BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1678
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1678 (Lieu) - As Amended: April 13, 2010
SUMMARY : Limits what parolees may be placed on unsupervised
non-revocable parole and creates a system for preventing
non-revocable parole of individuals upon the objection of local
law enforcement. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that non-revocable parole shall not be granted if a
local law enforcement agency raises an objection to the
release of a person. The objection is reviewed by the
Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR). If the Secretary agrees non-revocable
parole is denied. If the Secretary disagrees with local law
enforcement's objection the matter is appealed to the Board of
Parole Hearings (BPH). The BPH shall hold a public hearing.
If two-thirds of the BPH votes in favor of the parolee
non-revocable parole shall be granted, otherwise non-revocable
parole is denied.
2)States a person who has been convicted of the following
offenses shall not be granted non-revocable parole:
a) Solicitation of murder;
b) Stalking;
c) Domestic violence, as specified;
d) Possession of an explosive or destructive device;
e) Unlawfully causing a fire that causes an inhabited
structure or inhabited property to burn;
f) Cruelty against children;
g) Battery resulting in serious bodily injury;
AB 1678
Page 2
h) Battery against an official; or,
i) Evasion of a peace officer.
3)Prevents an individual from being granted non-revocable parole
if he or she is required to register as a gang member, is
listed on the CalGang System operated by the Department of
Justice, or has identified himself or herself as a gang member
to CDCR staff.
4)Provides CDCR shall be required to publish the following
information on its public Web site:
a) The total number of persons paroled on non-revocable
parole;
b) The crimes for which the parolees have been convicted;
c) A list of each relevant crime and the corresponding
number of persons who have been released who have been
convicted of that crime; and,
d) The tally of persons convicted of a crime shall include
prior convictions and convictions for which the persons are
on parole.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, CDCR
shall not return to prison, place a parole hold, or report any
parole violation to the BPH regarding any person to whom all
of the following criteria apply (Penal Code Section 3000.03):
a) The person is not required to register as a sex
offender, as specified;
b) The person was not committed to prison for a serious
felony or a violent felony (strikes), and does not have a
prior conviction for a serious felony or a violent felony
(strikes);
c) The person was not committed to prison for a sexually
violent offense, as defined, and does not have a prior
conviction for a sexually violent offense, as defined;
AB 1678
Page 3
d) The person was not found guilty of a serious
disciplinary offense, as defined in regulation by CDCR,
during his or her current term of imprisonment;
e) The person is not a validated prison gang member or
associate, as defined in regulation by CDCR;
f) The person did not refuse to sign any written
notification of parole requirements or conditions,
including, but not limited to, the written notification of
requirements, as specified; and,
g) The person was evaluated by CDCR using a validated risk
assessment tool and was not determined to pose a high risk
to re-offend.
2)States that whenever any person confined to state prison is
serving a term for the conviction of a violent felony, the
Board of Prison Terms or the Department of Corrections (DOC)
shall notify the sheriff or chief of police, or both, and the
district attorney, who has jurisdiction over the community in
which the person was convicted and, in addition, the sheriff
or chief of police, or both, and the district attorney, having
jurisdiction over the community in which the person is
scheduled to be released on parole or re-released following a
period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without
a new commitment. [Penal Code Section 3058.6(a).]
a) Provides that the notification shall be made by mail at
least 45 days prior to the scheduled release date, except
as provided. In all cases, the notification shall include
the name of the person who is scheduled to be released,
whether or not the person is required to register with
local law enforcement, and the community in which the
person will reside. The notification shall specify the
office within DOC with the authority to make final
determination and adjustments regarding parole location
decisions. [Penal Code Section 3058.6(b)(1).]
b) States that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
DOC shall not restore credits nor take any administrative
action resulting in an inmate being placed in a greater
credit earning category that would result in notification
being provided less than 45 days prior to an inmate's
scheduled release date. [Penal Code Section 3058.6(b)(2).]
