BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2499
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2014
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2499 (Bonilla) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
SUMMARY : Expands the ability of local governments to authorize
county correctional administrators to release sentenced
misdemeanor jail inmates on an involuntary home detention
program to all qualified sentenced inmates in county jail based
on a determination that a lack of jail space warrants the
necessity of releasing inmates. Specifically, this bill :
1)Increases the information a police department of a city where
an office is located to which persons on an electronic
monitoring program report may receive to include current and
historical global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, if
available, of a detainee who is on a home detention program
during his or her sentence in lieu of confinement in county
jail or a program under the auspices of the probation officer.
a) Provides that a police department that does not have the
primary responsibility to supervise participants in the
electronic monitoring program that receives information
pursuant to this subdivision shall not use the information
to conduct enforcement actions based on administrative
violations of the home detention program.
b) States that a police department that has knowledge that
the subject in a criminal investigation is a participant in
an electronic monitoring program shall make reasonable
efforts to notify the supervising agency prior to serving a
warrant or taking any law enforcement action against a
participant in an electronic monitoring program.
2)Increases the information a local law enforcement agency may
receive to include current and historical GPS coordinates, if
available, of a participant who is in an electronic monitoring
program in lieu of bail and is placed within the jurisdiction
of the local law enforcement agency.
AB 2499
Page 2
a) States that a law enforcement agency that does not have
primary responsibility to supervise participants in the
electronic monitoring program that receives information on
the participant shall not use that information to conduct
enforcement actions based on administrative violations if
the home detention program.
b) Requires an agency that has knowledge that the subject
in a criminal investigation is a participant in an
electronic monitoring program shall make reasonable efforts
to notify the supervising agency prior to serving a warrant
or taking any law enforcement action against a participant
in an electronic monitoring program.
3)Includes the home detention programs specified in this bill in
existing provisions of law crediting days in custody towards
the term of imprisonment or toward any fine.
4)Authorizes the application of a credit of one day for every
four days spent in custody to persons who are confined on or
after January 1, 2015 in one of the home detention programs
specified in this bill.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board
of supervisors of any county may authorize the county
correctional administrator to offer a voluntary or involuntary
home detention program in lieu of confinement in the county
jail, or other correctional facility or program under the
auspices of the probation officer. (Pen. Code, § 1203.016,
subd. (a).)
2)Defines "correctional administrator" as the sheriff, probation
officer, or director of the county department of corrections.
(Pen. Code, §§1203.016, subd. (h), 1203.017, subd. (g), and
1203.018, subd. (k)(1).)
3)Provides that the participant in a home detention program
authorized in the above provision shall agree to the use of
electronic monitoring, which may include GPS devices or other
supervising devices for the purpose of helping to verify his
or her compliance with the rules and regulations of the home
detention program. (Pen. Code, § 1203.016, subd. (b)(3).)
AB 2499
Page 3
4)Authorizes the police department of a city where an office is
located to which persons on an electronic monitoring program
report to request the county correctional administrator to
provide information concerning those persons. This
information shall be limited to the name, address, date of
birth, and offense committed by the home detainee. Any
information received by a police department pursuant to this
paragraph shall be used only for the purpose of monitoring the
impact of home detention programs on the community. (Pen.
Code, § 1203.016, subd. (i).)
5)States, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon
determination by the correctional administrator that there is
a lack of jail space, the board of supervisors of any county
may authorize the correctional administrator to offer an
involuntary home detention program to sentenced misdemeanor
inmates, which shall include electronic monitoring, in lieu of
confinement in the county jail or other county correctional
facility or program under the auspices of the probation
officer. Under this program, one day of participation shall be
in lieu of one day of incarceration. Participants in the
program shall receive any sentence reduction credits that they
would have received had they served their sentences in a
county correctional facility. (Pen. Code, § 1203.017, subd.
(a).)
6)States, notwithstanding any other law, the board of
supervisors of any county may authorize the correctional
administrator to offer a program under which inmates being
held in lieu of bail in a county jail or other county
correctional facility may participate in an electronic
monitoring program if the following conditions are met (Pen.
Code, § 1203.017, subds. (b) & (c)):
a) The inmate shall not have any holds or outstanding
warrants;
b) The inmate has been held in custody for at least 30
calendar days from the date of arraignment pending
disposition of only misdemeanor charges;
c) The inmate has been held in custody pending disposition
of charges for at least 60 calendar days from the date of
arraignment;
AB 2499
Page 4
d) The inmate is appropriate for the program based on a
determination by the correctional administrator that the
inmate's participation would be consistent with the public
safety interests of the community.
