BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
4
5
SB 1452 (Runner) 2
As Amended March 23, 2010
Hearing date: April 13, 2010
Penal Code
AA:dl
PAROLE:
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE
GPS REQUIREMENTS ON "NON-REVOCABLE" PAROLEES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SBx3 18 (Ducheny) - Ch. 28, Stats. 2009
Support: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Riverside
Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BE AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE, AT ITS OWN
EXPENSE, PAROLEES IN THEIR JURISDICTION WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
PAROLE REVOCATION TO WEAR GPS FOR THE DURATION OF THE PAROLE PERIOD,
AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to authorize a local law enforcement
agency that has primary jurisdiction over the location where a
parolee who is not subject to parole revocation resides to
require, at its own cost, that parolee to wear a global
positioning system or other electronic monitoring device for the
duration of the parole period, as specified.
Current law creates in state government the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), headed by a secretary who
is appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation,
and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. CDCR consists of
Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Juvenile Justice, the
Corrections Standards Authority, the Board of Parole Hearings,
the State Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison Industry
Authority, and the Prison Industry Board. (Government Code
12838 (a).)
Current law provides that "the supervision, management and
control of the state prisons, and the responsibility for the
care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and employment of
persons
confined therein are vested in the Secretary of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation." (Penal Code 5054)
Existing law generally provides that inmates serving a
determinate term of imprisonment shall be released on parole for
a period of three years.<1> (Penal Code 3000, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law provides that any person released from prison on
---------------------------
<1> Sex offenders who have served a determinate term of
imprisonment are released on parole for a period of five years.
Specified sex offenders serving indeterminate (life) terms are
released on parole for a period of 10 years. (Penal Code
3000, subd. (b)(1) and (3).)
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageC
parole may be released from parole after 1 year, or 2 years for
violent felonies, unless CDCR recommends to the contrary.
(Penal Code 3001.)
Existing law provides that longer periods of parole apply to
specified crimes, for example lifetime parole for persons
sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.
(Penal Code 3000.1.)
Existing law includes these additional provisions:
Prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody
of the department and shall be subject at any time to be
taken back within the enclosure of the prison. (Penal Code
3056.)
Any person who has been returned to prison after
revocation of parole may be held for 12 months, and an
additional 12 months for prison misconduct. The person
shall then be released on parole for the balance of the
period of parole. (Penal Code 3057.)
That prisoners, with the exception of life prisoners,
may earn custody credits for work and approved programs to
reduce the period of custody following revocation of
parole. (Penal Code 3057.)
The parole authority - now the Board of Parole Hearings
- shall have full power to suspend or revoke any parole,
and to order returned to prison any prisoner upon parole.
The written order of the parole authority shall be a
sufficient warrant for any peace or prison officer to
return to actual custody any conditionally released or
paroled prisoner. (Penal Code 3060.)
Existing law creates the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) and
makes certain provisions with respect to its powers and duties.
(Pen. Code 5075 et seq.)
Under current law BPH has "full power to suspend or revoke any
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageD
parole, and to order returned to prison any prisoner upon
parole. The written order of the parole authority shall be a
sufficient warrant for any peace or prison officer to return to
actual custody any conditionally released or paroled prisoner."
(Penal Code 3060.)
"Non-Revocable Parole"
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:
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
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageE
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.)
This bill would provide that a "parolee to whom this section is
applicable may be required to wear a global positioning system
or other electronic monitoring device, for the duration of the
parole period, by a local law enforcement agency if the local
law enforcement agency requiring the parolee to wear a global
positioning system or other electronic monitoring device has
primary jurisdiction over the location where the parolee
resides."
This bill would provide that the "cost of acquiring, leasing,
and monitoring any global positioning system or other electronic
equipment shall be the responsibility of the local law
enforcement agency requiring the parolee to wear a global
positioning system or other electronic monitoring device."
This bill would specify that its provisions would "not mandate
the use of a global positioning system or other electronic
monitoring device by law enforcement and does not create an
obligation on the part of any law enforcement agency or local
government agency in connection with the discretionary use, or
nonuse, of these monitoring devices."