AB 1678
Page 4
c) Provides when notification cannot be provided within the
45 days due to the unanticipated release date change of an
inmate as a result of an order from the court, an action by
the Board of Prison Terms, the granting of an
administrative appeal, or a finding of not guilty or
dismissal of a disciplinary action, that affects the
sentence of the inmate, or due to a modification of DOC's
decision regarding the community into which the person is
scheduled to be released as specified, DOC shall provide
notification as soon as practicable, but in no case less
than 24 hours after the final decision is made regarding
where the parolee will be released. [Penal Code Section
3058.6(b)(3).]
d) Those agencies receiving the notice referred to in this
subdivision may provide written comment to the Board of
Prison Terms or DOC regarding the impending release.
Agencies that choose to provide written comments shall
respond within 30 days prior to the inmate's scheduled
release, unless an agency received less than 45 days'
notice of the impending release, in which case the agency
shall respond as soon as practicable prior to the scheduled
release. Those comments shall be considered by the Board
of Prison Terms or DOC which may, based on those comments,
modify its decision regarding the community in which the
person is scheduled to be released. DOC shall respond in
writing not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled
release with a final determination as to whether to adjust
the parole location and documenting the basis for its
decision, unless DOC received comments less than 30 days
prior to the impending release, in which case DOC shall
respond as soon as practicable prior to the scheduled
release. The comments shall become a part of the inmate's
file. [Penal Code Section 3058.6(b)(4).]
e) Provides that if the court orders the immediate release
of an inmate, DOC shall notify the sheriff or chief of
police, or both, and the district attorney, having
jurisdiction over the community in which the person was
convicted and, in addition, the sheriff or chief of police,
or both, and the district attorney, having jurisdiction
over the community in which the person is scheduled to be
released on parole at the time of release. [Penal Code
AB 1678
Page 5
Section 3058.6(c).]
3)States that except as otherwise provided in this section, an
inmate who is released on parole shall be returned to the
county that was the last legal residence of the inmate prior
to his or her incarceration. For purposes of this
subdivision, "last legal residence" shall not be construed to
mean the county wherein the inmate committed an offense while
confined in a state prison or local jail facility or while
confined for treatment in a state hospital. [Penal Code
Section 3003(a).]
4)States that an inmate may be returned to another county if
that would be in the best interests of the public. If the BPH
setting the conditions of parole for inmates sentenced as
specified and as determined by the parole consideration panel,
or CDCR setting the conditions of parole for inmates decides
on a return to another county, it shall place its reasons in
writing in the parolee's permanent record and include these
reasons in the notice to the sheriff or chief of police. In
making its decision, the paroling authority shall consider,
among others, the following factors, giving the greatest
weight to the protection of the victim and the safety of the
community [Penal Code Section 3003(b)]:
a) The need to protect the life or safety of a victim, the
parolee, a witness, or any other person;
b) Public concern that would reduce the chance that the
inmate's parole would be successfully completed;
c) The verified existence of a work offer, or an
educational or vocational training program;
d) The existence of family in another county with whom the
inmate has maintained strong ties and whose support would
increase the chance that the inmate's parole would be
successfully completed;
e) The lack of necessary outpatient treatment programs for
parolees receiving treatment, as specified; and,
f) In determining an out-of-county commitment, CDCR shall
give priority to the safety of the community and any
witnesses and victims.
AB 1678
Page 6
5)Provides in making its decision about an inmate who
participated in a joint venture program, the paroling
authority shall give serious consideration to releasing him or
her to the county where the joint venture program employer is
located if that employer states to the paroling authority that
he or she intends to employ the inmate upon release. [Penal
Code Section 3003(d).]
