BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1703 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Santiago |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |January 25, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Inmates: Medical Treatment
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: American Civil Liberties Union; California Peace
Officers' Association; California Public Defenders
Association; California State Association of Counties;
California State Sheriffs' Association; Legal Services
with Prisoners with Children; Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office; Orange County Board of
Supervisors; Urban Counties of California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand the definition of
"immediate medical or hospital care" to include critical
specialty medical procedures or treatment, such as dialysis,
which cannot be performed at a city or county jail.
AB 1703 (Santiago ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law specifies that the court may order the removal of
an inmate from a city or county jail to the county hospital or
if there is no county hospital in such county, to any hospital
designated by such court when the judge finds that a prisoner in
any city or county jail requires medical treatment necessitating
hospitalization that cannot be provided at the jail. And,
existing law requires the sheriff or other official in charge of
county correctional facilities to maintain the necessary guards,
who may be private security guards, for the safekeeping of a
prisoner at an outside medical facility. (Penal Code 4011(a).)
Existing law specifies that the cost of outside medical services
will be charged against the county or the city responsible for
the jail, and the city or county may recover the costs from the
person receiving medical services, or any person or agency
responsible for his care and maintenance. (Penal Code §
4011(b).)
Existing law provides that when a prisoner is indigent, the cost
of outside medical services will be paid out of the general fund
of the city or county. And, under existing law, in the case of
city jail prisoners removed to the county hospital, the cost of
such hospital care will be paid by the city to the county, at a
rate per day fixed by the board of supervisors of the county to
approximate the average actual cost to the county of such
hospital care. (Penal Code § 4011(c).)
Existing law provides that a prisoner who is financially able to
pay for his medical care, the medical superintendent of such
hospital other than a county hospital may, with the approval of
a judge, enter into a special agreement with such person, or
with his relatives or friends, for his medical expenses.
Current law, additionally, states that any prisoner may decline
care or treatment and provide other care and treatment for
himself at his own expense. (Penal Code § 4011(d).)
Existing law provides that whenever it appears to a sheriff or
jailer that a prisoner in a jail under his or her charge is in
need of "immediate medical or hospital care," and that the
health and welfare of the prisoner will be injuriously affected
unless the prisoner is taken to a hospital, the sheriff or
jailer may authorize the immediate removal of the prisoner under
guard to a hospital, without first obtaining a court order as
AB 1703 (Santiago ) Page
3 of ?
specified. (Penal Code § 4011.5.)
Existing law requires the sheriff or jailer to apply to a judge
for an order authorizing the continued absence of the prisoner
from the jail when the condition of the prisoner prevents his
return to the jail within 48-hours from the time of his removal
for medical treatment. (Penal Code § 4011.5.)
This bill expands the definition of "immediate medical or
hospital care" to include critical specialty medical procedures
or treatment, such as dialysis, which cannot be furnished,
performed, or supplied at a city or county jail.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several 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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 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).) One
AB 1703 (Santiago ) Page
4 of ?
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 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 must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
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
According to the author:
This is an important bill that seeks to ensure that
individuals who are detained in jails are able to access
critical specialty medical procedures and treatment without
adverse delay and without undue burden to the courts. It
will expedite the transport process for these inmates by
AB 1703 (Santiago ) Page
5 of ?
extending the definition of immediate medical care to
include critical specialty medical procedures or treatment
such as dialysis, which will result in reducing the burden
on the courts and law enforcement for repetitive court
orders.
2.Effect of This Bill
According to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC),
the number of offenders in county jail, as well as the length of
their sentences, has increased. Specifically, PPIC states:
Our data indicates that realignment has significantly affected
county jail populations. Between June 2011 and June 2012, during
which time California's prison population declined by roughly
26,600, the average daily population of California's jails grew
by about 8,600 inmates, or about 12 percent. (Impact of
Realignment on County Jail Populations, PPIC, Magnus Lofstrom
and Louis Raphael, 2013, p. 2.)
PPIC's further notes the impact that realignment has had on the
number of inmates now serving extended sentences in county
jails:
Before realignment, the maximum stay in county jail was one
year. Now that lower-level felons go to county jail, this
practice has changed-there is no limit on the amount of time
these offenders can serve. As of early 2014, county jails
housed 1,761 inmates serving sentences of more than five
years-up 606 from 2013.
(http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1061)
According to the author, this has led to an increase in
long-term medical issues faced by inmates, as well as an
increase in the processes and procedures sheriffs and jailers
must undergo to address them. To this end, this legislation
would, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of
California, who is in support of this legislation, "ease
workloads for courts that currently issue separate removal
orders for each individual transported from a jail to a
necessary medical service, and will simplify the medical
AB 1703 (Santiago ) Page
6 of ?
transportation process for jail personnel."
-- END -