BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 920
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
920 (Gipson) - As Amended April 23, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill allows a victim, next of kin, or victim's attorney to
obtain a copy of the packet prepared by the parole board for
purposes of a parole-suitability hearing. Specifically, this
bill:
AB 920
Page 2
1)Authorizes the victim, victim's next of kin, or victim's
attorney to request a copy of the parole board packet.
2)Requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to provide the
packet, if requested, at the same time that the information is
given to the district attorney.
3)Requires the BPH to redact any confidential information in the
board packet before providing it to the victim, or the
victim's attorney.
4)Allows the victim or next of kin to submit relevant documents
related to any subject about which they have a right to be
heard, including recommendations regarding the grant of
parole.
5)States that any other information possessed by the victim or
next of kin which is not contained in the board packet shall
be submitted in writing to BPH no later than 10 days before
the hearing.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Ongoing costs to the BPH will be in the range of $200,000 (GF)
for additional staff to incorporate and consider documentation
submitted by victims or next of kin in approximately 1,600
hearings.
2)Since the entire inmates' parole packet is confidential, this
bill requires BPH to make a hard copy of the 50-60 page parole
board packet to then cross out 99 percent of the information
in the packet. This unnecessary ongoing cost to the BPH will
be in the $50,000 (GF) for a half-time position.
COMMENTS:
AB 920
Page 3
1)Purpose. According to the author, "Our justice system is
based on principles of fair treatment and equal rights.
However, when the victim of a crime is not allowed access to
information relevant to the parole hearing of their assailant,
which is provided to the inmate's attorney seeking release,
there is not equality for both sides. AB 920 addresses this
disparate treatment by requiring that an attorney designated
by a crime victim or their next of kin is granted the same
rights to discovery as the inmate's attorney and district
attorney during a parole hearing."
2)Background. On November 4, 2008, the voters approved
Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008:
Marsy's Law. This measure amended the California Constitution
to provide additional rights to crime victims. In pertinent
part, for purposes of this bill, the initiative allows a
victim "[t]o be informed, upon request, of the conviction,
sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other
disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of
the defendant, and the release of or the escape by the
defendant from custody.
Marsy's Law also increased victims' rights with regards to
lifer parole-suitability hearings. Specifically, it did the
following:
Expanded the definition of "victim" related to
who can attend a hearing;
Allowed victims to attend hearings without
being questioned by the prisoner or the prisoner's
attorney;
Required the BPH to consider all of the
victim's statements when determining whether to
AB 920
Page 4
release a prisoner on parole;
Required the BPH, upon request, to send notice
to victims and victim's next of kin if the victim
died, 90 days prior to any hearing to review or
consider the parole suitability or the setting of a
parole date; and to confirm the date, time and place
of the hearing no later than 14 days prior to the
hearing date;
Expanded the scope of persons allowed to act
as victim representatives at parole hearings, and
allows representatives to make a statement even when
the victim, or victim's next of kin, also makes a
statement;
Permitted victims to have notice and to submit
written statements concerning a prisoner's request for
advancement of his/her hearing date;
Allowed victims, victim's next of kin and
their representatives to make statements which
reasonably express their views concerning the
prisoner, including, but not limited to the crimes
committed, the effect of the crimes on the victim and
the victim's family, and the prisoner's suitability
for parole.
This bill would expand the rights of victims at parole
suitability hearings by allowing the victim, next of kin, or
victim's attorney access to the information given to the
inmate's attorney and the district attorney. The bill also
allows the victim or next of kin to submit relevant documents
pertaining to any subject about which the victim has a right
to be heard.
1)Argument in Support: According to Crime Victims United of
AB 920
Page 5
California, the sponsor of this bill, "AB 920 seeks to better
inform the victim, victim's next of kin or victim's attorney
as they prepare to speak at a parole hearing by providing them
with the same information provided to the inmate's attorney
and district attorney that will ultimate make the case for or
against parole of that inmate."
2)Argument in Opposition: The Law Offices of Rosen Bien Galvan
& Grunfeld writes, "We oppose Assembly Bill 920 because it
would cause disclosure of confidential medical and mental
health information protected by federal law to the victim or
the victim's next of kin. The board packet contains
significant information protected by state and federal privacy
statutes, including but not limited to the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
In addition, we do not believe it would be possible for the
Board to accurately sort through the documents in the packet
and to redact confidential medical information in a manner
that would resolve these privacy claims. The recent amendment
regarding redaction of confidential information does not
address this problem, as it does not define confidential
information, leaving the Board free to apply the customary
standard in corrections, which limits confidential information
to information that would reveal the identity of a
confidential informant or otherwise endanger the safety of
persons within the institution. This standard does nothing to
protect confidential mental health and medical information.
"The current life process already gives victims and victims'
families significant opportunities to influence the Board's
decision making, and the new law's provisions are not
necessary to permit victims and victims' next of kin to fully
and meaningfully participate in the process.
AB 920
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081