7)Authorizes, upon request of a local law enforcement agency
with jurisdiction over the location where a participant in an
electronic monitoring program is placed, the correctional
administrator shall provide the following information
regarding participants in the electronic monitoring program
(Pen. Code, § 1203.018, subd. (l)):
a) The participant's name, address, and date of birth;
b) The offense or offenses alleged to have been committed
by the participant;
c) The period of time the participant will be placed on
home detention;
d) Whether the participant successfully completed the
prescribed period of home detention or was returned to a
county correctional facility, and if the person was
returned to a county correctional facility, the reason for
the return; and
e) The gender and ethnicity of the participant.
8)States that any of the information received by a law
enforcement agency pursuant to the provisions above shall be
used only for the purpose of monitoring the impact of home
electronic monitoring programs in the community. (Pen. Code,
§ 1203.018, subd. (m).)
9)Requires when a defendant has been in custody, including, but
not limited to, any time spent in a jail, camp, work furlough
facility, and other specified facilities, all days of custody
of the defendant, including, home detention for inmates who
otherwise would be in jail in lieu of bail, are credited
toward the term of imprisonment or toward any fine that may be
imposed, at the rate of not less than $30 per day, or more, in
the discretion of the court imposing the sentence. (Pen.
Code, § 2900.5, subd. (a).)
10)Provides that the time a defendant spent in a jail, camp,
AB 2499
Page 5
work furlough facility, and other specified facilities,
qualifies as mandatory time in jail if the statute under which
the defendant is sentenced requires a mandatory minimum period
of time in jail. (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (f).)
11)Authorizes good conduct and work performance credit for
prisoners confined in city or county jails, industrial farms
or road camps. (Pen. Code, § 4019.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "In 2011, the
Legislature approved Governor Brown's local law enforcement
realignment proposal. This proposal responded to the urgent
problem of overcrowding in California's prisons. The program
redefined which crimes are subject to state incarceration and
state parole supervision. This created a new population of
inmates who no longer required state incarceration and they
were transferred to county jails and county probation
officers. Realignment has resulted in a reduction in the
state prison population, but has exacerbated overcrowding at
many county jails.
"As part of Realignment, counties were given many tools to
address the increase in offenders, including state funding to
house and create programs for offenders as well as increased
funding for successful programs. Counties were also given
expanded authority to place county offenders into alternative
custody programs such as Electronic Monitoring. However, the
current laws governing Electronic Monitoring were written
before realignment was in place and when counties only had
misdemeanor offenders. This has resulted in some
inconsistencies in the Penal Code as well as some provisions
that should be inapplicable to lower level felony offenders,
such as the prohibition of sharing inmate information with
other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, counties have
found that some inmates will refuse to participate in
Electronic Monitoring programs because they cannot earn
conduct credits. In other words, an inmate could do less time
by remaining in custody where they can earn conduct credits;
therefore the inmate chooses to stay in county jail when they
could realistically be safely placed in the community. AB
2499 solves this problem by allowing inmates that participate
AB 2499
Page 6
in alternative custody programs to earn credits as if they
were in county jail, which will free up county jail space for
inmates that need to remain in custody.
"AB 2499 will help those counties who are looking to implement
and expand Electronic Monitoring programs by making them
workable and consistent. It will allow counties to safely
address their overcrowding issues while keeping those who
should be kept in jail, in jail and those that can be placed
in the community to be properly supervised."
2)Custody Credits For Home Detainees : In 2002, the District
Attorney in the County of Madera requested an opinion as to
whether persons committed to county jail who participate in an
electronic monitoring home detention program pursuant to Penal
Code Section 1203.016 are eligible for good conduct and work
credits under Penal Code Section 4019. The crux of the issue
was whether a person in an electronic monitoring home
detention program was "in custody" for the purposes of Penal
Code Section 4019. The Attorney General opined that these
credits do apply. (85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 106 (2002).)
The phrase "in actual custody" may, of
course, have several different meanings. Does the
phrase require that the confinement be in a penal
institution rather than a nonpenal setting or be the
result of a court order? (See People v. Lapaille,
supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1172-1173; People v.
Tafoya (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4.) In People
v. Rodgers (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 26, 31, the court
recognized an "expanded" definition of "custody" in
habeas corpus law under which "anyone subject to
restraints not shared by the 'public generally' " may
seek the writ, but federal courts interpreting the
federal custody credit statute have consistently
refused to borrow from habeas corpus law in defining
the term "custody" (see Dawson v. Scott (11th Cir.
