implied in the data for warrants
issued for sex offender parolees believed to have absconded.
In addition, this data includes warrants which were rescinded.
In other words, the warrant data reflects a "zero tolerance"
approach to sex offender parolees, where agents issue warrants
immediately when contact with a parolee is broken. Thus, the
warrant data available for estimating the number of sex
offender parolees who are violating their GPS conditions
includes cases where, for example, a warrant was rescinded
because the agent determines the parolee had a reasonable
explanation for the break in contact (i.e. a device got wet,
the parolee was in a location where the signal was temporarily
blocked, etcetera).
The available data suggests that while the overall rate of sex
offender parolees for whom a warrant for absconding has been
sought increased slightly between 2011 and 2012, the total
number of warrants generated by these parolees appears to have
gone up significantly during the same timeframe. Over the
past three years, more than 92 percent of sex offender
absconders have been located and the median number of days
these parolees are at large is 12.
AB 63
Page 13
The following chart shows the number of sex offender parolees
for whom warrants have been issued for absconding over the
past three years as a rate based on the average annual sex
offender parolee population for each of those years. Based on
this data it appears that, while the numbers of sex offender
parolees generating warrants for absconding has increased
somewhat, the actual rate has been relatively stable:
Rates - Warrants Issued for Absconding Sex Offender Parolees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Year | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Average Sex | 8,543 | 9,674 | 10,076 |
| Offender | | | |
| Parolee | | | |
| Population | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| No. of Sex | | | |
| Offenders for | 1,821 | 1,995 | 2,276 |
|Whom Absconding | | | |
| Warrants were | | | |
| Sought | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| As a rate of | 21.3% | 20.6% |22.6% |
| total sex | | | |
| offender | | | |
| parolees | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the annual data for the number of warrants sought
for sex offender parolees has increased significantly between
2011 and 2012.
Rates - Total Number of Warrants Sought for Absconding Sex
Offender Parolees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Year | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Average Sex | 8,543 | 9,674 | 10,076 |
AB 63
Page 14
| Offender | | | |
| Parolee | | | |
| Population | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Total Number of | 2,351 | 2,672 | 4,153 |
| Absconding | | | |
| Warrants for | | | |
| Sex Offender | | | |
| Parolees | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| As a rate of | 27.5% | 27.6% |41.2% |
| total sex | | | |
| offender | | | |
| parolees | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 63
Page 15
The sex offender warrant data provided by CDCR suggests that
not all counties are facing the same levels with respect to
sex offender parolees for whom warrants have been sought for
absconding. The following chart provides a snapshot of this
data taken from December of 2010, 2011 and 2012 for selected
counties; this data reflects the number of warrants, not
individual parolees:
Total Number of Warrants Sought for Sex Offender Parolees
Believed to Have Absconded Select Counties, December Snapshots
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Dec. 2010 | Dec. 2010 | Dec. 2011 | Dec. 2011 | Dec. 2012 | Dec. 2012 |
| | Total Number | Number of | Total Number | Number of | Total Number | Number of |
| County | of Sex | Warrants | of Sex | Warrants | of Sex | Warrants |
| | Offender | Sought for | Offender | Sought for | Offender | Sought for |
| | Parolees | Absconding | Parolees | Absconding | Parolees | Absconding |
| | | Sex Off. | | Sex Off. | | Sex Off. |
| | | Parolees | | Parolees | | Parolees |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Alameda | 483 | 12 (2.5%) | 616 | 12 (1.9%) | 590 | 9 (1.5%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Fresno | 407 | 6 (1.5%) | 402 | 6 (1.5%) | 429 | 24 (5.6%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Kern | 294 | 4 (1.4%) | 330 | 6 (1.8%) | 320 | 9 (2.8%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Los Angeles | 2438 | 65 (2.6%) | 2,499 | 90 (3.6%) | 2,313 | 124 (5.4%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Merced | 76 | 1 (1.3%) | 95 | 5 (5.3%) | 91 | 5 (5.5%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Riverside | 683 | 16 (2.3%) | 735 | 15 (2%) | 668 | 13 (2%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Sacramento | 695 | 11 (1.6%) | 867 | 20 (2.3%) | 806 | 24 (3%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| San | 642 | 23 (3.6%) | 795 | 27 (3.4%) | 771 | 20 (2.6%) |
| Bernardino | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| San Diego | 566 | 7 (1.2%) | 654 | 18 (2.7%) | 658 | 15 (2.3%) |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| San Joaquin | 263 | 4 (1.5%) | 256 | 11 (4.3%) | 259 |16 |
| | | | | | |(6%) |
| | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 63
Page 16
In addition to the data from CDCR, the Board of Parole
Hearings has provided information that might further
illuminate incidents involving sex offender parolees defeating
the GPS devices they are required to wear as a special
condition of parole. The BPH data shows that the number of
new GPS violation charges for sex offender parolees initiated
prior to serving time in custody - in other words, new charges
that occurred when they should have been serving time for an
earlier violation -- has increased after realignment, from 99
cases in the 15 months prior to realignment to 495 cases in
the 15 months following the start date of realignment.
