BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
5
1
AB 1512 (Stone) 2
As Amended: March 18, 2014
Hearing date: May 13, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
CORRECTIONS:
INMATE TRANSFERS
HISTORY
Source: California State Sheriffs' Association
Prior Legislation: SB 1021 (Comm. on Budget and Fisc.
Rev.)-Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012
AB 109 (Committee on Budget)-Chapter 15, Statutes
of 2011
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California
State Association of Counties; Calaveras County
Sheriff's Department; Monterey County Sheriff's
Department; Orange County Sheriff's Department; Rural
County Representatives of California; Santa Cruz County
Sheriff's Department
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union of California;
American Friends Service Committee; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Coalition
for Women Prisoners; California's United for a
Responsible Budget; Dignity and Power Now; Friends
Committee on Legislation of California; Los Angeles
Regional Reentry Partnership; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; Taxpayers for Improving Public
Safety
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 2
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COUNTIES CONTINUE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT WITH OTHER
COUNTIES FOR JAIL BED SPACE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of the legislation is to extend the sunset date on
provisions of law that allow a county where adequate facilities
are not available for prisoners in its adult detention
facilities to enter into agreements with one or more counties
that have adequate facilities, as specified.
Current law generally provides that, for any person sentenced on
or after October 1, 2011, certain felonies - those which by
their statutory terms specifically so provide - are punishable
by a term of imprisonment in a county jail, as specified.
(Penal Code § 1170(h).)
Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county
where, in the opinion of the sheriff or the director of the
county department of corrections, adequate facilities are not
available for prisoners who would otherwise be confined in its
county adult detention facilities may enter into an agreement
with the board or boards of supervisors of one or more counties
whose county adult detention facilities are adequate for and
accessible to the first county, with the concurrence of that
county's sheriff or director of its county department of
corrections. When the agreement is in effect, commitments may
be made by the court. (Penal Code § 4115.5(a).)
Existing law requires a county entering into an agreement with
another county to report annually to the Board of State and
Community Corrections on the number of offenders who otherwise
would be under that county's jurisdiction but who are now being
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 3
housed in another county's facility and the reason for needing
to house the offenders outside the county. (Penal Code §
4115.5(b).)
Existing law states that the above provisions shall become
inoperative on July 1, 2015, and, as of January 1, 2016, is
repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative
on or before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends the dates on
which it becomes inoperative and is repealed. (Penal Code §
4115.5(c).)
Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors, starting July
1, 2015, of a county where adequate facilities are not available
for prisoners who would otherwise be confined in its county
adult detention facilities to enter into an agreement with the
board or boards of supervisors of one or more nearby counties
whose county adult detention facilities are adequate and are
readily accessible from the first county, permitting commitment
of misdemeanants, and any persons required to serve a term of
imprisonment in county adult detention facilities as a condition
of probation, to a jail in a county having adequate facilities
that is a party to the agreement. That agreement shall make
provision for the support of a person so committed or
transferred by the county from which he or she is committed.
When that agreement is in effect, commitments may be made by the
court and support of a person so committed shall be a charge
upon the county from which he or she is committed. (Penal Code
§ 4115.5.)
This bill would extend the sunset date to July 1, 2018 on
provisions of law that allow a county, where adequate facilities
are not available for prisoners in its adult detention
facilities, to enter into agreements with one or more counties
that have adequate facilities, as specified.
This bill would exclude pre-trial inmates from being transferred
through county-to-county transfers.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 4
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 5
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 6
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Statement
The author states, in part:
Criminal justice realignment under AB 109 placed
greater responsibility on county jails in the housing
and rehabilitation of inmates. In order to
adequately house and care for county jail inmates,
budget trailer bill SB 1021 included a provision to
allow county jails with inadequate facilities to
transfer inmates to other county jails. The purpose
of this was to allow impacted jails time to adjust to
realignment and to renovate or construct adequate
housing and rehabilitation facilities to ensure the
safety of inmates and staff and reduce recidivism.
