BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1369
PageA
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2009
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 1369 (Davis) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUMMARY : Removes the requirement that inmates subject to the
involuntary home detention program be misdemeanor inmates.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon
determination by the correctional administrator that
conditions in a jail facility warrant the necessity of
releasing sentenced inmates prior to them serving the full
amount of a given sentence due to lack of jail space, the
board of supervisors of any county may authorize the
correctional administrator to offer a program under which
inmates committed to a county jail or other county
correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates
participating in a work furlough program, may be required to
participate in an involuntary home detention program, which
shall include electronic monitoring, during their sentence in
lieu of confinement in the county jail or other county
correctional facility or program under the auspices of the
probation officer.
2)Prescribes that every prisoner arrested and booked for,
charged with, or convicted of a felony, who is a participant
in a home detention program under existing law who escapes is
guilty of a felony and, if the escape or attempt to escape was
not by force or violence, is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years, to be served
consecutively, or in a county jail, not exceeding one year.
3)States that if the escape or attempt to escape is committed by
force or violence, the person is guilty of a felony,
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a full term
of two, four, or six years to be served consecutively to any
other term of imprisonment, commencing from the time the
person would have been released from imprisonment and the term
shall not be subject to reduction, or in a county jail for a
AB 1369
PageB
consecutive term not to exceed one year, that term to commence
from the time the prisoner otherwise would have been
discharged from jail.
4)Excepts in unusual cases where the interests of justice would
best be served if the person is granted probation, probation
shall not be granted to any person who is convicted of a
felony offense under this section in that he or she escaped or
attempted to escape from a home detention program.
5)Mandates that the willful failure of a prisoner, to return to
his or her place of confinement no latter than the expiration
of the period that he or she was permitted to participate in a
home detention program, is an escape. A prisoner convicted of
a felony who willfully fails to return to his or her place of
confinement shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years, to be served
consecutively, or in a county jail, not exceeding one year.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon
determination by the correctional administrator that
conditions in a jail facility warrant the necessity of
releasing sentenced misdemeanor inmates prior to them serving
the full amount of a given sentence due to lack of jail space,
the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the
correctional administrator to offer a program under which
inmates committed to a county jail or other county
correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates
participating in a work furlough program, may be required to
participate in an involuntary home detention program, which
shall include electronic monitoring, during their sentence in
lieu of confinement in the county jail or other county
correctional facility or program under the auspices of the
probation officer. [Penal Code Section 1203.017(a).]
2)States that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
board of supervisors of any county may authorize the
correctional administrator, to offer a program under which
minimum security inmates and low-risk offenders committed to a
county jail or other county correctional facility or granted
probation, or inmates participating in a work furlough
program, may voluntarily participate in a home detention
program during their sentence in lieu of confinement in the
AB 1369
PageC
county jail or other county correctional facility or program
under the auspices of the probation officer. [Penal Code
Section 1203.016(a).]
3)Allows the board of supervisors to prescribe reasonable rules
and regulations under which a home detention program may
operate. As a condition of participation in the home
detention program, the inmate shall give his or her consent in
writing to participate in the home detention program and shall
in writing agree to comply with the rules and regulations of
the program, including, but not limited to, the following
rules:
a) The participant shall remain within the interior
premises of his or her residence during the hours
designated by the correctional administrator.
b) The participant shall admit any person or agent
designated by the correctional administrator into his or
her residence at any time for purposes of verifying the
participant's compliance with the conditions of his or her
detention.
c) The participant shall agree to the use of electronic
monitoring, which may include global positioning system
devices or other supervising devices for the purpose of
helping to verify his or her compliance with the rules and
regulations of the home detention program. The devices
shall not be used to eavesdrop or record any conversation,
except a conversation between the participant and the
person supervising the participant which is to be used
solely for the purposes of voice identification.
d) The participant shall agree that the correctional
administrator in charge of the county correctional facility
from which the participant was released may, without
further order of the court, immediately retake the person
into custody to serve the balance of his or her sentence if
the electronic monitoring or supervising devices are unable
for any reason to properly perform their function at the
designated place of home detention, if the person fails to
remain within the place of home detention as stipulated in
the agreement, if the person willfully fails to pay fees to
the provider of electronic home detention services, as
stipulated in the agreement, subsequent to the written
AB 1369
PageD
notification of the participant that the payment has not
been received and that return to custody may result, or if
the person for any other reason no longer meets the
established criteria under this section. A copy of the
agreement shall be delivered to the participant and a copy
retained by the correctional administrator. [Penal Code
Section 1203.016(b).]