6)The following information, if available, shall be released by
CDCR to local law enforcement agencies regarding a paroled
inmate who is released in their jurisdictions [Penal Code
Section 3003(e)(1)]:
a) Last, first, and middle name.
b) Birth date.
c) Sex, race, height, weight, and hair and eye color.
d) Date of parole and discharge.
e) Registration status, if the inmate is required to
register as a result of a controlled substance, sex, or
arson offense.
f) California Criminal Information Number, Federal Bureau
of Investigation number, social security number, and
driver's license number.
g) County of commitment.
h) A description of scars, marks, and tattoos on the
inmate.
i) Offense or offenses for which the inmate was convicted
that resulted in parole in this instance.
j) Address, including all of the following information:
i) Street name and number. Post office box numbers are
not acceptable for purposes of this subparagraph.
ii) City and ZIP Code.
AB 1678
Page 7
iii) Date that the address provided pursuant to this
subparagraph was proposed to be effective.
aa) Contact officer and unit, including all of the following
information:
i) Name and telephone number of each contact officer.
ii) Contact unit type of each contact officer such as
units responsible for parole, registration, or county
probation.
bb) A digitized image of the photograph and at least a
single digit fingerprint of the parolee.
cc) A geographic coordinate for the parolee's residence
location for use with a Geographical Information System
(GIS) or comparable computer program.
7)States the information required by this subdivision shall come
from the statewide parolee database. The information obtained
from each source shall be based on the same timeframe. [Penal
Code Section 3003(e)(2).]
8)Provides all of the information required by this subdivision
shall be provided utilizing a computer-to-computer transfer in
a format usable by a desktop computer system. The transfer of
this information shall be continually available to local law
enforcement agencies upon request. [Penal Code Section
3003(e)(3).]
9)States the unauthorized release or receipt of the information
described in this subdivision is a violation of Penal Code
Section 11143. [Penal Code Section 3003(e)(4).]
10)Specifies notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
inmate who is released on parole shall not be returned to a
location within 35 miles of the actual residence of a victim
of, or a witness to, a violent felony, or a felony in which
the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other
than an accomplice if the victim or witness has requested
additional distance in the placement of the inmate on parole,
and if the BPH or CDCR finds that there is a need to protect
the life, safety, or well-being of a victim or witness.
[Penal Code Section 3003(f).]
AB 1678
Page 8
11)States notwithstanding any other law, an inmate who is
released on parole for a violation of specified sex offenses
whom CDCR determines poses a high risk to the public shall not
be placed or reside, for the duration of his or her parole,
within one-half mile of any public or private school including
any or all of Kindergarten and Grades 1 to 12, inclusive.
[Penal Code Section 3003(g).]
12)Provides notwithstanding any other law, an inmate who is
released on parole for an offense involving stalking shall not
be returned to a location within 35 miles of the victim's
actual residence or place of employment if the victim or
witness has requested additional distance in the placement of
the inmate on parole, and if the Board of Parole Hearings or
CDCR finds that there is a need to protect the life, safety,
or well-being of the victim. [Penal Code Section 3003(h).]
13)States the authority shall give consideration to the
equitable distribution of parolees and the proportion of
out-of-county commitments from a county compared to the number
of commitments from that county when making parole decisions.
[Penal Code Section 3003(i).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Last year, the
Legislature passed legislation to implement cuts to public
safety. However, some loopholes were contained in that
legislation. That is why the Senate Public Safety Committee
authored a bill to close one of the loopholes as applied to
county jails. This bill closes other loopholes that are
critical to law enforcement and the protection of crime
victims. There were some crimes left out of last year's
legislation-such as solicitation to commit murder; felony
child abuse likely to cause great bodily injury or death; and
other serious and violent crimes from the list of 'serious'
and 'violent' crimes that the CDCR uses in making its
unsupervised parole determinations.
"After a Public Records Request, CDCR provided information that
shows numerous felons convicted of crimes that any reasonable
person would consider serious, violent, or sexual were placed
AB 1678
Page 9
onto non-revocable parole (NRP) status without any parole
supervision.
