BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SB 722|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                        VETO 


          Bill No:  SB 722
          Author:   Bates (R), et al.
          Amended:  8/31/15  
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:  7-0, 4/28/15
           AYES:  Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:  7-0, 5/28/15
           AYES:  Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

           SENATE FLOOR:  40-0, 6/2/15
           AYES:  Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,  
            Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,  
            Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,  
            Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,  
            Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner,  
            Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

           SENATE FLOOR:  40-0, 9/3/15
           AYES:  Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,  
            Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,  
            Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,  
            Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,  
            Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner,  
            Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  77-1, 9/2/15 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Sex offenders: GPS monitoring: removal


          SOURCE:    Author










                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  2



          DIGEST:  This bill makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment  
          in the state prison, as specified, for a person to willfully  
          remove or disable, or permit another person to remove or  
          disable, an electronic, global positioning system (GPS), or  
          other monitoring device, if the device was affixed as a  
          condition of parole, postrelease community supervision (PRCS),  
          or probation as a result of a conviction for specified sex  
          offenses, and if specified criteria are met.


          ANALYSIS:   


          Existing law:

          1) Authorizes, generally, the use of electronic monitoring or  
            GPS devices in the criminal justice system, as specified.

          2) Provides, generally, that removing or otherwise defeating the  
            operation of a GPS device is a violation of parole or  
            probation, or subject to return to custody from an alternative  
            custody program.

          3) Provides that parolees who are registered sex offenders and  
            are required to have a GPS device as a condition of parole  
            shall be subject to parole revocation and incarcerated in a  
            county jail for 180 days if they remove or otherwise disable  
            the device, as specified. (Penal Code § 3010.10.)

          4) Includes an enhanced sentencing structure that applies to  
            crimes of rape, oral copulation, sodomy, and sexual  
            penetration committed by force, duress or threats; lewd  
            conduct with a child under the age of 14 and continuous sexual  
            abuse of a child which, depending on the number and kinds of  
            aggravating factors attendant to the crime, require a term of  
            15 or 25-years-to-life, or life without parole for specified  
            crimes against a minor. (Pen. Code § 667.61.)

          This bill:

          1) Makes it a felony for a person to willfully remove or  
            disable, or permit another person to remove or disable, an  








                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  3



            electronic, GPS, or other monitoring device affixed to his or  
            her person, if the device was affixed as a condition of  
            parole, PRCS, or probation as a result of a conviction of a  
            specified sex offense, if the person intended to evade  
            supervision and either does not surrender, or is not  
            apprehended, within one week of the issuance of a warrant for  
            absconding.

          2) Provides that the felony is punishable by imprisonment in the  
            state prison for 16 months, or two or three years.

          3) Excludes the removal or disabling of a monitoring device by a  
            physician, emergency medical services technician, or by any  
            other emergency response or medical personnel when doing so is  
            necessary during the course of medical treatment of the person  
            subject to the device. 

          4) Provides that the bill's provisions do not apply if the  
            removal or disabling of the device is authorized or required  
            by a court, by law enforcement, or by any other entity that is  
            responsible for placing the device upon the person or that has  
            the authority and responsibility to monitor the device.

          5) Requires the terms of probation or parole for a person who  
            commits a violation of the bill's provision must include  
            participation and completion of a sex offender management  
            program.

          Background
          
          In October of 2014 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)  
          issued a report entitled, Special Review: Assessment of  
          Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact  
          of Residency Restrictions. This review, conducted at the request  
          of the Senate Rules Committee, included the following  
          observations:

          1) There exists little objective evidence to determine to what  
            extent, if any, GPS tracking is a crime deterrent, although a  
            small 2012 study funded by the National Institute of Justice  
            of 516 high-risk sex offenders found that offenders who were  
            not subjected to GPS monitoring had nearly three times more  








                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  4



            sex-related parole violations than those who were monitored by  
            GPS technology.  Despite the rarity of studies defending GPS  
            as a crime deterrent, the OIG's interviews with parole agents  
            and local law enforcement personnel found that they value GPS  
            technology as a tool for its ability to locate parolees, track  
            their movements, and provide valuable information in solving  
            crimes.

          2) GPS technology adds to parole agents' workloads in certain  
            aspects, while affording time-savings in others. For example,  
            agents spend approximately two hours reviewing and analyzing  
            parolees' tracks for a single-day period. On the other hand,  
            GPS facilitates mandatory face-to-face contacts between parole  
            agents and parolees by allowing the agent to locate parolees  
            more quickly than might be the case in locating a non-GPS  
            parolee.

          3) Over 60 percent of parole agents who supervise sex-offender  
            parolees have caseloads exceeding established departmental  
            ratios (parolee-to-agent) when taking into consideration the  
            mix of high-risk vs low-risk parolees per caseload. In  
            addition, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation  
            (CDCR) has a disparity of caseloads across its parole units,  
            with 14 of the 37 parole units that supervise sex offenders  
            reporting caseload sizes exceeding the CDCR's established  
            ratios for all agents assigned to those units. Simultaneously,  
            five other parole units report caseload sizes below the  
            department's established ratios for all of their parole  
            agents.

