BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 507
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
507 (Pavley) - As Amended July 2, 2015
SUMMARY: Allows the prosecutor petitioning for commitment of a
person alleged to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) to access
treatment records reviewed by the expert evaluators.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires an evaluator who is performing an updated evaluation
to include a statement listing all records reviewed to make
that evaluation.
SB 507
Page 2
2)Allows either party to subpoena for a certified copy of the
records. The records shall be provided to both the attorney
petitioning for commitment and the attorney for the SVP.
3)Allows the attorneys to use the records for the SVP
proceedings, but prohibits disclosure for any other purpose.
4)Specifies that the right of any party to object to all or a
portion of a subpoenaed record on grounds of prejudicial
effect outweighing probative value, or on the basis of
materiality to the issue of whether the person is a SVP or to
any other issue to be decided by the court remains unaffected.
5)States that if the objection is sustained in whole or in part,
the record or records shall retain their confidentiality, as
specified.
6)Specifies that this subdivision does not affect the right of a
party to seek other records regarding the SVP.
7)Provides that with the exception created above, the rights of
a SVP to assert that his or her records are confidential are
not affected.
8)States that this bill does not affect the California Supreme
Court's determination of the issue of whether or not an expert
retained by the district attorney in a SVP proceeding is
entitled to review otherwise confidential treatment
information.
EXISTING LAW:
SB 507
Page 3
1)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.)
2)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).)
3)Provides that if evaluators concur that a petition should be
filed to commit a person as a SVP, the Director of the
Department of State Hospitals (DSH) shall forward a request
for a petition for commitment to the pertinent prosecuting
attorney for the county. Copies of the evaluation reports and
any other supporting documentation shall be made available to
that attorney. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subds. (d) &
(h).)
4)States that if the county's designated prosecuting attorney
concurs with the recommendation, then the commitment petition
shall be filed in the county of conviction. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 6601, subd. (i).)
5)Entitles a person alleged to be a SVP to certain rights,
including the right to a jury trial, to the assistance of
counsel, to retain experts or professionals to perform an
examination, and to have access to all relevant medical and
psychological records and reports. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6603, subd. (a).)
6)Allows the prosecutor to obtain updated evaluations of the
alleged SVP if he or she determines they are necessary to
SB 507
Page 4
properly present the case for commitment. The prosecutor may
also obtain replacement evaluations if the original evaluator
is no longer available to testify. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6603, subd. (c).)
7)Specifies that updated or replacement evaluations include
review of available medical and psychological records,
including treatment records, consultation with current
treating clinicians, and interviews with the alleged SVP.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6603, subd. (c).)
8)Permits a person committed as a SVP to be held for an
indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§
6604 & 6604.1.)
9)Requires that a person found to have been a SVP and committed
to the DSH have a current examination on his or her mental
condition made at least yearly. The report shall be in the
form of a declaration. The report must be filed with the
court and also be served on the prosecuting agency involved in
the initial commitment. 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6604.9.)
10) Permits the SVP to retain a qualified expert or
professional person to examine him or her, and the retained
individual shall have access to all records concerning the
SVP. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (a).)
11) Provides that when DSH determines that the person's
condition has so changed that he or she is not likely to
commit acts of predatory sexual violence while under community
treatment and supervision, then the DSH Director shall forward
a report and recommendation for conditional release to the
court, the prosecuting agency, and the attorney of record for
the committed person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6607.)
SB 507
Page 5
12) Establishes a process whereby a person committed as a SVP
can petition for conditional release 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).)
13) Provides that all information and records obtained in the
course of providing services to either a voluntary or
involuntary recipient of services under the Sexually Violent
Predator Act (SVPA) shall be confidential, except under
limited circumstances. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5328.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 507
addresses the need for fair hearings when Sexually Violent
Predators (SVPs) come up for state hospital commitment
reviews. This bill establishes that both prosecuting
attorneys and defense attorneys will have equal access to
mental health treatment records before SVPs are assessed for
their potential release from state's hospitals. A lack of
access to these records can deprive judges and juries of the
information they need to decide whether or not it is safe to
release a violent sex offender from a state hospital. The
records would remain confidential for all purposes other than
the SVP proceedings.