"In response to the need for more review of the process of how
felons are placed onto unsupervised parole, AB 1678 creates
common-sense public safety protections be in place to protect
the public. The bill closes loopholes in the 'serious' and
'violent' crime lists by adding a limited set of additional
violent and serious crimes not currently on that list. It is
also imperative that local law enforcement have a voice on who
is released without parole supervision and AB 1678 creates
this process. AB 1678 also increases transparency on CDCR by
making a public list of crimes committed by prisoners being
released without parole supervision.
"Of the nearly 2,000 convicted felons released without
supervision in the first five weeks of implementation, 96 were
in jail for possessing weapons or explosives and 120 served
time for stalking, domestic violence and child neglect,
abduction or cruelty. A smaller number, including street gang
members, served time for more serious offenses, including
solicitation of murder, battery causing serious injury, and
involuntary manslaughter. Unfortunately, current law allows
these dangerous criminals to be eligible for parole without
supervision. AB 1678 closes these loopholes by expanding the
list of crimes for which convicted felons would be ineligible
for unsupervised parole."
2)Background : According to the background provided by the
author, "[t]he 2009-10 Budget and SBx3 18 resulted in three
fundamental changes to public safety.
"First, many criminals behind bars in either state prisons or
local jails will have their confinement cut in half. For
every six months a criminal serves in confinement, that
criminal will receive six months of early release credit.
"Before the passage of SBx3 18, prisoners had to learn a trade,
get a GED, or get some sort of rehabilitation services in
order to receive day for day credit reductions. Now these
rehabilitation options have been eliminated and replaced with
a 'breathing' credit and a much smaller six-week
rehabilitation credit. These new changes do nothing to
incentivize prisoners to seek rehabilitation services and as a
result will cause higher recidivism rates.
AB 1678
Page 10
"Second, for state prisoners, CDCR will determine - based upon
the inmates' convicted crime and a risk assessment tool -
which prisoners will be released without parole supervision.
"SBx3 18 limited the option of unsupervised parole to those
offenders that were not convicted of violent, serious or
sexual crimes. However, numerous violent or serious crimes
are not considered by CDCR to fall into their non-eligible
definition list. For example, solicitation of murder [Penal
Code (PC) 653f], stalking (PC 646.9) and domestic violence (PC
273.5) are all considered non-violent, non-serious, and
non-sexual crimes. Additionally, SBx3 18 limits unsupervised
parole to prison gang members, but fails to include any street
gang members.
"Parolees on NRP can commit any action without being sent back
to prison even if they commit new crimes which previously
constituted a parole violation. This includes stay away
orders to victims of stalking and domestic violence. Now,
prosecutors will have to bring new charges and earn a
conviction which is longer and costlier than a parole
revocation. While the new law may lower the rate of which
parolees are returned revocation; in reality, since
ex-convicts have a 70% recidivism rate and will commit an
average of 13 crimes before they return to prison, crime rates
in California will rise.
"Third, CDCR rehabilitation programs lost all their funding and
chose to issue 600 to 800 vocational and educational prison
instructors have been given pink slips.
"CDCR has claimed that their choice to reduce rehabilitation
programs is due to the 2008-09 budget cuts to the department.
This is incorrect. The California State Auditor has reported
that while the inmate population has declined by 1% from
2006-2009, while the Department's spending increased by 32%.
"Time and time again, rehabilitation programs have been shown to
reduce recidivism rates for inmates who participate. In
particular, the certification programs has only a 12%
recidivism during the fiscal year 2007-2008 compared to 42% of
the general prison population paroled during that time. Even
while the State is suffering through difficult budgetary
times', recidivism rates are not reduced by gutting
AB 1678
Page 11
rehabilitation programs and laying off 600 to 800 vocational
education teachers.
"AB 1678 will close the loophole created by SBx3 18 that allows
unsupervised parole to offenders who committed crimes that
actually are serious and violent. This bill will help provide
local law enforcement with the tools they need to keep
California safe."