4)Provides that whenever the peace officer supervising a
participant has reasonable cause to believe that the
participant is not complying with the rules or conditions of
the program, or that the electronic monitoring devices are
unable to function properly in the designated place of
confinement, the peace officer may, under general or specific
authorization of the correctional administrator, and without a
warrant of arrest, retake the person into custody to complete
the remainder of the original sentence. [Penal Code Section
1203.016(c).]
5)Prohibits a correctional administrator to allow a person to
participate in home detention if it appears from the record
that the person has not satisfactorily complied with
reasonable rules and regulations while in custody. A person
shall be eligible for participation in a home detention
program only if the correctional administrator concludes that
the person meets the criteria for release established under
this section and that the person's participation is consistent
with any reasonable rules and regulations prescribed by the
board of supervisors or the administrative policy of the
correctional administrator. [Penal Code Section 1203.016(d).]
6)Gives the correctional administrator, or his or her designee,
the sole discretionary authority to permit program
participation as an alternative to physical custody. All
persons referred or recommended by the court to participate in
the home detention program who are denied participation or all
persons removed from program participation shall be notified
in writing of the specific reasons for the denial or removal.
The notice of denial or removal shall include the
participant's appeal rights, as established by program
administrative policy. [Penal Code Section 1203.016(d)(2).]
7)Permits the court to recommend or refer a person to the
correctional administrator for consideration for placement in
the home detention program. The recommendation or referral of
AB 1369
PageE
the court shall be given great weight in the determination of
acceptance or denial. At the time of sentencing or at any time
that the court deems it necessary, the court may restrict or
deny the defendant's participation in a home detention
program. [Penal Code Section 1203.016(e).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Based on the
lack of space in the Los Angeles County jail system, a federal
court has placed a mandatory cap on the number of inmates in
the system (Rutherford v. Block). To adhere to the cap, the
Sheriff's Department has reduced the percentage of time served
by inmates committed to county jail. The Sheriff Department
offered the voluntary electronic monitoring program and in
2007 ran Senate Bill 959 (Romero and Runner) to create an
involuntary home detention electronic monitoring program,
which has been very successful. Approximately 1,500 inmates
are currently on some form of Home Electronic Monitoring, up
from 437 in 2007. Prior to SB 959, inmates were spending an
average of 10% of their sentence in jail before being released
early due to overcrowding. Now, male inmates are doing
approximately 75% of their sentence.
"Under current law, California Penal Code Section 1203.017
allows involuntary participation by qualified,
minimum-security, low-risk inmates in a home detention
electronic monitoring program in lieu of confinement in the
county jail. By giving the Sheriff's Department the
discretion and the option to put an inmate on the involuntary
home detention electronic monitoring program, the Department
has been able to better manage and control the jail
population. If sentenced qualified, low-risk felony county
jail commitments (currently, there are about 230 eligible
inmates in Los Angeles County) are added to this section, we
can better control our population and create much needed room
for the more serious offenders."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"The bill will do two things. First, it will allow the Sheriff
(correctional administrator) to place on electronic home
detention those inmates sentenced to low-level felonies to be
allowed to be placed on home electronic monitoring if found
AB 1369
PageF
eligible pursuant to current law.
"Second, this bill will correct an oversight in SB 959. Under
current law, there is a punishment for the escape or attempted
escape of someone on voluntary home electronic monitoring but
when SB 959 was written which allows for involuntary home
electronic monitoring we failed to cross reference the
punishment for the escape section to include involuntary home
electronic monitoring. This bill would fix that."