"Under California law, SVPs are those who have been convicted of
a sexually violent offense, such as forcible rape, forcible
sodomy, or child molestation, and who have been determined by
SB 507
Page 6
a judge or jury to be likely to commit a similar offense in
the future due to a diagnosed mental disorder. In these
instances, SVPs are committed to a state hospital.
"In 1996, the Legislature created the Sex Offender Commitment
Program to target a small, but extremely dangerous subset of
sexually violent offenders who present a continuing threat to
society because their diagnosed mental disorders predispose
them to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.
"This can be particularly problematic in SVP cases because the
District Attorney is charged with proving to a unanimous jury,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that a sexual predator currently
has a diagnosed mental disorder which predisposes him to
commit sexually violent crimes, and that he meets the criteria
for indefinite commitment of a state hospital for sex offender
treatment.
"In Albertson v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 796, the
court held that WIC section 6603 granted express authority for
updated evaluations and clarified an exception to the general
rule of confidentiality of treatment records in that it allows
the district attorney "access to treatment record information,
insofar as that information is contained in an updated
evaluation." Some trial courts have interpreted this language
to grant the DA access only to treatment information and not
to the records themselves.
"The court issued this decision immediately after the
Legislature enacted Section 6603 to allow prosecuting
attorneys to request updated evaluations. Section 6603 states
that the updated evaluations shall include a review of medical
and mental health records. It did not explicitly grant access
of the records to prosecutors, nor did it explicitly deny or
limit access either. The Albertson court noted that 'in a
SVPA proceeding, a district attorney may obtain, through
updated mental evaluations otherwise confidential information
concerning an alleged SVP's treatment.'
SB 507
Page 7
"At the present time, whether or not the DA is granted direct
access to the records or whether the DA is only allowed to
access records relied upon by the evaluating psychologists,
depends upon the judge's reading of Albertson. As a result,
the issue is repeatedly litigated and the results vary
throughout California.
"In Seaton vs. Mayberg (2010) 610 P.3rd 530, 539, the Ninth
Circuit court cited that sexually violent predator evaluations
fall within those long established exceptions to the
confidentiality of medical communications. It cited other
public health and public safety requirements overcoming a
right to privacy include cases of restraint due to insanity,
contagious diseases, abuse of children and gunshot wounds. In
People v. Martinez, the 4th District Court of Appeal held
that it is not a violation of the California right to privacy
(Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution) to
provide copies of mental health treatment records to the
prosecutor in an SVP case. People v. Martinez (1994) 88 Cal
App 4th 465.
"Some of California's most violent sexual predators can be
released back into society if complete information is not
available to prosecutors and defense lawyers at the time the
predator's cases are being reviewed. This bill is needed to
help ensure such mistakes are prevented in the future,
providing more peace of mind to already traumatized victims,
their families and the public at large.
"According to the National Intimate Partners and Sexual Violence
Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, there are an estimated two million female victims
of rape in California, and estimated 8.5 million survivors of
sexual violence, other than rape, in the United States.
"There are 20 states that have laws providing for involuntary
civil commitment of sexually violent predators similar to
California's SVP law, in addition to the federal SVP law (the
Adam Walsh Act). California is the only state that does not
SB 507
Page 8
have a specific legislative provision granting prosecutors
access to mental health and medical records for the purpose of
carrying out sexually violent predator commitment law."
2)SVP Law Generally: The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)
establishes an extended civil commitment scheme for sex
offenders who are about to be released from prison, but are
referred to the DSH for treatment in a state hospital because
they have suffered from a mental illness which causes them to
be a danger to the safety of others.
The DSH uses a specified criterion to determine whether or not
an individual qualifies for treatment as a SVP. Under
existing law, a person may be deemed a SVP if: (a) the
defendant has committed specified sex offenses against two or
more victims; (b) the defendant has a diagnosable 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; and, (c) two
licensed psychiatrists or psychologists concur in the
diagnosis. If both clinical evaluators find that the person
meets the criteria, the case is referred to the county
district attorney who may file a petition for civil
commitment.