          The OIG also presented data over the five years prior to the  
          report demonstrating that "transient sex offenders have  
          committed a majority of parole violations among parolee sex  
          offenders over the five year period. In fact, in the most  
          recently completed fiscal year (2013-14), over 76 percent of the  
          sex offender parolees whom the department charged with violating  
          their parole terms were transient. . . . According to the  
          parole administrators the OIG talked to, there are various  
          reasons transient sex offenders violate the conditions of their  
          parole more often than those with a residence. Among the reasons  
          voiced were increased prevalence of mental health issues, lack  
          of a stable support network, increased exposure to drugs and  








                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  5



          prostitution on the streets, and challenges finding employment."

          Last session, the Legislature enacted SB 57 (Lieu, Chapter 776,  
          Statutes of 2013), which originally sought to enact a new felony  
          for felons being supervised in the community - either on PPCS --  
          who willfully defeated their GPS/electronic monitoring. That  
          bill was amended to impose the mandatory jail term now reflected  
          in existing law.

          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No         Fiscal  
          Com.:YesLocal:   Yes

          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 

          1)               Potential moderate ongoing cost in excess the  
            $500,000 (GF) to CDCR for additional state prison commitments.  
            According CDCR records, approximately 1,200 inmates, in state  
            prison for the qualifying crimes, were release onto parole in  
            a 12-month period. The annual contract bed rate is $29,000, if  
            each year 10 parolees, less than one percent, were sentenced  
            to two years for disabling their GPS, the first-year costs  
            would be $290,000, and the ongoing cost would be $580,000. 

          2)               Potential increase cost to CDCR, and  
            nonreimbursable county probation costs, for additional persons  
            required to participate in and complete a sex offender  
            management program. 

          3)               Potential decrease in local incarceration costs  
            if individuals subject to parole revocation are charged with  
            the state prison felony instead.


          SUPPORT:   (Verified10/27/15)


          California District Attorneys Association
          California State Sheriffs' Association
          Crime Victims United of California
          Office of the San Diego District Attorney
          Orange County Board of Supervisors
          Orange County District Attorney's Office








                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  6



          Orange County Sheriff's Department
          Peace Officers Research Association of California


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified10/27/15)


          American Civil Liberties Union
          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
          California Public Defenders Association
          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children 


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:     The author states in part: 


               SB 722 is needed in order to send the message to  
               convicted sex offenders that cutting off or altering  
               their ankle bracelet is a serious offense and will not  
               be taken lightly. The two men mentioned earlier are  
               known to have re-offended on two different occasions.  
               When they first cut off their devices and fled to  
               Nevada, they should have been prosecuted with more  
               than just a short few months in county jail as this  
               was a deliberate attempt to run from law enforcement.  
               Additionally, the offenses listed in SB 722  
               deliberately spell out the most serious, egregious sex  
               crimes. These offenses are rape, spousal rape, sexual  
               penetration, lewd or lascivious acts and children,  
               sodomy, oral copulation, and continuous sexual abuse  
               of a child. SB 722 is needed today more than ever to  
               ensure that justice is being served to those that defy  
               law enforcement.


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:     California Attorneys for Criminal  
          Justice, which opposes this bill, submits in part: 


               In the last two legislative sessions, our laws have  
               been changed to provide certain oversight on tracked  
               sex offenders. However, there has been insufficient  








                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  7



               time to evaluation whether the implementation of this  
               new law has proven to be effective at deterring  
               persons from disabling or removing their GPS devices.  
               Notwithstanding these laws, sending a person back to  
               prison for a minor offense does not address the root  
               SB 722 Page 6 issues of persons being ill-prepared to  
               reenter their communities upon release, The enormous  
               cost of incarceration and parole revocations for even  
               minor offenders continue to contribute to budget  
               constraints and fuel public cries for fiscal reform.


          GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:


               I am returning the following nine bills without my  
               signature:

               Assembly Bill 144
               Assembly Bill 849
               Senate Bill 168
               Senate Bill 170
               Senate Bill 271
               Senate Bill 333
               Senate Bill 347
               Senate Bill 716
               Senate Bill 722

               Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by  
               finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct  
               that is already proscribed. This multiplication and  
               particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing  
               complexity without commensurate benefit.

               Over the last several decades, California's criminal code  
               has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering  
               almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During  
               the same period, our jail and prison populations have  
               exploded.

               Before we keep going down this road, I think we should  
               pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice  








                                                                     SB 722  
                                                                    Page  8



               could be made more human, more just and more  
               cost-effective.

          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  77-1, 9/2/15
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,  
            Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,  
            Daly, Dodd, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,  
            Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,  
            Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,  
            Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,  
            Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,  
            Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea, Rendon,  
            Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark  
            Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,  
            Wood, Atkins
          NOES:  Quirk
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Eggman, Patterson


          Prepared by:Alison Anderson / PUB. S. / 
          11/4/15 13:34:15


                                   ****  END  ****