BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
2
6
SB 1265 (Dutton) 5
As Introduced February 19, 2010
Hearing date: April 6, 2010
Welfare & Institutions Code
JM:mc
CONDITIONAL RELEASE:
FORENSIC MENTAL PATIENTS
HISTORY
Source: County of San Bernardino and the City of Upland
Prior Legislation: SB 1794 (Perata) - Ch. 486, Stats. 2004
AB 2450 (Canciamilla) - Ch. 425, Stats. 2004
AB 1881 (Gallegos) - Ch. 324, Stats. 2000
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; Upland Unified
School District; City of Upland Police Department; San
Bernardino Sheriff; San Bernardino County Board of
Supervisors; San Bernardino County District Attorney;
San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce; City of Rancho
Cucamonga; League of California Cities Inland Empire
Division; City of Highland; City of Ontario; City of
Yucaipa; Block Captain, Bixby Way's Neighborhood Watch
Opposition:Disability Rights California; Taxpayers for Improving
Public Safety; California Public Defenders Association;
Western Center on Law and Poverty
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageB
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A DIRECTOR OF A CONDITIONAL RELEASE PROGRAM (CONREP) FOR
TREATMENT OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS (SPECIFIED PERSONS
WITH MENTAL DISORDERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM) BE
AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES ABOUT PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE FOLLOWING PROHIBITIONS APPLY TO CONREP PROGRAMS:
NO MORE THAN THREE PATIENTS CAN RESIDE IN AN INDEPENDENT
FACILITY;
ONLY ONE PATIENT PER-ROOM IN AN INDEPENDENT FACILITY; AND
CONREP PATIENTS CANNOT RESIDE WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) authorize a conditional
release program (CONREP) providing outpatient treatment to
forensic mental health patients (generally, mentally disordered
persons placed in treatment from the criminal justice system) to
inform local law enforcement of the identity and address of a
person in a CONREP program; 2) prohibit placement of more than
three CONREP patients in a single facility and more than one
patient in a room; and 3) prohibit a CONREP patient from
residing within 2,000 feet of a school.
Mentally Disordered Offender Law (MDO)
Existing law , the Mentally Disordered Offenders Law (Penal Code
sections 2960-2981), sets forth the following criteria for the
involuntary commitment and treatment of an inmate alleged to be
a mentally disordered offender:
The inmate has a severe mental disorder.
The severe mental disorder was a cause of, or
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageC
aggravating factor in, the crime for which the inmate was
committed to prison.
The inmate has been in psychiatric treatment for at
least ninety days in the prior year.
Mental health professionals from the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Department of
Mental Health (DMH) have certified that the inmate has a
mental disorder and "represents a substantial danger of
harm to others." If DOC and DMH professionals cannot
agree, two independent professionals
(psychologist/psychiatrist) shall evaluate the inmate.
The inmate was imprisoned for a crime in which he or she
used force or violence, caused serious bodily injury,
credibly threatened to use serious force or violence,
committed arson that posed a substantial danger of bodily
harm, used a firearm, used a dangerous weapon in a robbery
or carjacking, or committed a specified crime such as
murder, forcible sex crimes or kidnapping.
If the inmate meets the criteria to be deemed an MDO,
the inmate shall be committed to an inpatient program,
unless DMH certifies that the MDO can be treated as an
outpatient.
Existing law provides that an inmate found to be an MDO by DMH
and CDCR officials may demand a hearing by the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) to contest the determination. If BPH finds that
the inmate is an MDO, he or she can demand a jury trial. An MDO
can be held for treatment through the period of parole. The
status of MDO parolees is reviewed annually. Following parole,
an MDO can be held indefinitely, however, the District Attorney
must prove the person's MDO status, including that the person's
mental disorder is not in remission, beyond a reasonable doubt
in a jury trial each successive year. (Pen. Code 2962-2972.)
Existing law provides that in a hearing for continued treatment
of an MDO following parole, the court may release the MDO on
outpatient status if the court finds that the MDO can be safely
and effectively treated in the community. (Pen. Code 2972,
subd. (d).)
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageD
Existing law provides that an MDO shall be placed on outpatient
status for one year. At the end of the year, the court shall
hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant should be
released from treatment, kept on outpatient status or placed in
an institution. (Pen. Code 2972.1.)