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
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageF
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
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
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageG
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.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 1452 allows the local law enforcement agency that
has jurisdiction over a parolee to require the parolee
----------------------
<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 1452 (Runner)
PageH
to wear an electronic monitoring device for the
duration of their parole period.
The local law enforcement agency is responsible for
the cost of acquiring, leasing, and monitoring the
electronic monitoring device.
Existing law requires the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to release a prisoner on
parole after the inmate has served his or her
sentence.
Under existing law, CDCR is authorized to return a
parolee to prison if the Board of Parole Hearings
determines that the parolee violated the terms of his
or her parole.
Per Senate Bill X3 18 (Ducheny), on January 25, 2010,
the state began the process of releasing thousands of
inmates to the parole system without CDCR support or
supervision. These parolees will not be subject to
parole revocation for the commission of new crimes or
violation of the traditional terns of parole.
Several local law enforcement agencies have expressed
concern that police and sheriffs will be required to
do the job of the state corrections without adequate
resources or even the level of authority to monitor
parolees.
With respect to former inmates given early,
unsupervised release to parole, SB X3 18 changes state
law in several ways:
Thousands of inmates will have their sentences
reduced by more than half. In addition to six months
credit for each six months served, many inmates will
be awarded an additional six weeks of early release
credits each year before unsupervised release;
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageI
For state prisoners, CDCR has begun determining
which prisoners to release without parole supervision,
also known as non-revocable parole; and
Rehabilitation programs in state prisons are being
gutted and 600 to 800 vocational and educational
prison instructors will be given pink slips.
These changes are significant because as large
numbers of inmates are released back into our
communities without rehabilitation services or parole
surpervision, local law enforcement agencies are
concerned that their communities will become less safe
because they have no mechanism to monitor the large
number of parolees in their jurisdiction.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, SBx3 18 (Ducheny)(Ch. 28, Stats. 2009)
provides a statutory policy under which parolees with certain
offense and behavioral histories<3> are not subject to parole
revocation for parole violations; that is, they cannot be sent
back to prison for a parole violation.<4> Known as
"non-revocable parole" ("NRP"), these parolees technically are
still on parole and, as parolees, are still subject to the same
search and seizure conditions as all other parolees.
This bill would authorize local law enforcement, at its own
expense, to require NRP parolees who reside in their
jurisdiction to wear GPS or other electronic monitoring device
during the term of their parole. Supporters, such as the
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Riverside
Sheriffs' Association, submit, "(i)n a very real sense local law
enforcement will have to carry out the mission previously
---------------------------
<3> The disqualifiers for NRP are set forth at page 3 of this
analysis.
<4> NRP parolees who commit and are convicted of a new crime,
however, can be sentenced to prison or jail for that new
offense; nothing in NRP prevents or in anyway curtails the
authority of local law enforcement to arrest or prosecute any
parolee, including those subject to NRP, for a crime committed
during a term of parole.
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageJ
performed by parole agents."
3. Non-Revocable Parole: Purpose and Status
Parole in California has long been identified as a large,
under-resourced and over-burdened component of the correctional
system. In 2007 the Little Hoover Commission stated,
"California's parole system remains a billion dollar
failure."<5> Non-Revocable Parole ("NRP"), which became
effective on January 25 of this year, was developed as part of a
broader corrections reform effort by the Schwarzenegger
administration to improve parolee outcomes.
Governor Schwarzenegger's Rehabilitation Strike Team described
California's parole system in its December 2007 report, Meeting
the Challenges of Rehabilitation in California's Prison and
Parole System (Joan Petersilia, Ph.D., Chair):
About 120,000 inmates get released from California
prisons every year. Every one of them is put on
parole supervision, usually for one to three years.
Because California's prison populations has more than
quadrupled in the past twenty years, so too has its
parole population. California's parole population now
equals about 126,000 persons, and is growing at a
faster rate than its prison population (8% in 2007 for
parole vs. 0.4% for prisons). The upshot is that
California's parole system is so overburdened that
parolees who represent a serious public safety risk
are not watched closely enough, and those who wish to
go straight can not get the help they need. Nearly
17% of all California parolees-more than 20,000 people
- are "parolees at large," meaning they have absconded
supervision and their whereabouts are unknown. This
is the highest abscond rate in the nation and is far
above the 7% national average.