Once a petition has been filed, a judge holds a probable cause
hearing; and if probable cause is found, the case proceeds to
a trial at which the prosecutor must prove to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offender meets the statutory
criteria. The state must prove "[1] a person who has been
convicted of a sexually violent offense against [at least one]
victim[] and [2] who has a diagnosed mental disorder that [3]
makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others
in that it is likely that he or she will engage in [predatory]
sexually violent criminal behavior." (Cooley v. Superior
Court (Martinez) (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 246.) If the
prosecutor meets this burden, the person is then be civilly
committed to a DSH facility for treatment.
SB 507
Page 9
The DSH must conduct a yearly examination of a SVP's mental
condition and submit an annual report to the court. This
annual review includes an examination by a qualified expert.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a).) In addition, the DSH
has an obligation to seek judicial review any time it believes
a person committed as a SVP no longer meets the criteria, not
just annually. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (f).)
The SVPA was substantially amended by Proposition 83 ("Jessica's
Law") operative on November 7, 2006. Originally, a SVP
commitment was for two years; but now, under Jessica's Law, a
person committed as a SVP may be held for an indeterminate
term upon commitment or until it is shown the defendant no
longer poses a danger to others. (See People v. McKee (2010)
47 Cal. 4th 1172, 1185-1187.) Jessica's Law also amended the
SVPA to make it more difficult for SVPs to petition for less
restrictive alternatives to commitment. These changes have
survived due process, ex post facto, and, more recently, equal
protection challenges. (See People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.
4th 1172; and People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325.)
3)Obtaining Release From Commitment: A person committed as a
SVP may petition the court for conditional release or
unconditional discharge after one year of commitment. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) The petition can be filed
with, or without, the concurrence of the Director of State
Hospitals. The Director's concurrence or lack thereof makes a
difference in the process used.
A SVP can, with the concurrence of the Director of State
Hospitals, petition for unconditional discharge if the patient
"no longer meets the definition of a SVP," or for conditional
release. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (d).) If an
evaluator determines that the person no longer qualifies as a
SVP or that conditional release is in the person's best
interest and conditions can be imposed to adequately protect
the community, but the Director of State Hospitals disagrees
with the recommendation, the Director must nevertheless
authorize the petition. (People v. Landau (2011) 199
SB 507
Page 10
Cal.App.4th 31, 37-39.) When the petition is filed with the
concurrence of the DSH, the court order a show cause hearing.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (f).) If probable cause
is found, the patient thereafter has a right to a jury trial
and is entitled to relief unless the district attorney proves
"beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person's
diagnosed mental disorder remains such that he or she is a
danger to the health and safety of others and is likely to
engage in sexually violent behavior if discharged." (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 6605.)
A committed person may also petition for conditional release or
unconditional discharge notwithstanding the lack of
recommendation or concurrence by the Director of State
Hospitals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) Upon
receipt of this type of petition, the court "shall endeavor
whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it
is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the
petition without a hearing." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608,
subd. (a).) If the petition is not found to be frivolous, the
court is required to hold a hearing. (People v. Smith (2013)
216 Cal.App.4th 947.)
The SVPA does not define the term "frivolous." The courts have
applied the definition of "frivolous" found in Code of Civil
Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (b)(2): "totally and
completely without merit" or "for the sole purpose of
harassing an opposing party." (People v. Reynolds (2010) 181
Cal.App.4th 1402, 1411; see also People v. McKee, supra, 47
Cal.4th 1172; People v. Collins (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 340,
349.) Additionally, in Reynolds, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p.
1407, the court interpreted Welfare and Institutions Code
section 6608 to require the petitioner to allege facts in the
petition that will show he or she is not likely to engage in
sexually-violent criminal behavior due to a diagnosed mental
disorder, without supervision and treatment in the community,
since that is the relief requested.