Existing law provides that before a court can place a person
held under a non-MDO form of forensic commitment (NGI, IST,
MDSO, SVP<1>) in outpatient treatment, the court must obtain a
recommendation of outpatient eligibility and a treatment plan
from the person's community program director. In other regards,
the outpatient rules and procedures for persons in held under an
NGI, IST, MDSO or SVP commitment apply to a person treated as an
MDO. (People v. May (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 350, 355-363; Pen.
Code 1600-1620.)
Existing law requires a community program director or treatment
supervisor to prepare progress reports every 90 days on persons
placed on outpatient status and submit those reports to the
court, the prosecutor and defense counsel. (Pen. Code 1605,
2972, subd. (d).)
Existing law provides that where an MDO on outpatient status can
be returned to inpatient custody after a hearing equivalent to
probation revocation. (Pen. Code 1603, 1608, 1609, 2972.1.)
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGI)
Existing law provides the following process for determining a
defendant to be not guilty by reason of insanity: "In any
criminal [or delinquency] proceeding ? in which [the defendant
claims he or she is] not guilty by reason of insanity ? the
accused person [must] prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the
nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right
from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense." (Pen.
Code 25.)
---------------------------
<1> MDSO refers to the former mentally disordered sex offenders
law. SVP refers to the existing sexually violent predator law.
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageE
Existing decisional law provides that an NGI defendant must
prove that at the time of the charged act he or she either was
incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of
his/her act, or that he or she was incapable of distinguishing
right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.
(People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765, 771-784.)
Existing law provides that any person committed to a state
hospital or other treatment facility after having been found
NGI, incompetent to stand trial, a mentally disordered sex
offender, or sexually violent predator, may be placed on
outpatient status from that commitment subject to specified
procedures. (Pen. Code 1600.)
Existing law provides that "a person cannot be tried or adjudged
to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent." A
person is mentally incompetent to stand trial (IST) or face
judgment where the person, as a result of a mental disorder or
developmental disability, is 1) unable to understand the nature
of the proceedings, or 2) unable to rationally assist counsel in
the presentation of a defense. (Pen. Code 1367.)
Existing law provides that any person charged with a specified
crime of violence (as defined in Pen. Code 1601) and found
incompetent, or any person found NGI for the commission of such
a crime, shall be placed on outpatient status if all of the
following conditions are met:
The director of the state hospital or other treatment
facility to which the person has been committed advises the
court that the defendant would no longer be a danger to the
health and safety of others, including himself or herself,
while under supervision and treatment in the community, and
will benefit from treatment.
The community program director advises the court that
the defendant will benefit from outpatient status, and
identifies an appropriate program of supervision and
treatment.
After actual notice to the prosecutor, defense counsel,
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageF
victim, or next of kin when notice has been requested and,
after a hearing in court, the court specifically approves
the recommendation and plan. (Pen. Code 1603, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires that evaluations and recommendations by
the state hospital or community program director as to
outpatient placement include consideration of complete
information regarding the circumstances of the criminal offense
and the person's prior criminal history. (Pen. Code 1603,
subd. (c).)
Existing law provides that in any hearing where the court
considers a recommendation and plan for outpatient treatment of
a person found NGI, the court shall consider the circumstances
and nature of the criminal offense leading to the commitment and
shall consider the person's prior criminal history. (Pen. Code
1604, subd. (c).)
Existing law provides that an application for release of an NGI
patient on grounds that sanity has been restored may be made
either by the patient, the medical director of the hospital to
which the person has been committed, or by the community program
director of the patient's outpatient program. The court shall
give 15 days notice to the prosecuting attorney, the community
program director and the medical director of the facility
providing treatment as to the hearing date. (Pen. Code
1026.2, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires the court to hold a hearing to determine
whether the person applying for restoration of sanity would be a
danger to the health and safety of others due to mental disease,
defect, or disorder if released under treatment and supervision
in the community. If the court finds that the applicant will
not be a danger to the health and safety of others while under
supervision and treatment in the community, the court shall
order the applicant placed with an appropriate forensic
conditional release program for one year. At the end of one
year, the court shall have a trial to determine if sanity has
been restored. (Pen. Code 1026.2, subd. (e).)
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageG
Existing law provides that the director of the hospital shall
notify the community program director of the county and the
chief law enforcement officer that a person who is NGI and
committed to a state hospital or mental facility is being
released or placed in an out-patient program. (Pen. Code
1026.6.)
