BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
5
0
4
SB 504 (Runner)
As Amended April 13, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Penal Code
AA:br
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS :
GPS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association; Taxpayers
for Improving Public Safety
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD local law enforcement BE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED to monitor
registered sex offenders subject to GPS monitoring by the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation who register in their
jurisdiction, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 504 (Runner)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to expressly authorize local law
enforcement agencies to monitor registered sex offenders subject
to GPS monitoring by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation who register in their jurisdiction.
Current statute , as enacted by Proposition 83 in 2006, states
that every inmate who has been convicted for any felony
violation of a "registerable sex offense" . . . or any attempt
to commit any (sex offense) who is committed to prison and
released on parole, as specified, shall be monitored by a global
positioning system for the term of his or her parole, or for the
duration or any remaining part thereof, whichever period of time
is less. (Penal Code 3000.07.)
Current statute , as enacted by Proposition 83 in 2006, states
that every "inmate who has been convicted for any felony
violation of a "registerable sex offense" (as specified) or any
attempt to commit any of the (specified sex offenses) and who is
committed to prison and released on parole . . . shall be
monitored by a global positioning system for life." (emphasis
added.) (Penal Code 3004 (b).)
This bill would provide that any "registered sex offender
subject to global position monitoring by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to this subdivision, may
additionally be monitored by the local law enforcement agency
with jurisdiction over the city, county, or city and county, in
which he or she resides and with which he or she is required to
register."
This bill also would revise this provision to change every
"inmate" to every "person."
Current law provides that "any inmate released on parole
pursuant to this section shall be required to pay for the costs
associated with the monitoring by a global positioning system.
(More)
SB 504 (Runner)
PageC
However, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall
waive any or all of that payment upon a finding of an inability
to pay. The department shall consider any remaining amounts the
inmate has been ordered to pay in fines, assessments and
restitution fines, fees, and orders, and shall give priority to
the payment of those items before requiring that the inmate pay
for the global positioning monitoring."
This bill would make technical corrections to this language, to
revise this provision to refer to a "person" or a "parolee"
where applicable, as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
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% (an average
of 4% 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.<1>
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:
---------------------------
<1> "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% 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)
SB 504 (Runner)
PageD
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
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
(More)
SB 504 (Runner)
PageE
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
period of two or three years.<2>
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.
(More)
---------------------------
<2> 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).
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Several local jurisdictions have questioned whether
they have authority to track sex offenders subject to
lifetime GPS monitoring. Even in cases where local
jurisdictions are prepared to assume this
responsibility when a sex offender completes parole,
city attorneys have questioned local authority.
Apparently, the Attorney General's Office has
expressed similar reservations.
SB 504 was introduced in an effort to clarify the
authority of cities and counties to track felony sex
offenders subject to lifetime GPS monitoring. SB 504
is not a local mandate and does not create any new
criminal penalties or expand the number of sex
offenders subject to GPS monitoring.
2. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would provide that any "registered sex offender
subject to global position monitoring by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to this subdivision, may
additionally be monitored by the local law enforcement agency
with jurisdiction over the city, county, or city and county, in
which he or she resides and with which he or she is required to
register."
This bill thus would appear to authorize a local law enforcement
(More)
SB 504 (Runner)
PageG
agency to monitor a registered sex offender subject to GPS
monitoring by CDCR who is registering in their jurisdiction.
3. Issues and Implications
As explained above, Proposition 83 enacted statutory provisions
requiring that sex offender parolees be monitored by GPS for the
duration of their parole. In addition, Proposition 83 states
that every "inmate<3> who has been convicted for any felony
violation of a "registerable sex offense" (as specified) or any
attempt to commit any of the (specified sex offenses) and who is
committed to prison and released on parole . . . shall be
monitored by a global positioning system for life." (Penal Code
3004 (b) (emphasis added).)
This bill, as noted above, would appear to authorize local law
enforcement agencies to monitor parolees on GPS being monitored
by CDCR. The author indicates an intent to assure the authority
of local law enforcement to track these parolees.
There currently is an appreciable - not large but not
insignificant, according to some - number of parolees who are
subject to dual parole and probation jurisdiction. With respect
to this circumstance, some have suggested this overlap of
jurisdictions is not advantageous in terms of resource
allocation or accountability. Members may wish to discuss
whether these considerations might apply similarly to this
proposal. For example, could this bill inadvertently lead to a
reduced level of supervision or accountability on the part of
CDCR parole, if they believe local law enforcement is monitoring
their parolees? One opponent, the California Public Defenders
Association, argues this bill could be construed to subject
---------------------------
<3> This bill would change the word "inmate" in this section to
"person." This appears to be a technical change, since the
operative language of this section pertains to persons released
on parole, who no longer are inmates. This construction appears
supported by the Legislative Counsel's digest for this bill.
SB 504 (Runner)
PageH
parolees to differing monitoring devices and requirements. To
the extent members or the author regard this as a possibility,
they may wish to consider language requiring local law
enforcement and CDCR parole to enter into agreements to ensure
there are no gaps in monitoring, and that monitoring is not
redundant. Moreover, to the extent local law enforcement may
assume these duties, members may wish to consider whether CDCR
should pay them for it.
In addition, where there is an incident involving a parolee
monitored on GPS by both CDCR parole and local law enforcement,
would this bill inadvertently shift or at least blur
accountability for that incident, from parole to local law
enforcement? The author's stated intent for this bill does not
appear to include this possibility. However, as currently
drafted this bill could be construed in a number of ways not
necessarily intended.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN CURRENT LAW THAT PREVENTS LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM MONITORING A PAROLEE IN THEIR JURISDICTION?
WOULD THIS BILL PROVIDE THE CLARITY SOUGHT BY THE AUTHOR?
WOULD THIS BILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY?
COULD THIS BILL INADVERTENTLY CONFUSE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MONITORING THESE PAROLEES?
COULD THIS BILL INADVERTENTLY BLUR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MONITORING
THESE PAROLEES?
***************