3)SBx3 18 : In response to severe prison overcrowding and
increased costs, California Penal Code Section 3000.03 created
a new subset of paroled inmates, Non-Revocable Parole (NRP),
(non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offender) who, upon release,
would be on "summary parole" without supervision. Starting
January 25, 2010, CDCR began releasing inmates under this
provision into California communities.
SBx3 18 (Ducheny), Chapter 28, Statutes of 2009, created a new
category of low-level parolees, "NRPs", not subject to direct
supervision. There are a number of pre-requisites that apply
prior to an inmate qualifying for non-revocable parole. These
include:
a) The person is not required to register as a sex
offender, as specified;
b) The person was not committed to prison for a serious
felony or a violent felony (strikes), and does not have a
prior conviction for a serious felony or a violent felony
(strikes);
c) The person was not committed to prison for a sexually
violent offense as defined and does not have a prior
conviction for a sexually violent offense, as defined;
d) The person was not found guilty of a serious
disciplinary offense, as defined in CDCR regulation, during
his or her current term of imprisonment;
e) The person is not a validated prison gang member or
associate, as defined in CDCR regulation;
f) The person did not refuse to sign any written
notification of parole requirements or conditions,
including, but not limited to, the written notification of
AB 1678
Page 12
requirements as specified; and,
g) The person was evaluated by CDCR using a validated risk
assessment tool and was not determined to pose a high risk
to re-offend.
4)Objections from Local Law Enforcement : This bill prevents
CDCR from granting non-revocable parole if there is an
objection lodged by local law enforcement. This bill imposes
a duty upon CDCR to notify local law enforcement of a decision
to place an individual on non-revocable parole within 48 hours
of the decision. Local law enforcement then has 10 business
days to lodge a written objection with CDCR to the release of
the non-revocable parolee. Upon receipt of a written
objection, the Secretary of CDCR shall review the objection
and either concur or not concur with the objection. If the
Secretary concurs with local law enforcement's objection,
non-revocable parole is denied. If the Secretary does not
concur with the objection, local law enforcement may appeal
the matter to the BPH. The BPH must then hold a public, en
banc hearing to determine whether the parolee is entitled to
non-revocable parole. Only upon a two-thirds' vote by the BPH
may the parolee be granted non-revocable parole.
In effect, this bill permits local law enforcement from
permitting non-revocable parolees into their jurisdiction
absent a full public hearing by the BPH wherein two-thirds of
the commissioners voting must agree to the release of the
parolee on non-revocable parole. However, if the Secretary of
CDCR agrees with local law enforcement, non-revocable parole
would be denied and there would be no need for a hearing
before the BPH.
5)Publication of Parolee Data on CDCR's Web Site : This bill
requires that CDCR publish the following information on its
public Web site:
a) The total number of persons paroled on non-revocable
parole';
b) The crimes for which the parolees have been convicted;
c) A list of each relevant crime and the corresponding
number of persons who have been released who have been
convicted of that crime; and,
AB 1678
Page 13
d) The tally of persons convicted of a crime shall include
prior convictions and convictions for which the persons are
on parole.
6)Parole : The status of parole is granted to any prisoner
released from a California prison after serving his or her
sentence. (Penal Code Section 3000.) Although no longer in
physical custody, a parolee is required to comply with
specified restrictions to his or her freedom. [People v.
Burgener (1986) 41 Cal 3d 505, 531.] A prisoner on parole can
be either a determinately sentenced prisoner or an
indeterminately sentenced prisoner serving a sentence of life
with the possibility of parole.
The purpose of parole is to provide a transition period for
formerly incarcerated persons so that they may reintegrate
into the community. In general, parole involved supervision
and surveillance. The goals of parole include public safety,
reintegration of the parolee back into society, and making
parole decisions that are fiscally responsible on behalf of
California. [Penal Code Section 3000(a).] Parole is meant to
be reformatory in purpose; the object is to mitigate the rigor
of the prison system and to allow the prisoner to reenter
society by replacing continued incarceration with a
conditional freedom controlled by parole conditions. [Penal
Code Section 3056; People v. Denne (1956) 141 Cal App 2d 499,
507.] Parole provides a testing period for the reintegration
of a prisoner into society. [In re Carabes (1983) 144 Cal App
3d 927, 931.]