Once the court sets the hearing on the petition, then the
SB 507
Page 11
petitioner is entitled to both the assistance of counsel, and
the appointment of an expert. (People v. McKee, supra, 47
Cal.4th 1172, 1193.) At the hearing, the person petitioning
for release has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (i); People v.
Rasmuson (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1503.) If the petition
is denied, the SVP may not file a subsequent petition until
one year from the date of the denial. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6608, subd. (h).)
4)Disclosure of Records: Under current law, the prosecuting
attorney can access the mental health records of a person who
is initially referred to a state hospital for a SVP screening.
(See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (d).) The
psychotherapist-patient privilege arguably does not attach
because the consultation is not for purposes of treatment;
rather the person is being examined by a potential adversary's
doctor for the potential adversary's purpose. (See e.g.,
Seaton v. Mayberg (2010) 610 F.3d 530, 540.)
However, once the person is in treatment, Welfare and
Institutions Code section 5328 requires the confidentiality of
all information and records obtained in the course of
providing services to either voluntary or involuntary
recipients of treatment under the SVPA. There are several
limited exceptions to the general rule on the confidentiality
of treatment records. For example, section 5328, subdivision
(f) permits release of information "to the courts, as
necessary to the administration of justice." Similarly,
subdivision (j) permits release "to the attorney for the
patient in any and all proceedings upon presentation of a
release of information signed by the patient."
Additionally, under section 6603, the prosecution may access
"otherwise confidential treatment information ? to the extent
such information is contained in an updated evaluation."
In Albertson v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 796, the
California Supreme Court considered, inter alia, whether the
SB 507
Page 12
legislation amending section 6603, subdivision (c), regarding
updated and replacement evaluations authorized the prosecutor
to obtain access to the SVP's treatment records. The statute
provides in pertinent part: "These updated or replacement
evaluations shall include review of available medical and
psychological records, including treatment records,
consultation with current treating clinicians, and interviews
of the person being evaluated, either voluntarily or by court
order." Relying on legislative history the court held "that
in an SVPA proceeding a local government's designated counsel
(here, the district attorney) may obtain, through updated
mental evaluations, otherwise confidential information
concerning an alleged SVP's treatment." (Id. at p. 805.) The
court referenced letters in opposition to the bill which
raised concerns that the language would compromise
confidentiality, and a recommendation from the Assembly Public
Safety Committee to omit the language mandating the release of
treatment records. (Id. at pp. 806-807.) The court noted
that despite this recommendation, the final version of the
bill left intact the language allowing review of treatment
records. (Id. at p. 807.) The court concluded that the
provision provides an exception to the general rule of
confidentiality of treatment records, and allows the district
attorney access to treatment record information, insofar as
that information is contained in an updated evaluation.
(Ibid.; italics added.)
However, at least one recent appellate court case has
interpreted section 6603 to give prosecutors limited direct
access to such records. See (Gilbert v. Superior Court (2014)
224 Cal.App.4th 367, 382.)
This bill seeks to ensure that the prosecuting attorney has
access to all the records on which the evaluators have based
their evaluations. The most recent amendments to the bill
require an evaluator to list in the evaluation all the records
relied upon. These are the records which will be subject to
disclosure.
SB 507
Page 13
It should be noted that the California Supreme Court recently
granted review in People v. Superior Court (Smith) (Feb. 24,
2015, G050827) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/20/2015
(S225562) and one of the questions it is considering whether
prosecutors pursing recommitment under the SVP statute should
have access to confidential patient-psychotherapist records.
Should the Legislature intervene at this time when the subject
matter addressed by this bill will be decided by the
California Supreme Court?
5)Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege: "Crucial to
psychotherapeutic treatment is a patient's readiness to reveal
his thoughts, dreams, fantasies, sins and shame. It would be
unreasonable to expect a patient to freely participate in such
treatment if he knew that what he said and what the therapist
learned from what he said could all be revealed in court. A
patient in therapy has and needs a justifiable expectation of
confidentiality as to his psychotherapeutic treatment." (In re
Eduardo A. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1042.)