Monterey County Jail, for example, has been highly
impacted by an increase in inmate capacity since
realignment. A lawsuit was filed in May 2013 by the
Monterey County Public Defender's Office against
Monterey County and the Sheriff's Department which
alleges the jail is severely overcrowded, making jail
facilities unsafe for both inmates and staff. AB 900
(Solorio, 2007) is providing Monterey County Jail
with $36.295 million to construct new bed spaces,
administrative support and space for rehabilitation.
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 7
The construction project is anticipated to be
completed in 2017. In order to protect the wellbeing
and safety of inmates and staff before construction
is complete, Monterey County entered into an
agreement in November 2013 with Alameda County to
transfer a maximum of 82 male or female sentenced
inmates a year. As of January 2014, 60 inmates had
been transferred from Monterey to Alameda, where jail
facilities are better equipped to house and care for
inmates placed in county jail after realignment.
Existing law allows the County Board of Supervisors
of a county with inadequate jail facilities to enter
into an agreement with a different county with
adequate facilities to transfer inmates. The county
sheriff or director of the county department of
corrections determines whether the jail facilities
are adequate or not. All counties are required to
report the number of inmates they are transferring
and the reasons for such transfers to the Board of
State and Community Corrections. This provision is
set to expire January 2015.
AB 1512 would extend the provision that allows
counties to transfer inmates from one county jail to
another provided the transferring facility is not
able to adequately house the inmate(s). Only inmates
who have been sentenced as misdemeanants and those in
county jail due to realignment would be eligible to
be transferred.
2. Effect of Legislation
Prior to the enactment of SB 1021 in 2012, counties were allowed
to contract with nearby counties for the housing of committed
misdemeanants and any persons required to serve a term of
imprisonment in a county jail as a condition of probation. SB
1021 expanded this authority by removing the requirement that
the receiving county must be a nearby county, and authorizing
any inmate confined to the county jail to be transferred through
a county-to-county contract.
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 8
By authorizing any inmate confined in a county jail to be
transferred to another county, SB 1021 authorized the transfer
of inmates sentenced under realignment as well as inmates who
are awaiting trial.
(More)
According to information provided by the author and sponsor,
there are currently three counties utilizing the authority
provided by SB 1021. These counties include Monterey, Shasta,
and Sonoma. As discussed above, Monterey County has funding to
transfer up to 82 inmates a year to Alameda County and as of
late January 2014 had transferred about 60 inmates-all of which
were sentenced under Penal Code 1170(h). Sonoma County is also
transferring inmates to Alameda County and currently is
currently utilizing 60 beds. Finally, Shasta County has
contracts with Lassen, El Dorado, Del Norte and Mendocino
Counties. At the end of the 2013 fiscal year, Shasta had about
30 inmates housed at contract facilities. In January 2014 there
were about 9 transferred. All of the inmates being transferred
are 1170(h) offenders.
AB 1512 would allow these counties to continue to transfer
inmates by extending the sunset date established in SB 1021 from
July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2018. On July 1, 2018, the law will
revert back to the statute that existed prior to the version
passed by SB 1021. AB 1512, additionally, excludes pre-trial
inmates from being transferred through county-to-county
transfers.
3. Arguments in Support
The California State Sheriffs' Association states, in part:
This bill is essential for counties to retain
flexibility to reduce overcrowding in highly impacted
county jail facilities.
In addition, by temporarily extending the sunset date
. . . this measure allows county jails undergoing
renovation and construction the necessary time to
complete current projects, which will allow inmates to
remain in the county.
4. Arguments in Opposition
The American Civil Liberties Union of California states, in
part:
(More)
AB 1512 (Stone)
Page 10
[T]his is a problematic and fruitless way for counties
to manage jail population. CDCR has transferred
thousands of inmates to both county and out of state
facilities, and our prisons remain overcrowded.
Encouraging counties to do the same will be equally
ineffective.
Authorizing counties to transfer inmates out of county
is also contrary to the goals of realignment and may
fundamentally interfere with the defendant's access to
his or her counsel. Moreover, there is significant
evidence that inmate are more likely to successfully
integrate into the community after release if they are
kept close to home. However, this section allows
counties to move inmates sentenced to county jail
hundreds of miles away. This is precisely what
happens when offenders are sentenced to state prison.
Enacting these provisions will create nothing more
than a county operated statewide prison system.
***************