7)Argument in Support : According to the Riverside Sheriffs'
Association , "AB 1678 is a modest step in addressing some of
the unintended public safety consequences arising from passage
of last session's SB 18 3X. AB 1678 will help ensure a closer
working relationship with CDCR and local law enforcement and
enhance public safety. Most importantly, it helps reduce some
of the unintended public safety risks arising from passage of
last year's legislation with minimal fiscal impact."
8)Argument in Opposition : According to the Prison Law Office ,
"[w]e write on behalf of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit
public interest law firm that, for over 30 years, has been in
the forefront of legal efforts to enforce the constitutional
rights of prisoners. Our staff attorneys represent individual
AB 1678
Page 14
prisoners, engage in impact litigation, educate the public
about prison conditions, and provide technical assistance to
attorneys throughout the country.
"In August 2009, a federal three-judge court found in two of our
cases, Plata v. Schwarzenegger and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,
that overcrowding is the primary cause of the unconstitutional
conditions in California's prisons, such as the system's
inability to provide competent and timely health care for
prisoners. The judges also found compelling evidence that
reducing the prison population is the only way to address the
problems.
"While the State continues to spend taxpayer money appealing
clear orders from the court to reduce prison populations to a
level that enables prison conditions to come into compliance
with the constitution, California's prisons remain dangerously
overcrowded at 195% of design capacity with over 160,000
prisoners crammed into 33 institutions, plus another 10,000
prisoners housed out-of-state and in community facilities.
Basic necessities of life, such as medical and mental health
care, are often lacking. Prisoners with disabilities are not
recognized as disabled, and many are not provided reasonable
accommodations as required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
"AB 1678 further burdens an already beleaguered CDCR with
increased costs and bureaucratic hurdles with no gains in
public safety. It creates the illusion of increasing public
safety by adding additional criteria that automatically bar
parolees from qualifying for non-revocable parole, even though
high-risk parolees are already barred under current law. The
result is that AB 1678 acts in direct opposition to the intent
of the changes to the Penal Code that took effect on January,
25 2010, to reduce prison overcrowding by preventing low-risk
parolees from being reincarcerated for minor parole
violations.
"Existing law sufficiently protects public safety. The existing
law that AB 1678 seeks to amend relies on a validated risk
assessment to determine a parolee's risk of reoffending. This
assessment takes into consideration all of a parolee's
previous felony convictions with additional weight placed on
convictions for particular felony and misdemeanor offenses,
including those involving domestic violence. The current law
AB 1678
Page 15
also includes automatic ineligibility for non-revocable parole
if a parolee has committed any violent or serious felony, is
required to register as a sex offender, has been found guilty
of a serious disciplinary offense while in prison, or is a
validated member of a prison gang. The existing law already
appropriately limits non-revocable parole through the use of
the validated risk assessment instrument and automatically
excludes all parolees in these additional categories based on
offense. There is no need to further restrict eligibility to
improve public safety.
"AB 1678 is overbroad. By increasing the types of convictions
that automatically make a parolee ineligible for non-revocable
parole, AB 1678 prevents low-risk parolees from qualifying,
costing the state money without improving public safety. As
stated above, the validated risk assessment that is currently
used already ensures that non-revocable parole is not granted
to high-risk parolees by taking into consideration all past
felony convictions and specific misdemeanor convictions. In
addition, current law already excludes any parolee who has
committed any violent or serious felony, is required to
register as a sex offender, has been found guilty of a serious
disciplinary offense while in prison, or is a validated member
of a prison gang from non-revocable parole.