There was a similar increase reflected in the BPH data for
cases of sex offender parolees with absconding charges. The
number of new absconding cases initiated prior to serving 50%
of ordered return-to-custody time was 87 cases in the 15
months prior to realignment, and 617 cases in the 15 months
following its enactment. This data suggests an increase in
the number of these parolees committing these violations
during a time they should have been in jail on earlier custody
orders in the 15 months following the start of realignment.
8)Argument in Support : According to the Kern County Board of
Supervisors , "The enactment of realignment legislation in 2011
(AB 109) has brought a large influx of offenders under state
law enforcement supervision. While the Kern County Probation
Department has employed electronic monitoring for a number of
years, the flood of new AB 109 offenders into the County jail
has prompted the Sheriff also to explore the use of electronic
monitoring. However, penalties for removing or disabling a
monitoring device are not sufficient to deter many offenders
from attempting to thwart the technology. These offenders
will pose a danger to public safety if their locations cannot
be determined through remote monitoring."
9)Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil
Liberties Union , "The ACLU of California regrets to inform you
that we must oppose AB 63, which creates a state prison felony
for disabling or removing an electronic monitoring device,
including a GPS device, and requires if any person is returned
to custody for disabling or removing an electronic device, he
or she must serve the term of custody in state prison.
AB 63
Page 17
"Notwithstanding the Administration's repeated contention that
our prison overcrowding crisis is over, California's prisons
remain constitutionally infirm - providing inadequate medical
and mental health care to inmates in violation of the inmates'
Eighth Amendment Rights. According to California Receiver
Clark Kelso, in his January 27, 2013 update to the Three Judge
Panel sitting on the 9th Circuit: 'In short, there is no
persuasive evidence that a constitutional level of medical
care has been achieved systemwide at an overall population
density that is significantly higher than what the ThreeJudge
Court has ordered.' (Kelso, Achieving a Constitutional Level
of Medical Care in Californias Prisons Twentysecond TriAnnual
Report of the Federal Receivers Turnaround Plan of Action for
September-December 31, 2012, filed in Plata,et al., v. Brown,
(N. Dist. Cal., E. Dist. Cal., January 27, 2013, C01-1351 TEH,
docket no., 2525.)
"California still operates a prison system that is one hundred
fifty percent (150%) of capacity; well beyond the Court's
order of 137.5 percent (%). It makes little sense to begin
creating new felonies punishable by a term in state prison.
"Moreover, the Three Judge Panel, in issuing its most recent
denial of the State's request to modify and/or terminate the
existing population cap re-stated, "crowding creates numerous
barriers to the provisions of medical and mental health care
that result in the constitutional violations. (Coleman/Plata
v. Brown, April 11, 2013, Op. & Order Denying Defendants
Motion to Vacate or Modify Population Reduction Order, (No.
C01-1351:2590:4).)
"The Panel went on to caution that failure to reduce
population to the specified 137.5 percent of design capacity
would result in aggressive court action, including possible
issuance of an early release order, and/or contempt citations.
(Id., at 70.) Even where a case is on appeal, the law
requires compliance with an issued order. (Maness v. Meyers
(1975) 419 U.S 449, 458.) The Legislature should take great
care in deciding on any penalty that will create any new
pressures on our beleaguered prison system.
"Finally, this bill requires that any person who violates PRCS
or state parole, as specified, by removing an electronic
device must serve his or her sentence for violation in state
prison. Under existing law, the maximum amount of time a
AB 63
Page 18
person may be returned to custody for violation of state
parole or PRCS is one hundred eighty days. (Cal. Penal Code §
3455, subd. (d).)
"Given that a person may only be returned to custody for a
maximum of one hundred eighty days, his or her stay in state
prison will be very short only to be returned to the county
for supervision. This makes little sense. The implementation
of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act was designed, inter
alia, to reduce overcrowding in California's prisons,
particularly in the reception centers. This bill will once
again exacerbate overcrowding in the reception centers and
place a significant financial burden on the State. Moreover,
if counties are no longer responsible for housing someone who
is in violation of his or PRCS conditions, counties should be
required to return a pro-rata portion of the AB 109 funds
designed to assist in addressing that population.
"For these reasons, we must oppose."
10)Related Legislation: SB 57 (Lieu) enacts new felony crimes
for felons being supervised in the community either on parole
or postrelease community supervision who willfully defeat
their GPS/electronic monitoring, as specified. SB 57 is
awaiting a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Golden Gate Bail Agents Association
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
AB 63
Page 19
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744