BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 293 Hearing Date: June 9, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Levine |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 1, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|LT |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Prisons: Inmate Threats
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None
Support: California Correctional Peace Officers Association;
American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; California
Correctional Supervisors Organization; Service Employees
International Union, Local 1000
Opposition:Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to establish a statewide policy for
the handling of threats made by inmates, wards, or family
members of inmates and wards, against California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff.
Existing law creates in state government CDCR, to be headed by a
AB 293 (Levine ) Page
2 of ?
secretary, who is appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation, and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. CDCR
consists of Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Health Care
Services, Juvenile Justice, the Board of Parole Hearings, the
State Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison Industry
Authority, and the Prison Industry Board. (Government Code §
12838 (a).).
Existing law authorizes the Director of CDCR to prescribe and
amend rules and regulations for the administration of the
prisons and the administration of the parole of persons, except
as specified. All rules and regulations must, to the extent
practical, be stated in language that is easily understood by
the general public. (Penal Code § 5058 (a).)
Existing law requires each state prison under CDCR's
jurisdiction to develop a Mutual Aid Escape Pursuit Plan and
Agreement with local law enforcement agencies. The plan,
together with any supporting information, must be submitted for
annual review to the city council of the city containing, or
nearest to, the institution and to the county board of
supervisors of the county containing the prison. Nothing in
this section requires the CDCR to disclose any information which
may threaten the security of an institution or the safety of the
surrounding community. (Penal Code § 5004.5.)
This bill would require CDCR to establish a statewide policy on
operational procedures for handling threats made by inmates,
wards, or by the family members of inmates and wards, against
CDCR staff.
This bill would require the policy to include methods to ensure
that CDCR staff members are advised of threats made against them
by inmates, wards, or the family members of inmates and wards.
This bill would require that all threats against CDCR staff made
by inmates, wards, or the family members of inmates and wards be
thoroughly investigated.
This bill would require a copy of the statewide policy be made
accessible to members of the public, upon request.
This bill would not prohibit an individual institution within
CDCR from developing a more detailed notification procedure for
AB 293 (Levine ) Page
3 of ?
advising staff members of threats made against them. If an
individual institution has a more detailed policy, the policy
would be required to be accessible to every member of the staff
of the institution.
This bill would require CDCR to provide training on the policy
developed pursuant to this section, as specified.
This bill would take effect immediately.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
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.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
AB 293 (Levine ) Page
4 of ?
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The author states:
Under existing law, there is no requirement that CDCR
develop statewide notification procedures for handling
death threats. Moreover, there is no requirement that
individual institutions have policies. Of the
institutions that do currently have policies, there is
no requirement that those policies are made available
to ensure proper procedure is followed and that
notification occurs and threats are fully
investigated.
The current situation potentially puts the peace
officer, the officer's family, and the officer's
community at risk.
AB 293 seeks to improve safety by creating uniformity
AB 293 (Levine ) Page
5 of ?
among our correctional institutions and consistency
for investigating threats.
2. Effect of This Legislation
There is currently no statewide notification policy for inmate
threats. In fact CDCR's Division of Adult Institutions (DAI)
conducted a survey of its 35 adult institutions. The survey
inquired whether the institutions had established policies and
procedures in place should an inmate threaten an employee,
either verbally or non-verbally. Out of the 35 institutions
surveyed, 28 institutions had various established local policies
and procedures and the remaining seven institutions were
determined not to have localized procedures. According to
supporters, this bill closes the gap between varying policies
and procedures among correctional institutions for investigating
threats against CDCR staff, by creating a statewide policy for
responding to threats made against CDCR staff. The procedure
requires that staff is advised of threats made against them and
that threats are thoroughly investigated.
3. Argument in Opposition
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children states, in part:
While it would be helpful for CDCR to establish
uniform, statewide policies, we feel that the
Legislature could be much more proactive. Rather than
let CDCR draft its own policy, the Legislature should
use its authority to draft one that is sensible and
fair. Letting CDCR draft its own disciplinary
practices overlooks the important mandate that the
Legislature has to govern California's prison system.
Threats made against correctional officers are often
unsubstantiated. In disciplinary hearings, it is often
the officer's word against the inmates. This bill, by
not containing sufficient provisions, would allow
prison officials to use criminal threats as a way of
seeking disciplinary retaliation against California
prisoners. This bill would be improved if it set forth
protections for inmates, such as strict evidentiary
AB 293 (Levine ) Page
6 of ?
criteria in disciplinary hearings and limits on the
type of severity of punishment (if someone is found
guilty). Furthermore, this bill should clearly state
that prisoners cannot be punished or have privileges
taken away if it is found that their family members
threatened a correctional staff member.
-- END --