BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1906 Hearing Date: May 10, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Melendez |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 11, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Mental Health: Sexually Violent Predators
HISTORY
Source: California District Attorneys Association
Prior Legislation:SB 507 (Pavley) - Ch. 576, Stats. 2015
AB 1607 (Fox) - Ch. 877, Stats. 2014
SB 295 (Emmerson) - Ch. 182, Stats. 2013
SB 760 (Alquist) - Ch. 790, Stats. 2012
Proposition 83, November 2006 General Election
SB 1128 (Alquist) - Ch. 337, Stats. 2006
AB 893 (Horton) - Ch. 162, Stats. 2005
AB 2450 (Canciamilla) - Ch. 425, Stats. 2004
AB 493 (Salinas) - Ch. 222, Stats. 2004
SB 659 (Correa) - Ch. 248, Stats. 2001
AB 1142 (Runner) - Ch. 323, Stats. 2001
SB 2018 (Schiff) - Ch. 420, Stats. 2000
SB 451 (Schiff) - Ch. 41, Stats. 2000
AB 2849 (Havice) - Ch. 643, Stats. 2000
SB 746 (Schiff) - Ch. 995, Stats. 1999
SB 11 (Schiff) - Ch. 136, Stats. 1999
SB 1976 (Mountjoy) - Ch. 961, Stats. 1998
AB 888 (Rogan) - Ch. 763, Stats. 1995
SB 1143 (Mountjoy) - Ch. 764, Stats. 1995
AB 888 (Rogan) - Ch. 763, Stats. of 1995
SB 1143 (Mountjoy) - Ch. 764, Stats. of 1995
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
2 of ?
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 74 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the Department of State
Hospitals (DSH) to request that a district attorney file a
petition for commitment of a person as a sexually violent
predator (SVP) within 20 days of the determination by DSH that
the person meets the criteria for commitment as an SVP.
Current law provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric
and psychological treatment of a prison inmate found to be a SVP
after the person has served his or her prison commitment.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq.)
Current law defines a "sexually violent predator" as "a person
who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against at
least one victim, and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that
makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in
that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent
criminal behavior." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)
Current law permits a person committed as a SVP to be held for
an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6604.1.)
Current law requires that a person found to have been a SVP and
committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) have a
current examination on his or her mental condition made at least
yearly. The report shall include consideration of conditional
release to a less restrictive alternative or an unconditional
release is in the best interest of the person and also what
conditions can be imposed to adequately protect the community.
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
3 of ?
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9.)
Current law allows a SVP to seek conditional release with the
authorization of the DSH Director when DSH determines that the
person's condition has so changed that he or she no longer meets
the SVP criteria, or when conditional release is in the person's
best interest and conditions to adequately protect the public
can be imposed. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6607.)
Current law allows a person committed as a SVP to petition for
conditional release or an unconditional discharge any time after
one year of commitment, notwithstanding the lack of
recommendation or concurrence by the Director of DSH. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).)
Current law provides that, if the court deems the conditional
release petition not frivolous, the court is to give notice of
the hearing date to the attorney designated to represent the
county of commitment, the retained or appointed attorney for the
committed person, and the Director of State Hospitals at least
30 court days before the hearing date. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6608, subd. (b).)
Current law requires the court to first obtain the written
recommendation of the director of the treatment facility before
taking any action on the petition for conditional release if the
is made without the consent of the director of the treatment
facility. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (c).)
Current law provides that the court shall hold a hearing to
determine whether the person committed would be a danger to the
health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she
will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to his or
her diagnosed mental disorder if under supervision and treatment
in the community. Current law further provides that the attorney
designated the county of commitment shall represent the state
and have the committed person evaluated by experts chosen by the
state and that the committed person shall have the right to the
appointment of experts, if he or she so requests. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (e).)
Current law requires the court to order the committed person
placed with an appropriate forensic conditional release program
operated by the state for one year if the court at the hearing
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
4 of ?
determines that the committed person would not be a danger to
others due to his or her diagnosed mental disorder while under
supervision and treatment in the community. Current law further
requires a substantial portion of the state-operated forensic
conditional release program to include outpatient supervision
and treatment. Provides that the court retains jurisdiction of
the person throughout the course of the program. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 6608, subd. (e).)
Current law provides that if the court denies the petition to
place the person in an appropriate forensic conditional release
program, the person may not file a new application until one
year has elapsed from the date of the denial. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 6608, subd. (h)
Current law allows, after a minimum of one year on conditional
release, the committed person, with or without the
recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State
Hospitals, to petition the court for unconditional discharge, as
specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (k).)
This bill requires the Director of DSH to forward a request to a
county that a petition be filed for a person to be committed to
DSH for SVP treatment no later than 20 calendar days prior to
the scheduled release date of the person.
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;
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
5 of ?
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
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.
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
6 of ?
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
When the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings
(BPH) determine that an individual in custody may be
an SVP, based on their commitment offense and a review
of their social, criminal, and institutional history,
the individual is referred to the DSH for a full SVP
evaluation. Following that evaluation, if DSH
determines that the individual is an SVP, the Director
of DSH is required to request that the District
Attorney or County Counsel in the county in which the
person was convicted file a petition for commitment.
The filing of that petition begins a civil commitment
process, which can lead to the individual being
confined at Coalinga State Hospital to receive
treatment until it is determined that they no longer
pose a risk of re-offense.
The SVP Act contains a statutory timeline for each
step of the evaluation process, as well as time limits
for the filing of the petition and certain court
proceedings. It does not, however, contain a time
frame for the submission of the request for the filing
of a petition to the DA or County Counsel. Because of
this, DSH often submits filing materials less than 48
hours before the release of an inmate who has already
been determined to qualify as an SVP. The result of
these late requests is that the prosecuting agency
bears the burden of filing a case and transporting a
defendant at the last minute, at an enormous cost and
use of resources. The better and long accepted
operating practice is for DSH to submit the filing in
time for the DA to be able to meaningfully review the
request, file the petition, and arrange for
transportation of the alleged SVP to the county where
trial will be held. In at least one instance in Los
Angeles County, the filing request was submitted too
late for the filing of a petition. In several
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
7 of ?
instances, the supporting documents that are necessary
for the filing of a petition were not certified and
there was little to no time to correct this egregious
error by DSH.
The simple solution to this problem is to create a
statutory requirement that DSH submit the request for
the filing of a petition no fewer than 20 days prior
to the release of a person determined to be an SVP.
This provides the attorneys with time to meaningfully
review and prepare a petition, and protects public
safety by helping to ensure that nobody slips through
the cracks due to a last minute filing request.
2.Previous SVP Law Amendments
The SVP law was enacted in 1995 in response to concerns
that dangerous sex offenders were being released into the
community after they served determinate sentences in
prison. The law is especially complicated. There are
numerous steps and entities involved in the process of
assessing and committing a person to DSH as an SVP. The
law has been frequently amended to prevent or forestall
release of an alleged or committed SVP due to some problem
or anomaly arising from the complexity of process. For
example, the law was amended by two separate urgency bills
in the 1999-2000 legislative session. One bill allowed
CDCR to hold a potential SVP 45 days past his parole
release date so that DSH experts could complete required
SVP evaluations. The other bill allowed commitment
proceedings to proceed despite a mistake in law or fact by
CDCR as to application of parole rules. In 2015, the law
was amended to give prosecutors access to material relied
upon by evaluators in producing updated evaluations of
alleged SVPs. Other amendments from 1999 through 2015 have
concerned notice requirements to communities where an SVP
will be released and virtually every other aspect of the
law.
-- END -
AB 1906 (Melendez ) Page
8 of ?