3)Los Angeles County: Jail Overcrowding : In October 2006,
Federal District Judge Dean Pregerson issued an order
demanding Los Angeles County address its overcrowded and
unsanitary jails<1>. Judge Pregerson issued the order
following tours of Los Angeles County Jail facilities in April
and May 2006. On his tour, Judge Pregerson noted that four
inmates were being housed in two-inmate rooms. The crowding
left no room for floor space, forcing inmates to remain in
their beds at all times. Additionally, the inmates were only
permitted to leave their rooms for family visits, medical
checkups, and three hours of exercise per week.
According to a Los Angeles Times article (June 12, 2007),
inmates have had repeated problems seeking routine medical
care while in custody. Specifically, "The difficulty many
inmates have encountered in receiving medical care in the jail
is documented in more than 10,000 confidential complaints
filed by inmates from 2000 to 2005."<2>
4)Jail Overcrowding Statewide : A grand jury recently released
findings stating that Orange County is facing a worsening jail
overcrowding problem which will require significant costs and
staffing concerns. The Orange County grand jury's 18-page
report was released June 7, 2007. The grand jury found that
the average inmate population in Orange County continued to
grow, hovering at 6,777 in March, up from 6,162 two years
earlier. The sheriff's inmate-to-staff ratio is also more
than twice the national average, with nearly 32 inmates for
---------------------------
<1>Mehta, Shreema. "Judge Forces LA to End Jail Overcrowding",
The New Standard ; October 31, 2006.
<2>Abdollah, Tami and Blankstein, Andrew. "County Board to
Probe Hilton's Release", The Los Angeles Times ; June 12, 2007.
See:
AB 1369
PageG
each on-duty, sworn deputy, the grand jury said. The
Governor's prison plan would worsen the overcrowding problem,
the panel said. Under the state plan, Orange County would
have to release thousands of convicted felons to make room for
about 3,500 inmates sentenced to state prison terms of three
years or less, the grand jury said.
According to a June 2006 report from the California State
Sheriffs' Association<3>, there are state and federal
standards, rules, and regulations determining how many people
can be housed in each jail and/or cell. When those standards
are not met, inmates sue. In 20 California counties, those
suits have resulted in court-ordered population caps. An
additional 12 counties have imposed population caps on
themselves to avoid the costly litigation that results from
crowding. These population caps mean that when a jail is
full, for every new inmate being admitted, another inmate
already in custody has to be released.
In 2005, statewide bookings per month reached a 10-year high -
106,941 per month (up from 97,589 in 1995). There are 74,686
rated capacity jail beds in the state and the average daily
population (ADP) of jails was 79,639 inmates in 2005 - the
highest yearly ADP in history. An additional 4,953 beds would
be needed to house all the inmates in today's ADP.
In 2005, the highest one-day jail population count statewide was
87,500 inmates. That means that with current capacity, during
times of peak demand for jail space, the state is short at
least 12,800 jail beds.
In 2005, 233,388 individuals avoided incarceration or were
released early from jail sentences due solely to lack of jail
space. 18,471 additional beds would be needed to eliminate
these pretrial and early releases. ("Do the Crime, Do the
Time? Maybe Not in California," California State Sheriffs'
Association, June 2006, Executive Summary, Page 5.)
5)Involuntary Home Detention : Under existing law, a home
detention program may be utilized by counties with a jail
overcrowding issue but only if the inmate agrees to
participate. However, this may be of limited effectiveness in
the counties with the worst overcrowding.
---------------------------
<3>
AB 1369
PageH
a) Home Detention Requires a Longer Restriction on Freedom :
For example, due to the extent of the overcrowding, Los
Angeles County inmates serve only a fraction of the jail
time they are sentenced to. This may operate as a
disincentive for inmates to participate in a home detention
program as they know they will be released in a relatively
short time without any further obligations or restrictions
on their freedom.
b) Home Detention Requires Additional Costs for the
Monitoring Aspects : Another reason inmates may choose not
to participate in the existing voluntary program is the
fact that they are subject under that program to being
charged for the cost of electronic monitoring. [Penal Code
Section 1203.016(g).] By contrast, this bill specifies
that the inmate may not be charged any costs or fees
associated with the home detention program.