1995) 50 F.3d 884, 888-889, fn. 8; U.S. v. Insley (4th
Cir. 1991) 927 F.2d 185, 187; U.S. v. Woods (10th Cir.
1989) 888 F.2d 653, 655; Ramsey v. Brennan (7th Cir.
1989) 878 F.2d 995, 996; U.S. v. Mares (5th Cir. 1989)
868 F.2d 151, 152; Villaume v. United States Dept. of
Justice (8th Cir. 1986) 804 F.2d 498, 499).
The usual and ordinary definition of the
AB 2499
Page 7
term "custody" was given in People v. Reinertson
(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 320, 327, where the court
observed that "the concept of custody generally
connotes a facility rather than a home. It includes
some aspect of regulation of behavior. It also
includes supervision in a structured life style." Most
recently, in People v. Pottorff, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th
1709, the court applied this traditional definition of
"custody," as expressed in Reinertson, to conclude
that a section 1203.016 participant was "in custody."
The court reviewed the various requirements of section
1203.016 in finding that participation in a section
1203.016 program was "akin to confinement in a
facility or institution." (Id. at pp. 1719-1720, fn.
15.)
Accordingly, we follow [People v. Wills
(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1810] in determining that a
person "committed to" county jail, without confinement
in a jail, industrial farm, or road camp, may be
eligible for section 4019 credits if the person is "in
actual custody" under the terms of subdivision (f) of
the statute. Following Pottorff, we apply the
traditional definition of "custody" in determining
that participants in a section 1203.016 program are
"in actual custody" for purposes of subdivision (f).
We find it particularly significant that a person who
makes an unauthorized departure from a place of home
detention is guilty of the crime of escape, a felony.
(§§ 4532, subd. (a), 1203.016, subd. (f); see Toney v.
Maryland (2001) 140 Md.App. 690 [782 A.2d 383]; People
v. Moncrief (1995) 276 Ill.App.3d 533 [659 N.E.2d
106]; State of Fellhauer
(1997) 123 N.M. 476 [943 P.2d 123]; State v. Magnuson
(2000) 233 Wis.2d 40 [606 N.W.2d 536].)
(Id. at pp. 6-7.)
This bill allows participants in other home detention
programs, not just the program under Penal Code Section
1203.016, to earn good conduct and work performance credits
pursuant to Penal Code Section 4019.
3)Arguments in Support :
AB 2499
Page 8
a) The California State Sheriffs Association , one of the
sponsors of this bill, states, "Existing law prohibits law
enforcement agencies form sharing certain information
regarding persons participating in an electronic monitoring
program. Now that sentenced, realigned felons can
participate in such programs, it is essential that law
enforcement is able to share information such as current
and historical GPS coordinates with other agencies. AB
2499 will allow this crucial information to be shared
without interfering with an offender's participating in the
program.
"In addition, many offenders refuse to participate in
electronic monitoring programs because they are unable to
accrue credits that they can earn while remaining in
custodial facilities. This disincentive then creates
housing problems by requiring jail managers to house both
inmates that need to remain in custody along with inmates
that could otherwise participate in community-based
treatment and rehabilitative programing. AB 2499 fixes
this problem by allowing inmates to obtain credits
regardless of whether they are in a custodial facility or
participating in an alternative custody program."
b) The California Public Defenders Association writes,
"This bill will help ease overcrowding, will incentivize
county jail inmates to participate in rehabilitative
programs, and will make more equitable the allocation of
custody and good conduct credits, all while also increasing
the ability of law enforcement agencies to constantly know
the location of inmates released on electronic home
detention."
4)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of
2011, realigned the responsibility of certain low level
offenders, adult parolees, and juvenile offenders from
state to local jurisdictions, and expanded the authority of
local correctional administrators to use alternative
custody methods for offenders sentenced to a jail facility.
b) SB 619 (Speier), Chapter 484, Statutes of 2005,
provides that a county probation department may use
"continuous electronic monitoring" (CEM) which may include
AB 2499
Page 9
GPS technology to supervise persons on county probation,
and authorizes the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to utilize CEM to electronically
monitor the whereabouts of parolees.
c) SB 963 (Ashburn), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2005,
specifically added GPS devices as a type of electronic
monitoring device that may be used in a home detention
program.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Sheriffs Association (Co-Sponsor)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Co-Sponsor)
Kern County, Office of the Sheriff (Co-Sponsor)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California Public Defenders Association
Inyo County, Office of the Sheriff
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Yolo County, Office of the Sheriff
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744