BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1976
Date of Hearing: August 5, 1998
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Carole Migden, Chairwoman
SB 1976 (Mountjoy) - As Amended: 7/30/98
Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 8 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY
This bill makes a series of changes and clarifications to the
Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Law. Specifically, this bill :
1. Provides that the Atascadero State Hospital be used to house
SVPs - until a permanent housing and treatment facility is
available.
2. Limits the Department of Mental Health (DMH) to sending 10
referrals for SVP probable cause hearings to any county in a
30-day period except upon agreement of the presiding judge of
the court, the district attorney (DA), the public defender, the
sheriff, and the DMH Director.
3. Requires the county-designated attorney to notify the DMH of
its decision regarding the filing of a petition for commitment
within 15 days of its decision, and requires the court to
forward a copy of the order to DMH within 15 days of its
decision.
4. Extends the sunset - enacted April 14, 1998 - that provides the
two-year commitment under the SVP statutes begins on the date
the court issues the initial order of commitment, and is not
reduced by any time spent in a secure facility prior to the
order of commitment, until July 1, 2001.
5. Expands reporting requirements to provide that when DMH makes a
recommendation to the court concerning the release or
commitment of a SVP, it must provide law enforcement specified
information 15 days in advance.
6. Provides that when DMH recommends re-commitment, not to pursue
re-commitment, or seeks a judicial review of commitment of any
person committed as a SVP, it must provide written notice of
that action to law enforcement.
- continued
-
SB 1976
Page 1
SB 1976
FISCAL EFFECT
1. Minor absorbable costs to DMH for increased notification
requirements.
2. Minor reimbursable local costs for increased notification
requirements.
3. The proposed budget includes $5.4 million for site surveys for
a permanent facility to house SVPs.
BACKGROUND
1. Rationale . This bill is presented as a cleanup measure to SVP
legislation. As amended by the Assembly Public Safety
Committee, that presentation is warranted.
2. Author's statement . "Current law does not provide for the
advance notification to the DMH of the results of the civil
commitment proceedings held on SVP. Without advance
notification, DMH is unable to properly plan for sufficient
staffing, treatment and housing needs for individuals ordered
by the court to the state hospital.... The amendments would
provide DMH with up-to-date information concerning the results
of probable cause deliberations and hearings for SVPs, as well
as related court actions."
3. Cleanup bills continue . Since enactment of the SVP program by
(AB 888, Rogan, 1996), the Legislature has enacted at least
five major cleanup bills to address program deficiencies, and
the constitutionality of the program remains before the courts.
The most recent law, SB 536 (Mountjoy, 1998), took effect just
three months ago.
Possible amendment . The Assembly Public Safety Committee
analysis suggestion that the Legislature direct the Judicial
Council to evaluate the ongoing procedural problems with the
SVP program is sound and could be amended into this bill.
4. The SVP law created a new judicial commitment for individuals
known as SVPs. A SVP is defined as a person convicted of a
specified sexually violent offense, against two or more victims
for which he or she received a determinate sentence. A SVP must
have a diagnosable mental disorder that makes the person a
danger to others.
SVP commitments may be sought only for Department of
Corrections (CDC) inmates. At least six months before the
release of a person under its jurisdiction, the CDC must refer
the SVP candidate for screening by the CDC and the Board of
- continued
-
SB 1976
Page 2
SB 1976
Prison Terms (BPT). If the CDC and BPT find the person a
likely SVP, that person is referred for a full DMH evaluation.
If two mental health professionals agree that the prisoner is a
SVP, the DMH must forward a request for the filing of a
petition for commitment to the DA or county counsel.
After a petition for a SVP commitment is filed, a superior
court judge conducts a probable cause hearing at which the
inmate is represented by an attorney. If probable cause is
found that the person is a SVP, the judge orders a trial, if
not, the petition is dismissed.
If determined a SVP, the person is committed by the court to
DMH for two years. Subsequent commitments may be sought for as
long as the SVP criteria are met. Theoretically, commitments
could continue without end. A person committed as an SVP has
the right to an annual review of his or her mental condition,
including the assistance of a qualified expert.
Until January 1, 1999, the two-year SVP term begins on the date
the court issues the initial order of commitment and is not
reduced by any time spent in a secure facility prior to the
order of commitment . For subsequent commitments, the term is
from the date of termination of the previous commitment.
5. L.A. backlog . L.A. County has a backlog of about 100 cases
awaiting probable cause hearings. In these cases the defendants
waive their time, pending the outcome of litigation concerning
the constitutionality of the SVP law, and receive no treatment.
The L.A. DA, Public Defender, and Sheriff are concerned that a
sudden influx of 100 SVP candidates would create a chaotic
situation for jail and court administration. Amendments
referenced in Summary point #2 have addressed L.A.'s concerns.
6. Treatment vs. punishment . The SVP law specifies treatment, not
punishment. This point is crucial to the issue of whether the
SVP statute is constitutional. Defendants argue the law is a
veiled attempt to extend incarceration and violates the ex post
facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. This issue is currently
before the California Supreme Court.
- continued
-
SB 1976
Page 3