6)Relaxing Eligibility Requirements : To be eligible for the
existing voluntary home detention program, an inmate must be
classified as a "minimum security" or "low-risk offender."
[Penal Code Section 1203.016(a).] This bill's mandatory home
detention program eliminates this restriction. Because the
definition of "low-risk offender" includes any person who is a
probationer, as defined in the National Institute of
Corrections Model Probation system [Penal Code Section
1203.016(h)(2) and (3)], this would most likely include a
large percentage of all county jail inmates as many inmates
are serving jail sentences as a court-ordered condition of
probation and are, therefore, probationers. To the extent
that this restriction did disqualify any inmate from
qualifying for home detention, under this bill, that inmate
would now be eligible. Although the program does widen the
categories of eligibility for home detention, the practical
effect may actually be to cause more serious offenders to
spend longer in jail by opening up bed space. Absent the
program, that same inmate might have to be released before the
end of their sentence with no supervision due to overcrowding.
7)Statistics for Los Angeles Voluntary Home Detention Program
(provided by the Los Angeles County Counsel):
AB 1369
PageI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Year |Applicatio|Recommended|Released|Complete|Failed |Remanded|
| |ns | | |d |to | |
| | | | | |Appear | |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|1997-98| 16,659 | 66% | 80% | 88% | 1% | 4% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|1998-99| 12,822 | 63% | 83% | 86% | 1% | 4% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|1999-00| 12,080 | 62% | 82% | 89% | 0% | 3% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|2000-01| 12,262 | 68% | 81% | 89% | 1% | 3% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|2001-02| 11,636 | 75% | 78% | 91% | 1% | 3% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|2002-03| 14,346 | 76% | 68% | 91% | 1% | 3% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|2003-04| 12,429 | 76% | 78% | 87% | 1% | 3% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|2004-05| 10,126 | 76% | 75% | 86% | 1% | 1% |
| | | | | | | |
|-------+----------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+--------|
|2005-06| 8,713 | 74% | 77% | 84% | 1% |0% |
| | | | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8)Argument in Support : According to the Los Angles County
Sheriff's Department (the sponsor of this bill), "Based on the
lack of space in the county jail system, a Federal Court has
placed a mandatory cap on the number of inmates in the system.
To adhere to the cap, the Sheriff's Department has reduced
the percentage of time served by inmates committed to county
jail. The Sheriff's Department offered the voluntary
electronic monitoring program and in 2007 ran SB 959 (Romero
and Runner) to create an involuntary home detention electronic
monitoring program, which has been very successful. It has
AB 1369
PageJ
also enabled us to increase the percentage of time serviced by
inmates in the county jail.
"Under current law, California Penal Code Section 1203.017
allows involuntary participation by qualified, minimum
security, low-risk inmates in a home detention electronic
monitoring program in lieu of confinement in the county jail.
By giving the Sheriff's Department the discretion and the
option to put an inmate on the involuntary home detention
monitoring program, the Department has been able to better
manage and control the jail population. If felony county jail
commitments are added to this section, we can better control
our population and create much needed room for the more
serious offenders."
9)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 959 (Romero), Chapter 252, Statutes of 2007, permits
a county board of supervisors, upon determination by the
county correctional administrator that conditions in a jail
facility require the release of sentenced misdemeanor
inmates prior to the completion of their jail term due to
lack of space, to authorize the correctional administrator
to offer a program in which specified inmates may be
required to participate in an involuntary home detention
program in lieu of jail time, as specified, and requires
those inmates on home detention to be electronically
monitored.
a) SB 963 (Ashburn), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2005, permits
the use of global positioning system technology.
a) AB 152 (Rainey), Chapter 770, Statutes of 1994, allows
minimum security inmates and low-risk offenders who are
granted probation to voluntarily participate in a home
detention program during their sentences in lieu of
confinement in the program under the auspices of probation
officers. AB 152 requires a fee for participation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Sponsor)
AB 1369
PageK
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744