"Furthermore, AB 1678 seeks to prevent parolees from qualifying
for non-revocable parole based on prior convictions that could
be from decades ago. The addition of felonies does not
prevent any additional high-risk parolees from qualifying
since all previous felonies are already taken into account
based on the current risk assessment and many carry additional
weight. The same is true for misdemeanors that are already
accounted for on the existing risk assessment. The only
effect of adding exclusions like these is that parolees that
have been deemed low-risk using a validated risk assessment
will have to be on supervised parole, burdening an already
struggling system with costs that have no positive effect on
public safety and increasing the chance that low-risk parolees
will be returned to an already overcrowded prison for minor
violations, a result exactly counter to the intent of the
current law.
"AB 1678 is overbroad. By automatically disqualifying parolees
who have to register pursuant to the STEP Act, are listed in
the CalGang System, or who have self-identified as gang
AB 1678
Page 16
members to CDCR staff from non-revocable parole, AB 1678
prevents low-risk parolees from qualifying, costing the State
money without improving public safety. Similar to the impact
of increasing the types of convictions that automatically make
a parolee ineligible for non-revocable parole, these
additional disqualifications do not increase the number of
high-risk parolees that will be ineligible for non-revocable
parole since they will already be disqualified based on the
risk assessment that takes these factors into account or
because they are affiliated with a gang in prison. The only
impact of this additional disqualification is to require
low-risk parolees who have at some point in their
pre-incarceration past been affiliated with a street gang,
regardless of the level of involvement or current affiliation,
to be on supervised parole. Furthermore, listing in the
CalGang System is often the result of subjective decisions
made by police officers and can not be challenged by those
listed in it. This raises due process concerns as people will
be denied non-revocable parole based on this list if AB 1678
is passed. These new provisions will cost the State money and
increase the chance that low-risk parolees will return to
prison for minor parole violations, in direct opposition to
the intent of current law.
"AB 1678 burdens CDCR by increasing bureaucratic requirements
that cost money and lead to inconsistency between
jurisdictions, but do not improve public safety. AB 1678
requires CDCR to notify a local law enforcement agency within
48 hours of determining that a prisoner is eligible to be
released on non-revocable parole and to provide ten business
days for the agency to object. If the local law enforcement
agency objects for any reason, regardless of whether it is to
increase public safety, then the Secretary of CDCR has to
review the case. If the Secretary disagrees, the BPH has to
hold a public hearing where victims can testify to determine
whether to grant non-revocable parole. This adds multiple
layers of bureaucratic requirements that will result in high
costs and fewer low-risk parolees qualifying for non-revocable
parole, with no positive effect on public safety.
Furthermore, allowing local law enforcement to second guess
parole decisions made by CDCR allows local politics to
increase costs by preventing low-risk parolees from being
released on non-revocable parole based on a community's
political climate. These parolees will then require
supervised parole, costing the State money and resources
AB 1678
Page 17
without improving public safety.
"While AB 1678 is presented as a way to prevent high-risk
parolees from being released on non-revocable parole, current
law already does this. In actuality, AB 1678 further burdens
an already beleaguered CDCR with increased costs and
bureaucratic hurdles with no gains in public safety. It
creates the illusion of increasing public safety by adding
additional criteria that automatically bar parolees from
qualifying for non-revocable parole, even though high-risk
parolees are already barred under current law.
"It is clear that the effect of AB 1678 is to prevent low-risk
offenders from qualifying for non-revocable parole, further
burdening the State of California by requiring supervision of
low-risk parolees, with costs associated with parole
violations by low-risk parolees, and by increasing hurdles to
reducing California's prison population to comply with
multiple orders from the federal court. I urge you to reject
this approach. Please vote against AB 1678."
9)Related Legislation : AB 2673 (Nielsen) prevents parolees from
being released on non-revocable parole if they have been
identified as gang members, as specified. AB 2673 will be
heard by this Committee today.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Crime Victims United of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Prison Law Office
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744