About 80% of all California parolees have fewer than
----------------------
<5> Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running
Out (Little Hoover Commission)(Jan. 2007).
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageK
two, 15-minute face-to-face meetings with a parole
agent each month, and nearly all of them take place in
the parole agents' office. And even the most
high-risk parolees have little supervision. Current
rules require agents who supervise the most dangerous
parolees to have the same two face-to-face contacts
per month, but one of those visits must take place in
the parolees' residence. Parolees may also be drug
tested, but in no instance, is the required drug
testing more frequent than monthly.
This low level of supervision and programming does not
prevent crime. . . .
. . .
Two-thirds of all California parolees (67%) will be
back in prison within three years, twice the national
average. In Texas, the state most comparable in the
size of its prison population to California, the
figure is about 20% (Petersilia 2006).
Due to their high failure rate, parolees account for
the bulk of California prison admissions. In 2006,
68,000 parolees were returned to California prisons
for parole violations, serving an average prison term
of about four months each for those violations.<6>
Research suggests that intensive parole programming directed at
higher risk offenders is more likely to produce improved public
safety outcomes than supervision approaches applied to all
offenders regardless of risk. In a Public Safety Policy Brief
dated December of 2008, the PEW Center on the States summarized
this research:
Research has demonstrated that evidence-based
interventions directed towards offenders with a
moderate to high risk of committing new crimes will
----------------------
<6> Emphasis added. This report is available online at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/GovRehabilitation
StrikeTeamRpt_ 012308.pdf.
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageL
result in better outcomes for both offenders and the
community. Conversely, treatment resources targeted
to low-risk offenders produce little, if any, positive
effect. In fact, despite the appealing logic of
involving low-risk individuals in intensive
programming to prevent them from graduating to more
serious behavior, numerous studies show that certain
programs may actually worsen their outcomes. By
limiting supervision and services for low-risk
offenders and focusing on those who present greater
risk, parole and probation agencies can devote limited
treatment and supervision resources where they will
provide the most benefit to public safety.<7>
In describing NRP in the context of the enactment of SBx3 18
(Ducheny), CDCR states NRP:
Creates a system of "summary" or
"non-revocable" parole for certain low-risk
parolees. These low-risk parolees will be
subject to standard parole search and seizure
conditions but will not be subject to traditional
parole supervision upon their release from
prison. This creates a $100 million savings while
allowing agents to focus their attention on
higher-risk parolees deemed more of a risk to the
public; . . . <8>
The administration summarizes the following benefits from NRP:
Removing low level offenders from parole
---------------------
<7> Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful
Supervision and Reentry (PEW Center for the States) (Dec. 2008)
(emphasis added).
<8> Legislative Changes, New Policies Intended to Improve
Parole System While Reducing the Overall Inmate Population, CDCR
Press Release dated Jan. 21, 2010.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2010_Press_Releases/ Jan_21.html.
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageM
supervision;
Allowing CDCR to focus parole supervision
on the most serious and violent parolees;
Allowing law enforcement to continue to
conduct warrantless searches on these parolees;
Reducing the number of parolees returned
to custody for parole violations; and
Reducing the need for bed space in county
jails and state prisons.<9>
In January of this year, CDCR described the following changes in
its parole practices and policies co-occurring with the
implementation of SBx3 18:
In addition to the reforms established in SB x3 18,
CDCR will implement parole reform strategies to
protect public safety, including:
Reducing agent caseloads to an average of 48
parolees for one agent from the previous ratio of 70
to one. This gives agents a better opportunity to
supervise parolees more aggressively, and interact
more frequently with local law enforcement,
rehabilitative service providers and other community
partners;
Placing 1,000 parolee gang members on active
GPS supervision and will add 2,000 electronic
tracking devices for parole violators as an
alternative to incarceration;
Increases monitoring requirements for sex
offenders on parole who are supervised using Global
----------------------
<9> CDCR description of Non-Revocable Parole "Benefits,"
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Non_Revocable_Parole/ NRP.html.
