BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
1
2
AB 2121 (Gray) 1
As Amended April 21, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
JM:sl
SEX OFFENDERS PAROLEES:
JAIL SANCTIONS
HISTORY
Source: California District Attorneys Association; Office of
the San Diego District Attorney
Prior Legislation: SB 57 (Leiu) Ch 776, Stats. 2013
AB 63 (Patterson) 2013-2014, Failed in Assembly
Public Safety
SB 566 (Hollingsworth) 2009-2010 Failed in Senate
Public Safety
SB 619 (Speier) Ch. 484, Stats. 2005
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD SEX OFFENDER PAROLEES BE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THEIR PAROLE
OFFICER WITHIN ONE DAY OF RELEASE FROM PRISON OR AS OTHERWISE
INSTRUCTED, AND BE SANCTIONED WITH 180 DAYS IN JAIL IF THEY VIOLATE
THIS REQUIREMENT?
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageB
SHOULD ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE VERBS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAW
DESCRIBING THE CONDUCT PROHIBITED BY A PAROLEE WHICH GENERALLY WOULD
MAKE HIS OR HER GPS NOT WORK BE ADDED TO THE LAW, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) require sex offender parolees
to report to their parole officers within one working day
following release from prison, or as instructed by a parole
officer, to be fitted with a global positioning system (GPS)
tracking device; 2) impose a mandatory 180-day jail sanction for
a violation of this provision, as specified; and 3) add
additional narrative verbs consistent with current law
describing the conduct prohibited by a parolee which generally
would make his or her GPS not work, as specified.
Existing law requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011
to remain under the supervision of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) until jurisdiction is
terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged.
(Pen. Code § 3000.09.)
Existing law requires the following persons released from prison
on or after October 1, 2011, be subject to parole under the
supervision of CDCR:
A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal
Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal
Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
A high risk sex offender;
A mentally disordered offender;
A person required to register as a sex offender and
subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time
of the commission of the offense for which he or she is
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageC
being released; and,
A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the
commission of the offense for which he or she is being
released. (Pen. Code § 3000.08, subds. (a) & (i).)
Existing law requires all other offenders released from prison
to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under
the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation
department. (Pen. Code § 3000.08, subd. (b).)
Existing law authorizes CDCR to utilize continuous electronic
monitoring, including GPS, to electronically monitor the
whereabouts of persons on parole. (Pen. Code § 3010.)
Existing law provides that every inmate who has been convicted
for any felony for which sex offender registration is required,
or any attempt to commit such an offense, shall be monitored by
GPS while on parole. (Pen. Code § 3000.07, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides, as enacted by Proposition 83 of 2006,
that every inmate who has been convicted for any felony for
which sex offender registration is required, or any attempt to
commit such a crime, and who has been committed to prison and
released on parole shall be monitored by GPS for life. (Pen.
Code § 3004, subd. (b).)
Existing law prohibits a person who is required to register as a
sex offender and who is subject to parole supervision from
removing or disabling a GPS device affixed as a condition of
parole. (Pen. Code § 3010.10, subd. (a).)
Existing law authorizes the court, upon revocation of parole, to
do any of the following:
Reinstate parole with modification of conditions, if
appropriate, including a period of incarceration;
Revoke parole and order the parolee to serve time in the
county jail; or,
Refer the parolee to a reentry program or other
evidence-based program. (Pen. Code § 3000.08, subd. (f).)
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageD
Existing law limits confinement in the county jail for up to 180
days of incarceration per revocation. (Pen. Code §§ 3000.08,
subd. (g), and 3056, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires a mandatory 180-day term of incarceration
in the county jail for a sex offender on parole who removes or
disables a GPS device. (Pen. Code § 3010.10, subd. (d).)
This bill requires a parolee who is required to register as a
sex offender to report to his or her parole agent to have a GPS
device affixed within one working day of release from custody,
or as instructed by a parole agent, as a condition of parole. A
violation of this provision must be punished by a term of 180
days in a county jail.
This bill states that a parolee who is required to register as a
sex offender is prohibited not only from removing or disabling
the GPS device, but also from rendering it inoperable or
knowingly circumventing its operation. A violation of this
provision must be punished by a term of 180 days in a county
jail.
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
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
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageE
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
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,
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageF
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 May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 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:
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
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageG
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The author states:
In 2006, more than 70% of California voters enacted
Proposition 83, "The Sexual Predator Punishment and
Control Act: Jessica's Law." This reform strengthened
penalties, and required lifelong GPS monitoring of
high risk sex offenders. The CDCR is responsible for
monitoring this population which accounts for only 11%
of California's sex offenders statewide.