Persons Found Mentally Incompetent to Stand Trial
Existing law provides that a person is incompetent to stand
trial (IST) where he or she, as a result of a mental disorder or
developmental disability, is either 1) unable to understand the
nature of the proceedings, or 2) unable to assist counsel in
the presentation of a defense. (Pen. Code 1367.)
Existing law provides that where a court or counsel believes
that a criminal defendant may be incompetent to stand trial, the
defendant will be evaluated by experts and the matter set for a
hearing. (Pen. Code 1367-1369.)
Existing law provides that if a defendant is found incompetent,
the criminal trial or judgment is suspended until the person
becomes mentally competent. (Pen. Code 1370 et seq.)
Existing law provides that the rules and procedures governing
outpatient treatment of persons found to be NGI shall also apply
to persons who are incompetent to stand trial. (Pen. Code
1600-1620.)
Existing law provides: "It is unlawful for any person for whom
registration is required pursuant to the Sex Offender
Registration Act to reside within 2,000 feet of any public or
private school, or areas of a park where children regularly
gather." (Pen. Code 3000.5, subd. (b).)
Existing law requires the prosecutor to notify the victim or
next of kin of the victim about a hearing on the release of a
defendant who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity
from a treatment facility to an outpatient facility. (Pen. Code
1603.)
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageH
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageI
Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP)
Existing law includes the Forensic Conditional Release Program
(CONREP), under which persons with mental disorders in the
criminal justice system are conditionally released into the
community and receive treatment on an outpatient basis. (Welf.
& Inst. Code 4360.)
Existing law provides that "[a]ll information and records
obtained in the course of providing services [to forensic mental
health patients, as specified] to either voluntary or
involuntary recipients of services shall be
confidential." (Welf. & Inst. Code 5328.)
Existing law provides that information about persons in
specified forensic mental health and similar treatment programs
- including civilly committed persons who are gravely disabled,
prison inmates. NGI patients, MDSO patients, IST patients and
SVP patients, but not including MDO patients - shall be reported
to the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ shall include this
information in criminal history summaries and distribute such
information pursuant to the statutes concerning such
information. (Welf. & Inst. Code 5382.1 and Pen. Code
11105 et seq.)
Existing law provides that information included in criminal
history files or data that concern persons in specified forensic
and civil commitment mental health treatment programs shall be
limited to the patient's name, address, fingerprints, date of
admission, date of discharge, date of escape or return from
escape, return from any home leave, parole or leave of absences.
(Welf. & Inst. Code 5382.1.)
Existing law provides that the Attorney General (Department of
Justice - DOJ) shall maintain summary criminal history
information and shall furnish the information to specified
persons. (Pen. Code 11105.)
This bill provides, notwithstanding applicable medical privacy
rules for persons committed to mental health treatment programs,
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageJ
that CONREP programs may inform local law enforcement of
"program participants who reside within that agency's
jurisdiction."
This bill provides that each of the following shall apply to
CONREP programs:
No more than three participants (CONREP patients) may
reside in an independent group living facility;
Only one CONREP patient may be housed in a single room
in an independent group living facility; and
CONREP patients shall not reside within 2,000 feet of a
school.
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageK
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
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
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageL
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
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. 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.
---------------------------
<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).
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageM
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
A recent murder in Upland, CA has highlighted the need
for increased oversight of CONREP program participants
residing in unlicensed facilities.
The brutal murder took place in an unlicensed facility
that shared a fence with a local elementary school.
Seven CONREP participants were living in the facility
when one of the program participants stabbed another
participant multiple times. Twelve hours after the
incident occurred, the victim's body was found lying
in a pool of blood in the garage by a fellow roommate.
CONREP provides community-based services for specified
court-ordered forensic individuals, including: Not
Guilty by Reason of Insanity, Mentally Disordered
Offenders, and felony Incompetent to Stand Trial. The
Department of Mental Health contracts with either
local governments or private vendors for services.
Program participants reside in licensed or unlicensed
facilities, depending on their level of care.
Although current law provides significant oversight
over licensed facilities, there is little, if any
oversight of unlicensed facilities.
The courts and CONREP program operators are currently
prohibited from informing local law enforcement when
CONREP program participants reside in their
jurisdiction.