Recently, the California Supreme Court held that in a trial
under the SVPA, admission of defendant's therapy records and
therapist's testimony, under the dangerous patient exception
was erroneous. (People v. Gonzales (2013) 56 Cal.4th 353,
357.) Before the SVP trial, the prosecutor sought to access
the defendant's psychological records compiled during
evaluations and counseling sessions. The trial court granted
access to the records based on the dangerous-patient exception
to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The appellate court
reversed, holding that disclosure was inappropriate and that
the error amounted to a violation of the federal
constitutional right of privacy. The Supreme Court granted
the People's petition for review. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court
agreed that it was erroneous to permit disclosure of the
records under the dangerous-patient exception to the
psychotherapist-patient privilege.
The court stated that, regardless of whether or not it would be
useful or valuable for a district attorney to have access to
SB 507
Page 14
confidential communications made by a SVP in the course of
therapy sessions in order to evaluate his or her mental
condition or potential danger, the usefulness or value of such
information was not a valid basis to eliminate the patient's
right to protect against the disclosure of such
communications. (Id. at p. 374.)
However, the Court did note that the privilege is not absolute
and when a therapist providing treatment to a SVP concludes
that the patient is a danger to himself or others and
disclosure is necessary to prevent the threatened danger,
despite the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the therapist
may testify in an SVP proceeding. (Id. at p. 380.) In this
case, the trial court's conclusion that the dangerous patient
exception applied was based solely on the prosecution's
conclusory offer of proof that the records and testimony of
the therapist would show that the therapist believed appellant
presented a danger, and no actual proof was presented.
Nevertheless, the Court noted that even when some of the
patient's statements in therapy might be subject to disclosure
under the dangerous-patient exception, the rest of the
confidential communications during therapy sessions remain
privileged. (Id. at p. 382.)
6)Argument in Support: The Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office, the sponsor of this bill, states, "Los Angeles courts
have recently refused to provide prosecutors with access to
treatment records necessary to prepare for trial. Given that
SVP cases are based upon the current mental condition of the
offender and given that the district attorney must prove the
People's care to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, this
places the People in an untenable position.
"SB 507 would require that attorneys for both the People and the
SVP be provided copies of records that were reviewed by the
State Department of State Hospital experts as part of the
offender's updated evaluation. Since these experts testify in
the SVP trial, the bill permits records they reviewed as part
of their evaluation to be used for the purpose of that trial.
SB 507
Page 15
However, the records would remain confidential for all other
purposes?.
"In the past, state hospital records were routinely provided to
district attorneys in SVP cases. In the last few years, Los
Angeles courts have denied requests for subpoenas for state
hospital records when requested by the People. A review of
California counties revealed that courts in every other
California county surveyed grant the People access to these
records. Moreover, every one of the 20 states that have
sexually violent predator laws grants prosecutors access to
mental health and medical records for the purpose of carrying
out the law.
"The SVP is entitled to hire his or her own experts, at the
expense of the state. That expert is given full access to the
mental health records. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
cross examine the SVP's expert without knowing what is in the
mental health records.
"Even direct examination of the state hospital evaluators is
difficult as crucial evidence is often left out of their
reports. This is unavoidable given that the evaluator
generally provides only a brief summary of the records he or
she has reviewed as part of the evaluation?."
7)Arguments in Opposition:
a) The California Psychiatric Association (CPA) writes,
"The CPA has concerns that SB 507 would breach the
patient-psychotherapist privilege thereby undermining both
the purposes and effectiveness of therapy. Courts have
ruled, that even though 'the privilege may operate in
particular cases to withhold relevant information, the
interests of society will be better served if psychiatrists
are able to assure patients that their confidences will be
protects (sic).' (People v. Gonzales (2013) 56 Cal.4th
SB 507
Page 16
353, citing California Law Revision Com.) CPA's further
concern is that if enacted SB 507 would not only have
serious adverse effects on its members, other mental health
professionals as well as on the patients they treat, it may
open the door to further incursions into the relationship
between a therapist and their patient.
