BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
4
0
6
SB 1406 (Wolk)
As Amended: April 22, 2014
Hearing date: April 29, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS:
NAPA COUNTY
HISTORY
Source: Napa County
Prior Legislation:SB 1019 (Vasconcellos)-Chapter 635, Statutes
of 1999
SB 1695 (Beall)-Chapter 575, Statutes of 2010
Support: None Known
Opposition: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD NAPA COUNTY BE PERMITTED TO UTILIZE "ENHANCED POWERS"
CUSTODIAL OFFICERS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to allow custodial officers
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageB
employed by the Napa County Department of Corrections to perform
a variety of new duties, as specified.
Under existing law all cities and counties are authorized to
employ custodial officers (public officers who are not peace
officers) for the purpose of maintaining order in local
detention facilities. (Penal Code § 831.)
Under existing law in counties with a population of 425,000 or
less - and San Diego, Fresno, Kern, Riverside, and Stanislaus
counties - "enhanced powers" custodial officers may be employed.
Santa Clara County is also included in this section with
specified authority for custodial officers who are employed by
the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections (DOC). These
custodial officers are public officers, not peace officers.
(Penal Code § 831.5(a) and (g).)
Under existing law enhanced powers custodial officers may carry
firearms under the direction of the sheriff while fulfilling
specified job-related duties. (Penal Code § 831.5(b).) This
section does not authorize a custodial officer to carry or
possess a firearm when the officer is not on duty. (Penal Code
§ 831.5 (i).)
Under existing law enhanced powers custodial officers are
empowered to serve warrants, writs, or subpoenas within the
custodial facility, and, as with regular custodial officers,
they may use reasonable force to establish and maintain custody,
and may release from custody misdemeanants on citation to appear
or individuals arrested for intoxication who are not subject to
further criminal proceedings. And, these custodial officers are
allowed to make warrantless arrests within the facility pursuant
to Section 836.5 (misdemeanor in the presence of the officer).
(Penal Code § 831.5 (a) and (f).)
Existing law requires that every enhanced powers custodial
officer complete the training course described in penal code
section 832 (introductory course of training prescribed by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training). (Penal
Code § 831.5(c).)
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageC
Existing law requires a peace officer to be present in a
supervisorial capacity whenever 20 or more custodial officers
are on duty (for both Sections 831 and 831.5 officers). (Penal
Code § 831.5 (d).)
Existing law also provides that custodial officers employed by
the Santa Clara County DOC are authorized to perform the
following additional duties in the facility:
Arrest a person without a warrant whenever the
custodial officer has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or
felony in the presence of the officer that is a violation
of a statute or ordinance that the officer has the duty
to enforce.
Search property, cells, prisoners, or visitors.
Conduct strip or body cavity searches of prisoners
pursuant to Section 4030.
Conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a duly
issued warrant.
Segregate prisoners.
Classify prisoners for the purpose of housing or
participation in supervised activities.
(Penal Code § 831.5(g).)
Existing law states that it is the intent of the Legislature, as
it relates to Santa Clara County, to enumerate specific duties
of custodial officers and to clarify the relationship of
correctional officers and deputy sheriffs in Santa Clara County.
And, that it is the intent of the Legislature that all issues
regarding compensation for custodial officers remain subject to
the collective bargaining process. The language is,
additionally, clear that it should not be construed to assert
that the duties of custodial officers are equivalent to the
duties of deputy sheriffs or to affect the ability of the county
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageD
to negotiate pay that reflects the different duties of custodial
officers and deputy sheriffs. (Penal Code § 831.5 (i).)
This bill would authorize, upon a resolution by the Napa County
Board of Supervisors, custodial officers employed by the Napa
County DOC to perform the same duties as Santa Clara custodial
officers.
This bill would make the existing Santa Clara County intent
language applicable to Napa County.
This bill contains uncodified intent language stating that a
special law is necessary, as specified.
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
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
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageE
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,
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.
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageF
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:
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. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 1406 seeks to address safety concerns raised by the
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageG
correctional officers employed at Napa County Jail.
Under existing law, the correctional officers employed
at Napa County jail are not classified as peace
officers. As a result, correctional officers are
prohibited from performing many of the procedures that
enable peace officers to better protect themselves and
the inmate population. Unlike other county jails,
Napa County Jail is under the jurisdiction of the Napa
County Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff. While
this arrangement has many benefits, and is working
particularly well in the context of realignment, it
means that the officers employed in the jail are not
employed by the Sheriff, and as such, are not peace
officers (deputy sheriffs).
(More)
2. Effect of this Legislation
On June 6, 1988, Santa Clara transferred control of its jails
from the sheriff to the county DOC. In 1999, Santa Clara was
given the ability to utilize enhanced power custodial officers.
Santa Clara sought legislative intervention due to years of
confusion and litigation regarding the status of the county's
custodial officers,
The California Supreme Court decided a dispute which
arose in Santa Clara County regarding the power of the
Santa Clara County Director of Corrections to confer
limited peace officer status on some deputies when
staffing fell below limits required by law. The
Supreme Court held that "[t]he Legislature has made
clear its intention to retain the exclusive power to
bestow peace officer status on state, county and city
employees. Since that chapter [Chapter 4.5 of the
Penal Code, sections 830 et seq.] does not authorize
the director of a county jail facility to designate
custodial officers as peace officers, the director's
action cannot be sustained." County of Santa Clara v.
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Santa Clara County,
(1992) 3 Cal. 4th 873, 886. Santa Clara County found
itself in this situation after the voters changed the
county charter in 1988 to transfer control of the
jails out of the jurisdiction of the sheriff and
instead to the County Department of Corrections. Id.
at p. 876. The lawful way for Santa Clara County
custodial officers to gain peace officer powers not
currently granted them by state law requires enacting
another state law.
(Assembly Committee on Public Safety Analysis, July 6,
1999, http://leginfo.ca.gov
/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1019_cfa_19990702_140528
_asm_comm.html.)
(More)
SB 1406 (Wolk)
PageI
Like Santa Clara, the Napa County DOC was separated from the
Sheriff's Department by the Board of Supervisors in 1975.
(http://www.countyofnapa.org/Corrections/) They were the first
in the state of California to become a civilian-run facility,
and are currently one of two in the state not operated by the
Sheriff's Department. (Id.) While Napa County has a population
less than 425,000, the county is not able to utilize enhanced
powers custodial officers because the penal code requires that
the custodial officers be employed by a law enforcement agency.
(See generally Penal Code § 831.5.) This legislation would
not turn Napa County custodial officers into peace officers,<1>
but would instead give the custodial officers the enhanced
powers described above.
SHOULD THIS AUTHORITY BE GRANTED?
***************
---------------------------
<1> Should peace officer status be sought, Penal Code section
13540 would require a request be made to the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training to undertake a feasibility study
regarding the requested peace office designation.