This bill would provide needed oversight of
Conditional Release Program (CONREP) participants
residing in unlicensed facilities. In particular,
this bill would:
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageN
Allow the courts or CONREP program
operators to inform local police departments when
CONREP program participants reside in their
jurisdiction.
Limit the number of CONREP program
participants residing together in an unlicensed
facility.
Prohibit CONREP program participants from
living within 2,000 feet of a school.
2. DMH Websites Describes the CONREP Programs
Who Are CONREP Patients?
CONREP [involves] judicially committed persons found
by the courts to be Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
or Incompetent to Stand Trial (PC 1370); ? Mentally
Disordered Sex Offenders; and Mentally Disordered
Offenders, who are inmates required to receive
treatment as a condition and ? parolees in CONREP who
have completed their sentence, but remain severely
mentally ill.
CONREP patients are typically young males (77% are
18-44 years old) with severe mental disorders (66%)
who have committed violent felonies (85%). They have
moderate arrest histories (5.5 average prior arrests)
and most (885) have entered from state hospitals.
Many ? have been in and out of treatment for years.
Seventy percent (70%) have been served by the
community mental health system during the two years
prior to judicial commitment.
What Services Do Patients Receive?
Virtually all patients ? in CONREP ? have experienced
long court-directed state hospitalizations. Once
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageO
psychiatric symptoms have been stabilized and they are
considered no longer to be a danger, eligible patients
may be referred for [conditional] outpatient treatment
? Patients must agree to follow a treatment plan
designed by the outpatient supervisor and approved by
the ? court. The treatment plan includes provisions
for involuntary outpatient services. In order to
protect the public, patients who do not comply with
treatment may be returned ? to inpatient status ?
CONREP patients have direct access to a full range of
mental health services ?, including individual and
group therapies, collateral contacts, home visits,
substance abuse screenings and psychological
assessments.
? DMH has ? set minimum treatment and supervision
levels for all CONREP patients. Pre-placement
evaluations and assessments are done during the period
of state hospitalization, upon entry into the
community and throughout CONREP treatment. ? CONREP
staff participate in state hospital and court liaison
activities. Specialized forensic mental health
clinicians are essential to the effective management
of CONREP patients in the community.
What Is The Need For This Service System?
27% of a sample of persons released from state
hospitals without going to CONREP re-offend within 2
years. CONREP patients have a very low level of
re-offense (6%). ? and demonstrate significant
improvement in employment, social support and
independence ratings after one year ? of treatment.
CONREP patients demonstrate very low levels of
substance abuse while in the program. These positive
results are possible because CONREP invests community
programs with greater authority and specialized
resources to implement a comprehensive community
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageP
outpatient system of assessment, treatment and
supervision services.
How Is The CONREP Program Administered?
The state ? provides 100% of the funding for CONREP?
DMH contracts with county mental health programs,
experienced private agencies or non-profit contractors
to provide ? CONREP services.
3. Difficulties in Finding Residences for Patients in Forensic
Mental Health Programs
DMH and other entities must find residences for patients in
CONREP programs. These patients must have access to treatment
services, including counseling, psychotropic medicine
prescribing and review, drug treatment, employment services and
education.
Particularly with CONREP patients in the SVP program, DMH faces
substantial, and often vehement, resistance to the placement of
CONREP patients in the community. Local officials and law
enforcement often face severe pressure to oppose or thwart
placements in their communities. For example, DMH moved SVP
patient Cary Verse on a virtually daily basis. Other SVP CONREP
patients have been housed on state prison grounds, although not
within the fenced or secured area of the institution.
The prohibition enacted by Proposition 83 (Jessica's Law) on the
placement of registered sex offenders within 2,000 feet of a
school or park where children congregate has essentially
prevented CDCR from finding residences for sex offender parolees
in many urban areas. Under specific CDCR policy, sex offender
parolees in San Francisco are released by CDCR as homeless. The
recent report by the California Sex Offender Management Board
warned that homeless placements were dangerous, as life
instability is a great contributor to recidivism.
Prohibiting the placement of non-sex offender CONREP patients
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageQ
within 2,000 feet of a school could substantially limit the
ability of DMH to find suitable residences for CONREP patients.