"The CPA supports current law that provides comprehensive
safeguards requiring and permitting reports to the
authorities from an individual's confidential therapy under
certain delineated circumstances. None allows direct
disclosure of the record themselves. The precedent SB 507
would set were it to be enacted may threaten to broaden out
those exceptions in carefully crafted current law and could
potentially allow direct disclosure in those laws."
b) The California Public Defenders Association states,
"Under existing law, individuals subject to Welfare &
Institutions Code section 6603 are Pretrial Detainees.
They have not been committed under the SVPA. They are
being held on probable cause pending trial.
"Under existing practice, many of these Pretrial Detainee
Individuals have been given the opportunity for the first
time and have successfully participated in sex offender
treatment at Coalinga State Hospital. Some of these
Pretrial Detainees have completed years of sex offender
treatment at Coalinga which entailed undergoing a course of
incredibly invasive treatment, where they were expected to
speak openly, in a group setting, about their most painful
childhood experiences, their most shameful thoughts,
fantasies and actions, and their plans for relapse
prevention when released. Most, if not, all of them were
never given the option of participating in a comprehensive
intensive sex offender treatment program before because,
with the exception of a small pilot program, sex offender
treatment has not been available in California prisons for
decades. If sex offender treatment had been offered in
prison, many of these Pretrial Detainees Individuals would
SB 507
Page 17
never have been held under the SVPA.
"When the prosecution requests updated evaluations pursuant
to Welfare & Institutions Code section 6603, the
independent and state evaluators are obligated to determine
whether the Pretrial Detainees are currently dangerous. If
the Pretrial Detainee is infirm, significantly older or has
successfully completed many years of sex offender
treatment, the state and independent mental health
professionals may find that the Pretrial Detainee does not
currently meet the criteria for commitment under the SVPA.
The evaluators' conclusions are grounded in evidence based
research. The evaluators are trained by the Department of
State Hospitals and adhere to the protocol promulgated by
the Department.
"SB 507 would give district attorneys access to the Pretrial
Detainees' mental health records so that they could "second
guess" the Department of State Hospitals mental health
professionals thus allowing the district attorneys to
supplant the Department's evidence based judgment with
their own non-scientific judgment about an individual
Pretrial Detainee's future dangerousness. This is a
slippery slope which trends away from a civil commitment
scheme based on independent expert opinion toward further
incarceration for past crimes."
c) According to the ACLU, "We appreciate that the bill has
been amended to make clear that it is not intended to
impact the issue of prosecutor's use of expert witnesses in
SVP proceedings, now before the California Supreme Court in
the case of People v. Superior Court (Smith) (Docket No.
S225562). This has been one of our concerns about the bill.
"The Smith case will also address the issue that is the core
of SB 507: whether prosecutors pursing recommitment under
the SVP statute should have access to confidential
patient-psychotherapist records. We believe that the
Legislature should wait until the court has ruled on this
SB 507
Page 18
issue before changing the current rules.
"We remain concerned that SB 507 invades the confidential
nature of the patient-therapist relationship, as discussed
in People v. Gonzales (2013) 56 Cal.4th 353. Giving the
prosecution complete and unfettered access to the patient's
treatment records would make it even more difficult for the
patient to share honestly and openly with the therapist
and, ultimately, make it more difficult to treat these
individuals."
8)Related Legislation: AB 262 (Lackey) places additional
residency restrictions on SVP's conditionally released for
community outpatient treatment. AB 262 failed passage in this
committee and granted reconsideration.
9)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 295 (Emmerson), Chapter 182, Statutes of 2013,
revised the procedures to be used by the courts for SVP
petitions, whether with or without DSH concurrence, for
conditional release and unconditional discharge.
b) Proposition 83 ("Jessica's Law"), operative on November
7, 2006, and SB 1128 (Alquist), Chapter 337, Statutes of
2006, made numerous changes to sex offender and SVP law,
including making commitment terms indefinite.
c) SB 2018 (Schiff), Chapter 420, Statutes of 2000, allows
the prosecutor to obtain updated or replacement
evaluations.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 507
Page 19
Support
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Sponsor)
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
Crime Victims United of California
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Psychiatric Association
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Analysis Prepared by:Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916)
SB 507
Page 20
319-3744