Last year, the legislature enacted SB 57 (Chapter 776,
Statutes of 2013) which imposes a 180-day period of
incarceration for any sex offender who removes,
disables, or otherwise renders inoperable the GPS
tracking device affixed as a condition of their
parole.
However, there is no statute that provides for any
recourse should a parolee fail to report to have the
monitoring device affixed in the first place or if the
parolee willfully renders the device inoperable
without physically removing the device.
AB 2121 provides a uniform deterrent across the board
consistent with SB 57. Any of these actions, which
impede the ability of law enforcement to adequately
monitor paroled sex offenders, shall result in the
same mandatory 180-day incarceration. These actions
share the same result, which is to render the GPS
monitor useless as a tool of law enforcement. The
bill recognizes this fact and applies an equal
deterrent accordingly, to ensure that law enforcement
has the tools they need to adequately protect and
maintain public safety.
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageH
AB 2121 ensures this high risk population, that voters
have consistently segregated by lengthy prison
sentences, registration, posting of their pictures on
the internet and life-time monitoring, be held
accountable for violating their parole.
2. Statute to be Amended Less Than One Year Old; SB 57 Discussion
from Last Year
This bill would amend a statute that has been in effect for
about six months; it was enacted by SB 57 (Leiu), which was
passed by the Legislature last year and went into effect on
January first of this year. As explained by this Committee's
analysis of SB 57 a year ago April:
For the last several months there have been a number
of news reports regarding the number of sex offender
parolees removing or disarming their GPS.<1> Many of
these reports describe parolees who were released from
local custody before having fully served their ordered
----------------------
----------------------
<1> For example, in February of last year, the Los Angeles
Times reported, "Thousands of paroled child molesters, rapists
and other high-risk sex offenders in California are removing or
disarming their court-ordered GPS tracking devices - and some
have been charged with new crimes including sexual battery,
kidnapping and attempted manslaughter. The offenders have
discovered that they can disable the monitors, often with little
risk of serving time for it, a Times investigation has found.
The jails are too full to hold them. "It's a huge problem,"
said Fresno parole agent Matt Hill. "If the public knew, they'd
be shocked." More than 3,400 arrest warrants for GPS
tamperers have been issued since October 2011, when the state
began referring parole violators to county jails instead of
returning them to its packed prisons. Warrants increased 28% in
2012 compared to the 12 months before the change in custody
began. Nearly all of the warrants were for sex offenders, who
are the vast majority of convicts with monitors, and many were
for repeat violations." Paige St. John, Los Angeles Times,
Paroled sex offenders disarming tracking devices (Feb. 23,
2013).
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageI
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageJ
sanctions for parole violations.<2> A particularly
disturbing case in San Joaquin County involves a
parolee who had been sanctioned with jail time and
released early from jail several times - and after the
----------------------
<2> "Before prison realignment took effect, sex offenders who
breached parole remained behind bars, awaiting hearings that
could send them back to prison for up to a year. Now, the
maximum penalty is 180 days in jail, but many never serve that
time. With so little deterrent, parolees "certainly are
feeling more bold," said Jack Wallace, an executive at the
California Sex Offender Management Board. . . . Arrest
warrants for GPS tamperers are automatically published online.
The Times reviewed that data as well as thousands of jail logs,
court documents and criminal histories provided by confidential
sources. The records show that the way authorities handle
violators can vary significantly by county. San Bernardino
County releases more inmates early from its cramped jails than
any other county in California, according to state reports. But
sex offenders who violate parole there generally serve their
terms. . . . By contrast, parole violators in San Joaquin
County are often set free within a day of arrest.
A review of the county's jail logs shows that nine of the 15 sex
offenders arrested for violating parole in December and January
were let out within 24 hours, including seven who immediately
tampered with their trackers and disappeared. . . . Id.
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageK
last time allegedly murdered his grandmother.<3>
A snapshot of the CDCR parolee population data shows
that on December 31, 2012, there were 58,656
parolees.<4> Of those, 9,756 - 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
----------------------
<3> "Deputy District Attorney Sherri Adams said DeAvila is a
sex offender and has been in and out of jail on parole
violations between five and 11 times over the past year.