As the statistics set out on the DMH website indicate, CONREP
programs have been effective in reducing recidivism,
particularly among the MDO population. Many MDOs suffer from
psychoses and other psychiatric disorders that respond very
favorable to medication. It appears that laws that make it more
difficult to find stable residences for CONREP patients could
substantially impair the benefits of the CONREP program. For
example, placing MDO patients where they would have difficulty
getting to doctors' appointments and difficulty obtaining and
refilling prescriptions could quickly cause a patient to
decompensate and fail on CONREP. An MDO patient who has begun
to decompensate could pose a serious threat to the physical
safety of people in the community and the MDO.
In some cases it may be inadvisable to place more than three
CONREP patients in a single facility, or to place more than one
patient in a single room. However, in other cases, CONREP
patients may greatly benefit from the support and companionship
of other patients. Arguably, a statute that arbitrarily limits
the number of patients in a facility or room could be
counterproductive. Perhaps relevant law could direct the court,
DMH and the program director to consider whether a particular
CONREP patient should be placed in a residence with more than
two other patients, or in a room with another patient.
WOULD PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT OF CONREP PATIENTS
WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL SUBSTANTIALLY LIMIT THE ABILITY OF
DMH TO FIND SUITABLE RESIDENCES FOR CONREP PATIENTS?
(More)
IF DMH IS UNABLE TO FIND SUITABLE RESIDENCES FOR NUMEROUS CONREP
PATIENTS, WOULD THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONREP PROGRAM BE
LIMITED AND THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC COMPROMISED?
INSTEAD OF AN ARBITRARY LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF CONREP PATIENTS
IN A FACILITY OR ROOM, WOULD THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF
CONREP PLACEMENTS BE ADVANCED BY DIRECTING COURTS, DMH AND
PROGRAM DIRECTORS TO CONSIDER SUCH FACTORS IN MAKING PLACEMENT
AND TREATMENT DECISIONS?
4. Extent of Information Provided to Local Law Enforcement by a
CONREP Program About Patients in an Outpatient Program
Medical information, including information concerning the
treatment program of a CONREP patient, is generally
confidential. This bill states that, "notwithstanding Section
5328," a CONREP program can "inform local law enforcement
agencies of program participants who reside within that agency's
jurisdiction."
Arguably, there is a strong public policy for maintaining
confidentiality of information about treatment of CONREP
patients. Patients who are not assured of confidentiality would
likely be reluctant to engage in treatment. This could be
particularly problematic as concerns MDO CONREP programs, which
are widely understood to be effective. On the other hand, there
is a strong public policy for assuring public safety, especially
as concerns a program for the supervision and treatment of
persons who have committed violent acts.
The bill does not define what information "of program
participants" would include. This could be interpreted to mean
simply to inform law enforcement that a particular person is in
a program. This could perhaps also be interpreted to mean
information about the program, including the kind of treatment
provided to the patient and other details about the patient.
Section 5328 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the
confidentiality statute as to which this bill creates an
exception, generally provides that treatment information is
(More)
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageS
confidential. One who focuses on the fact that this bill
creates an exception to medial confidentiality rules could read
the bill expansively. One who focuses on the reference to
information "of program participants" could read the bill to
only narrowly allow the CONREP program to tell law enforcement
the name of the participant.
It is recommended that the bill specifically state what
information a CONREP program can give to local law enforcement
about CONREP patients. It appears that if a local law
enforcement official knows the identity of a CONREP patient, the
official can obtain criminal history information about the
patient from the database maintained by the Department of
Justice.
Finally, existing law requires very specific and detailed notice
to law enforcement and prosecutors about SVP CONREP patients.
(Welf. & Inst. Code 6609-6609.1.) Including SVP patients in
this bill could be confusing for service providers. A service
provider could conceivably conclude that the program need only
provide information under this bill. The author may wish to
consider whether or not to include a statement in the bill that
providing notice under Welfare and Institutions Code section
4360 does not excuse failure to comply with Welfare and
Institutions Code sections 6609 and 6609.1, and other relevant
provisions, concerning required notice in the case of a
conditionally released SVP patient.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO SPECIFY THAT A CONREP PROGRAM MAY
INFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY ABOUT THE IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF A
CONREP PATIENT?
SHOULD THE BILL SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT PROVIDING NOTICE AS
AUTHORIZED UNDER WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 4360 DOES
NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTIONS 6609 AND 6609.1 CONCERNING
CONDITIONALLY RELEASED SVP PATIENTS?
***************
SB 1265 (Dutton)
PageT