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