BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
3
6
AB 1369 (Davis) 9
As Amended April 13, 2009
Hearing date: July 7, 2009
Penal Code
AA:mc
COUNTY JAILS:
HOME DETENTION
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: SB 959 (Romero) - Ch. 252, Stats of 2007
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 79 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE INVOLUNTARY HOME DETENTION PROGRAM FOR JAIL INMATES BE
EXPANDED, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 1369 (Davis)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to remove the requirement in
existing law that jail inmates subject to an involuntary home
detention program be misdemeanor inmates.
Existing law provides that the board of supervisors of any
county may authorize the correctional administrator, as defined,
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 county jail or other county
correctional facility or program under the auspices of the
probation officer, as specified. (Penal Code 1203.016(a).)
Current law also provides that, 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, as specified. (Penal Code 1203.017
(emphasis added).)
This bill would remove the requirement that jail inmates subject
to an involuntary home detention program be misdemeanor inmates.
Current law generally provides that persons confined in
specified county custodial facilities or programs, such as
county jail and including a voluntary home detention program, as
specified, who thereafter escape or attempt to escape are guilty
of a felony, as specified. (Penal Code 4532.)
(More)
AB 1369 (Davis)
PageC
This bill , as currently in print, would expand this section to
also apply to persons who escape from an involuntary home
detention program pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.017.<1>
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125 percent (an
average of 4 percent annually) over the past 20 years, growing
from 76,000 inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the
state's population growth rate for the age cohort with the
highest risk of incarceration.<2>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many prisoners
for the existing capacity. The Governor, the
principal defendant, declared a state of emergency in
2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
----------------------
<1> But See Comment (1) of this analysis.
<2> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44-the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration-grew by an average of less than 1 percent
annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 1369 (Davis)
PageD
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
(More)
AB 1369 (Davis)
PageE
period of two or three years.<3>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill, as currently drafted, appears to aggravate the prison
overcrowding crisis outlined above.<4>
COMMENTS
1. Author's Amendments
The author intends to amend this bill to delete section 2 of the
bill. This amendment will remove the bill's ROCA implications.
2. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
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 (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 1500 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
----------------------
<3> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts For The Eastern District of California And The
Northern District Of California United States District Court
Composed Of Three Judges Pursuant To Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
<4> But see Comment 1, regarding author's amendments.
(More)
AB 1369 (Davis)
PageF
10% of their sentence in jail before being released
early due to overcrowding. Now, male inmates are
doing approximately 75% of their sentence.
Existing law provides that the county board of
supervisors of any county may offer a program under
which specified inmates may be required to participate
in an involuntary home detention program 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. Existing law also provides
specified punishments for the escape or attempted
escape from various confinements, including the place
of confinement pursuant to a voluntary home detention
program.
To confront the lack of space in California's County
Jail System, AB 1369 would 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
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 section on escape to include
involuntary home electronic monitoring. This bill
would remedy that oversight.
(More)
3. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would remove the requirement that
jail inmates subject to an involuntary home detention program be
misdemeanor inmates. The existing statute permits counties to
require that county misdemeanor inmates committed to a county
jail or other county correctional facility or granted probation,
or inmates participating in a work furlough program, participate
in involuntary home detention when the administrator has
determined 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. This bill would delete the misdemeanor limitation.
4. Jail Overcrowding
According to a June 2006 report from the California State
Sheriffs' Association:
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 aren't
met, inmates sue. In 20 California counties, those
suits have resulted in court-ordered population caps.
An additional dozen 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, someone already in custody has to be
released.
In 2005, statewide bookings per month reached a
ten-year high - 106,941 per month (up from 97,589 in
1995).
There are 74,686 rated capacity (RC) jail beds in the
state and, in 2005, the average daily population (ADP)
of jails was 79,639 inmates - the highest yearly ADP
(More)
AB 1369 (Davis)
PageH
in history! It would take an additional 4,953 beds to
house all the inmates in today's ADP.
The highest one-day jail population count statewide,
in 2005, 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. It would take 18,471 additional
beds 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, pg 5.)
***************