More recently, he was released from jail early on his own
recognizance on Feb. 20, one day after pleading guilty to
charges of failing to register as a sex offender and being
sentenced to serve 30 days in jail. . . . DeAvila was
released on a court cap, a mandate to reduce jail population
when it reaches capacity. Under the current local justice
system, inmates are considered for release based on the current
charge - not necessarily on their criminal history. This is why
the county is trying to establish a system that would allow
corrections staff and judges to look at offenders' backgrounds
to determine whether they should be released. "We're
governed by the court cap," (a sheriff's office representative)
said. "And that's one of the reasons the sheriff is pushing for
the new jail to provide more space to have the ability to hold
more prisoners." Jennie Rodriguez-Moore, Stockton Record,
Prosecutors: Man Raped, Killed Grandmother (March 1, 2013).
<4> Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Parole Census Data
as of December 31, 2012,
(http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Ser
vices_Branch/Annual/PCensus1 /PCENSUS1d1212.pdf.
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageL
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.
. . . Based on (data for the three years prior to SB
57) . . . it appears that, while the numbers of sex
offender parolees generating warrants for absconding
has increased somewhat, the actual rate has been
relatively stable . . . .
In contrast, the annual data for the number of
warrants sought for sex offender parolees has
increased significantly between 2011 and 2012. . . .
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. . . .
In addition to the data from CDCR, Committee staff
asked the Board of Parole Hearings for information
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageM
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.<5>
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.<6> . . .
In an effort to further understand the practices and
circumstances facing some counties with respect to
managing parolees who have been sanctioned with jail
time for parole violations, the Chair of this
Committee sent a letter of inquiry to the sheriff and
presiding judge of San Joaquin County asking for more
information about how San Joaquin County manages its
jail inmate population. As noted above, San Joaquin
stands out as a county which appears to have
----------------------
<5> The BPH data reflects only those parolees against whom a
revocation proceeding was initiated with the board; it does not
include parolees who never had a case initiated (i.e., absconded
and has not been located, warrant rescinded without parole
revocation charges being referred to the board, etcetera).
<6> This data reflects parolees required to register as sex
offenders (290 registrants) charged with an absconding parole
violation.
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageN
experienced a greater number of absconding warrants
for this population in the last year.
In a letter dated March 27, 2013, Sheriff Moore
responded to this inquiry. Sheriff Moore explained
that the county has operated under a Superior Court
Consent Decree capping its jail population since 1983,
and that since 1993 the Pre-Trial Services program
operated through the county's probation department has
made felony release determinations under the auspices
of the jail population court cap order. This program
does not use a risk assessment instrument. In
addition, the sheriff notes that there is no risk
assessment tool used by the sheriff's Population
Management Unit or by the court when the court must
make "special releases" necessary beyond the court
consent decree.
An article published in the Stockton Record on March
12, 2013, described San Joaquin's method of releasing
pretrial inmates early from jail as 'archaic,'
according to a consultant who encouraged officials to
overhaul the system. The article further stated:
To meet a court-mandated population cap, dozens
of jail inmates are released daily based on
their current charge only. Nowhere in the
process of deciding whom to set free is their
risk to reoffend or skip town before trial
considered.
. . . Chief Probation Officer Stephanie James .
. . says officials are committed to making
significant changes.
An evaluation process that takes into account
criminal history and court attendance records is
under way for determining whether inmates are
suitable for release on their own recognizance.
"This isn't a program," James said. "We're
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageO
reforming the criminal justice system. That's
really what we're doing."
. . . Out of the jail's more than 1,400
inmates, only 20 percent are interviewed and
assessed for public safety risks during the
court process. The probation department has
eight people handling these interviews.
Then, there is another chance for inmates to be
released on their own recognizance at
arraignment, but local Superior Court judges
don't have access to a defendant's criminal
history or flight risk information.
James said the need for an overhaul became more
apparent with the enactment of realignment law
AB109, which added hundreds more inmates to the
jail who otherwise would have been sent back to
prison.
"With so many people getting released early,
jail is not a meaningful consequence," James
said.
A local committee on realignment has allocated
$370,000 of AB109 funds for pretrial services.
James' preliminary vision is that
risk-assessment printouts would be provided to
judges.
. . . (T)oday's overpopulation leads to more
early releases or alternative incarceration,
such as electronic monitoring. It includes
people arrested on state parole violations, as
AB109 shifted revocation incarceration from
state prison to local jail.
Offenders with technical violations are
considered for pretrial release before others.
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageP
For example, state parolee Jerome DeAvila was
capped out of jail after pleading guilty to a
misdemeanor of failing to register as a sex
offender. About a week later, he was arrested
and charged with the rape and murder of his
76-year-old grandmother.