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageN
Positioning System;
Reclassifying some existing parole positions to
create 190 parole supervisors to oversee line-level
parole agents;
Adding 30 field training officers to maintain
proper training standards for parole agents; and
Using measurement guidelines for supervision
that focuses on a parolees successful transition
into the community rather than how many times they
are revoked.<10>
According to CDCR, as of April 1, 2010, there are 5,420 NRP
parolees. With respect to NRP case reviews done at CDCR
institutions, CDCR has provided the Committee with the following
information:
NON-REVOCABLE PAROLE
Cases Reviewed
as of March 26, 2010
---------------------------------------------------
| Case | Prior Week ending | Week ending |
| Summary | 3/19/2010 | 3/26/2010 |
|----------+--------------------+-------------------|
| Cases | 3,672 | 3,891 |
|screened* | | |
|----------+--------------------+-------------------|
|Determinat| DAI Results | DAI Results |
| ions* | | |
|----------+--------------------+-------------------|
| Yes | 2,188 | 2,269 |
|----------+--------------------+-------------------|
| No | 1,049 |1,109 |
---------------------------------------------------
4. Questions and Considerations for the Implementation and Effect
of this Bill; Suggested Revisions
---------------------------
<10> See fn.8, supra.
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageO
Members and the author may wish to discuss the following
considerations in determining whether authorizing local law
enforcement to require NRP parolees to wear GPS-type devices for
the duration of their parole period would be a policy that
results in enhanced public safety:
(More)
On what basis, other than fiscal considerations, would
local law enforcement decide to use, or not use, GPS-type
devices on a parolee?
As currently drafted, could this discretionary authority
be exercised on some, but not all, parolees and, if so,
could this authority be misapplied based on factors
unrelated to public safety risk?
How would local law enforcement "require" a parolee to
wear a GPS? How would this directive been enforced, and
what would happen if a parolee refused?
Is GPS-type technology an evidence-based practice for
all parolees, or is it a tool that is more or less
effective depending upon the offense history and risk
assessment of the individual offender?
Are there other evidence-based community supervision and
programming practices for parolees who qualify for NRP
besides GPS and, if so, should those practices be
authorized as well?
Because the secretary of CDCR retains jurisdiction over
NRP parolees, as currently drafted would this bill perfect
a shift of jurisdiction from CDCR to local law enforcement
for parolees subject to the GPS authorized by this bill?
The importance of analyzing these issues may be regarded as
particularly acute as all law enforcement jurisdictions in
California are challenged with marshalling their extremely
limited resources towards practices most likely to advance
community safety. Depending upon how these considerations are
addressed, the Committee and/or the author may wish to consider
whether this bill might be refined and expanded to better
address the concerns of local law enforcement that recent parole
reforms have made communities less safe.
Specifically, members may wish to consider revising this bill to
instead require CDCR to enter into agreements with local law
enforcement agencies that propose, at their own expense, to
supervise, monitor or manage, including but not limited to the
use of GPS, NRP parolees who reside in their community, provided
that the practice(s) proposed by the local agency are determined
(More)
SB 1452 (Runner)
PageQ
by the secretary to be evidence-based. "Evidence-based" for
purposes of this provision could be defined as supervision
policies, procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by
scientific research to reduce recidivism among individuals under
probation, parole, or post release, which would be likely to
improve the probability that an NRP parolee would not commit a
new offense while on parole.
ARE RECENT PAROLE REFORMS, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, MORE OR LESS LIKELY
TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY, AS MEASURED BY RESEARCH IN THE AREA OF
CORRECTIONAL POLICIES?
WOULD THIS BILL BE LIKELY TO DIRECT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESOURCES IN A MANNER THAT WOULD APPRECIABLY ENHANCE PUBLIC
SAFETY?
WOULD THE REVISIONS SUGGESTED ABOVE ENHANCE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO "NRP" PAROLEES?
***************