BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
6
9
AB 1695 (Beall) 5
As Amended February 24, 2010
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
Penal Code
SM:mc
CUSTODIAL OFFICERS: SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HISTORY
Source: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Prior Legislation: SB 1019 (Vasconcellos) - Chap. 635, Stats. of
1999
SB 1880 (Committee on Public Safety) - Chap. 606,
Stats. of 1998
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 69 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE AUTHORITY OF CUSTODIAL OFFICERS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY BE
EXPANDED TO PERMIT THEM TO PERFORM SPECIFIED DUTIES NOT ONLY AT THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, BUT AT OTHER HEALTH CARE
FACILITIES IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA?
(More)
AB 1695 (Beall)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to extend the authority of custodial
officers in Santa Clara County to perform specified duties not
only at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, but at other
health care facilities in the County of Santa Clara, as needed
and only as they directly relate to guarding in-custody inmates.
Under existing law , all cities and counties are authorized to
employ custodial officers (public officers who are not peace
officers) for the purpose of maintaining order in local
detention facilities. (Penal Code 831.)
Notwithstanding Section 831, in counties with a population of
425,000 or less - and San Diego, Fresno, Kern, Riverside, and
Stanislaus counties - "enhanced powers" custodial officers may
be employed. Santa Clara County is also included in this
section with specified authority for custodial officers who are
employed by the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections.
(Penal Code 831.5.)
Those "enhanced powers" custodial officers may carry firearms
under the direction of the sheriff while fulfilling specified
job-related duties. They too are designated as "public
officers," not "peace officers"; they are empowered to serve
warrants, writs, or subpoenas within the custodial facility,
and, as with regular custodial officers, they may use
reasonable force to establish and maintain custody, and may
release from custody misdemeanants on citation to appear or
individuals arrested for intoxication who are not subject to
further criminal proceedings. They may also make warrantless
arrests within the facility (pursuant to Section 836.5 -
misdemeanor in the presence of the officer). Training
standards are specified. A peace officer is required to be
present in a supervisorial capacity whenever 20 or more
custodial officers are on duty (for both Sections 831 and 831.5
officers). (Penal Code 831.5.)
Existing law also provides that custodial officers employed by
(More)
AB 1695 (Beall)
PageC
the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections are authorized
to perform the following additional duties in the facility:
Arrest a person without a warrant whenever the custodial
officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or felony in the
presence of the officer that is a violation of a statute or
ordinance that the officer has the duty to enforce.
Search property, cells, prisoners, or visitors.
Conduct strip or body cavity searches of prisoners
pursuant to Section 4030.
Conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a duly issued
warrant.
Segregate prisoners.
Classify prisoners for the purpose of housing or
participation in supervised activities.
These duties may be performed at the Santa Clara Valley Medical
Center as needed and only as they directly relate to guarding
inpatient, in-custody inmates. This subdivision shall not be
construed to authorize the performance of any law enforcement
activity involving any person other than the inmate or his or
her visitors. (Penal Code 831.5(g).)
This bill would permit custodial officers in Santa Clara County
to perform these duties at the Santa Clara Valley Medical
Center, or at other health care facilities in the County of
Santa Clara, as needed and only as they directly relate to
guarding in-custody inmates.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
(More)
AB 1695 (Beall)
PageD
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
(More)
AB 1695 (Beall)
PageE
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day,
California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and
inmates in the California prison system continue to
languish without constitutionally adequate medical and
mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
State law allows county correctional officers to
perform their duties at Santa Clara Valley Medical
Center while guarding hospitalized inmates.
However, there are instances when individuals in the
Department's custody are hospitalized or receive
medical treatment at other local hospitals or health
care facilities.
AB 1695 would change state law to allow County
correctional officers to guard inmates at any hospital
or health care facility in Santa Clara County.
This is a simple district bill that will allow the
County Department of Corrections to maintain custody
of individuals, clarify correctional officer's
authority, and ensure public safety.
2. What This Bill Would Do
Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara County Department of
Corrections to employ custodial officers (known as "correctional
officers" in Santa Clara County) to perform their duties at
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center while guarding hospitalized
inmates. AB 1695 would expand that authorization to allow Santa
Clara County custodial officers to guard inmates at any hospital
or health care facility in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors states,
Our county jails are operated by a voter-approved
Department of Correction (DOC) and staffed with public
officers (correctional officers). State law provides
the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections'
(More)
AB 1695 (Beall)
PageG
correctional officers with specific authorities,
including the ability to perform their duties at Santa
Clara Valley Medical Center (VMC) while guarding
hospitalized inmates. However, there are times when
individuals in DOC's custody receive care or are
hospitalized at other facilities. In a recent
three-month period, there were thirty-one occasions in
which inmates needed medical attention and received
care at facilities other than VMC and correctional
officers escorted and guarded these individuals. In
six of these situations, the inmates were hospitalized
for multiple days.
SHOULD THIS AUTHORITY BE GRANTED?
***************