BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
2
9
AB 2290 (Bradford) 0
As Amended May 28, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2010
Penal Code
AA:mc
PAROLE:
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: SBx3 18 (Ducheny) - Ch. 28, Stats. 2009
Support: Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; South
Bay Cities Council of Governments; Crime Victims United
of California; California Bail Agents Association;
Chief Probation Officers of California; Golden State
Bail Agents Association; Orange County Sheriff's
Department; Orange County Board of Supervisors;
California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR")
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageB
be required provide local law enforcement with the date of a
"non-revocable" parolee's scheduled release not less than 45
days prior to the inmate's release, or as soon as practicable,
IF AVAILABLE?
(CONTINUED)
Should information from CDCR to local law enforcement about PAROLEES
be made via CDCR's "LEADS" system?
Should non-codified legislative intent language concerning the
provision of local services for parolees released from prison who
are not subject to PAROLE revocation be enacted, as specified?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) require that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") provide local law
enforcement with the date of a "non-revocable" parolee's
scheduled release not less than 45 days prior to the inmate's
release, or as soon as practicable, if available; 2) provide
that information from CDCR to local law enforcement be made via
CDCR's "LEADS" system; and 3) enact non-codified legislative
intent language concerning the provision of local services for
parolees released from prison who are not subject to revocation,
as specified.
Current law , as enacted by SBx3 18 (Ducheny)(Ch. 28, Stats.
2009) and effective on and after January 25, 2010, 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 Board of Parole Hearings regarding any person
to whom all of the following criteria apply:
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageC
The person is not required to register as a sex
offender;
The person was not committed to prison for a serious
felony or a violent felony, and does not have a prior
conviction for a serious felony or a violent felony, as
specified;
The person was not committed to prison for a sexually
violent offense, and does not have a prior conviction for a
sexually violent offense, as specified;
The person was not found guilty of a serious
disciplinary offense during his or her current term of
imprisonment, as specified;
The person is not a validated prison gang member or
associate, as specified;
The person did not refuse to sign any written
notification of parole requirements or conditions, as
specified; and
The person was evaluated by the department using a
validated risk assessment tool and was not determined to
pose a high risk to reoffend. (Penal Code 3000.03.)
Current law generally provides that, subject to specified
exceptions, 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. (Penal Code
3003(a).)
Current law enumerates specified information, if available, that
must be released by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation to local law enforcement agencies regarding a
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageD
paroled inmate who is released in their jurisdictions.<1>
(Penal Code 3003(e).) This information must come from the
statewide parolee database. The information obtained from each
source shall be based on the same timeframe. . . . 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. . . . (Id.)
This bill would include in this information the date of the
scheduled release of an inmate subject to non-revocable parole
under section 3003.03, "which shall be provided not less than 45
days prior to that release, or as soon as practicable."
---------------------------
<1> The enumerated information is: (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, FBI 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 (iii) Date that the
address provided pursuant to this subparagraph was proposed to
be effective. (K) 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. (L) A digitized image of the photograph and at least
a single digit fingerprint of the parolee. (M) A geographic
coordinate for the parolee's residence location for use with a
Geographical Information System (GIS) or comparable computer
program. (Penal Code 3003(e)(1).)
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageE
Current law provides that, except with respect to information
relating to fingerprint cards, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation shall be the agency primarily responsible for,
and shall have control over, the program, resources, and staff
implementing the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS)
in conformance with the information sharing provisions described
above. (Penal Code 3003(k).)
This bill would require that the information about parolees
released to local law enforcement, as described above, be
released by CDCR via the Law Enforcement Automated Data System.
This bill would include the following non-codified legislative
intent language:
It is the intent of the Legislature, because of the
state's continuing budget crisis, and its inability to
provide services to recently released unsupervised,
nonrevocable parolees, that local law enforcement, if
possible, should help provide all inmates released to
their jurisdiction on unsupervised, nonrevocable
parole with information regarding services available
in their jurisdiction. Further, it is the intent of
the Legislature that local county agencies and other
local services providers, to the extent resources are
available, should be encouraged to provide
unsupervised, nonrevocable parolees with services to
facilitate their successful reintegration into
communities within their jurisdiction.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
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
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.
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageF
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
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageG
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.<2>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
(More)
--------------------------
<2> 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).
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. What This Bill Would Do; Support
As explained in detail above, this bill would require CDCR to
provide local law enforcement with the date of a "non-revocable"
parolee's scheduled release not less than 45 days prior to the
inmate's release, or as soon as practicable. This information
would be in addition to the information CDCR is required to
share with local law enforcement, if available, about inmates
who are paroled. The bill also provides that this information
be made available to local law enforcement via CDCR's "LEADS"
system. Finally, the bill contains non-codified legislative
intent language concerning the provision of local services for
parolees released from prison who are not subject to revocation,
as specified.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, which
supports this bill, submits in part:
The notification provided for in AB 2290 is critical
for local law enforcement and the safety of the
community. Since these non-revocable parolees will be
released with no parole officer, no access to programs
offered by parole, and no follow-up, there is a deep
concern in the law enforcement community that these
individuals will fail to properly integrate back into
the community and they will re-offend. . . . () By
providing law enforcement with prior notification of a
non-revocable parolees release, then communities can
better prepare to offer services to assist in the
parolees reentry back into society.
2. Release of Information Regarding "NRPs"
This bill would require CDCR to include, when available, release
(More)
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageI
date information to local law enforcement about parolees who are
not subject to revocation. The following news article suggests
that efforts consistent with this bill already have begun. A
June 9, 2010, article in the Pasadena Star-News states:
The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation has improved communication with law
enforcement agencies regarding the release of
prisoners on weakened parole supervision, authorities
said.
California parole officials began releasing inmates
designated as "low-risk" on a new parole status
called, "non-revocable parole." Under the new status,
parolees are not monitored as closely as under
traditional parole, and cannot be returned to jail for
parole violations.
Following a phone conference with other police and
parole officials Wednesday organized by state Sen.
Carol Liu, D-Glendale, Pasadena police Interim Police
Chief Christopher Vicino said in a written statement
that parole officials have improved
information-sharing with law enforcement agencies.
"The CDCR had previously restricted the name, address
and release date of these prisoners," Vicino said.
"Without this information, our efforts to provide
social services and/or conduct home checks with law
enforcement officers would be nearly impossible."
AB 2290 (Bradford)
PageJ
"We were told much of this has changed. The CDCR is
making the information available via an enhanced and
secure Website."
Officers were scheduled to receive training on the new
system so it can be implemented in Pasadena in the
"Very near future," Vicino said.
He added that police are working with many religious,
community and nonprofit organizations to help prepare
parolees for a successful transition back into
society.<3>
According to the CDCR website, local law enforcement now can
access "detailed Non-Revocable Parole information via the Parole
LEADS application."<4>
As of June 10, 2010, CDCR reports that there are a total of 12,
273 NRP parolees statewide, compared to 109,543 actively
supervised parolees.<5>
***************
---------------------------
<3> http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_15262805
<4>
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Non_Revocable_Parole/Law_Enforcemen
t_Resources.html.
<5>
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/_pdf/Actual_NRPs_by_County.pdf.