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 --