James said it's too early to know how a new
pretrial services system will impact the court
cap decree.
But the county's plan is to implement a
comprehensive system that gives jail bed
priority to the most violent offenders, and a
new pretrial process is part of that. "We
definitely need to move forward on implementing
it as quickly as we can," she said.
. . . Jail officials say they need more data on
the project, which is still in its infancy, to
evaluate the impact on the jail and the possible
need for more beds.
"It sounds like a project that we'll be
extremely interested in," said (a) . . .
spokesman for the San Joaquin County Sheriff's
Office, which oversees the jail. "But there has
to be more details on how this is going to work
here in San Joaquin County." . . . .<7>
After extensive consideration in the legislature, SB 57 was
enacted into law. Members may wish to discuss the need or
imperative to change this law so soon after its enactment.
IS THIS BILL NECESSARY?
3. Mandatory 180-Day Jail Term for Not Reporting to Parole Agent
---------------------------
<7> Jennie Rodriguez-Moore, The Stockton Record, Consultants
recommend overhaul of county pretrial inmate releases (March 12,
2013).
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageQ
as Ordered
This bill would impose a mandatory 180-day jail term on a sex
offender parolee who fails to report to his or her parole
officer within one working day following release from custody,
or as instructed by a parole officer. As noted above, under
current law if a sex offender parolee fails to report as
directed to a parole office a warrant is issued immediately.
Once located, the parolee is arrested and sanctions, including
custodial sanctions, can be imposed. Members may wish to
consider whether imposing a 180-day jail sanction, regardless of
the circumstances or duration of a parolee's failure to report
to a parole office, is the appropriate sanction in every case.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO DELETE THIS REQUIREMENT?
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.
(More)
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. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) & (c), and
3451, subd. (b).) All other inmates released from prison are
subject to up to three years of PRCS under local supervision.
(Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)
Where the court finds that an inmate who has been released upon
parole after serving a life sentence violated parole conditions,
the court returns the person to the jurisdiction of CDCR and BPH
"for the purpose of future parole consideration. (Pen. Code
§3000.08, subd. (i).) It appears that the return to prison for
life-term inmates would be an exception to the 180 custody term
imposed under this bill.
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings. As of July 1, 2013, the trial courts assumed
responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those
individuals who remain under the jurisdiction of CDCR.
Moreover, intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration,
also became available for state parolees on July 1, 2013. (Pen.
Code § 3000.08, subd. (d).) Despite the new authority to impose
terms of flash incarceration upon state-supervised parolees, the
Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) has made a policy
decision not to utilize flash incarceration. (See Valdivia v.
Brown, Response to May 6 Order, filed 05/28/13, p. 17.)
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. (Pen. Code
§§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3458.) 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.,
(More)
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageS
murderers, specific life term sex offenses).
There is a 180-day limit to incarceration for a parole
violation. (Pen. Code §§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3455, subd. (c).)
However, when the violation involves the removal or disabling
of a GPS device, then the offender must be incarcerated for 180
days.
5. Effectiveness of GPS Devices
A recent Los Angeles Times article reported about the problems
of GPS devices. It reported, "One in every four GPS devices
used to track serious criminals released in Los Angeles County
has proved to be faulty, according to a probation department
audit - allowing violent felons to roam undetected for days or,
in some cases, weeks. The problems included batteries that
wouldn't hold a charge and defective electronics that generated
excessive false alarms."
(.)
On the other hand, an April 2012 report titled "Monitoring
High-Risk Sex Offenders With GPS Technology: An Evaluation of
the California Supervision Program, Final Report" comparing a
group of high risk sex offenders who were placed on GPS
monitoring with a control group of similar offenders who were
not placed on the GPS system over a one-year study period, found
that "the subjects in the GPS group demonstrate significantly
better outcomes for both compliance and recidivism." (See
abstract at p. vii, .)
6. Technical Amendment
This bill amends a section providing that if a sex offender
parolee required to wear a GPS device removes, disables or
circumvents the device, "the parole authority" shall revoke
parole and impose a jail term of up to 180 days. However, the
superior court determines if the parolee violated parole,
revokes parolee if the violation is proved and then imposes the
AB 2121 (Gray)
PageT
jail sanction.<8> The section should state that the "court"
shall revoke parole.
***************
---------------------------
<8> There appears to be an exception where the person is serving
a life term for murder or specified sex offenses, the court
returns the parolee to prison and the jurisdiction upon a
finding of a parole violation. CDCR then considers when parole
should be granted again.