BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
4
4
AB 44 (Logue)
As Amended March 24, 2011
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
Penal Code
SM:dl
NOTIFICATION OF INMATE RELEASE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1199 (Costa) - Ch. 1199, Stats. of 1999
AB 2294 (Sweeney) - Ch. 1103, Stats. of 1996
Support: California State Association of Counties; California
State Sheriffs' Association; Regional Council of Rural
Counties; Urban Counties Caucus
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH BPH OR CDCR MUST NOTIFY LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEDULED RELEASE OF AN INMATE CONVICTED OF A
VIOLENT FELONY BE EXTENDED FROM 45 DAYS TO 60 DAYS?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 44 (Logue)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to extend from 45 days to 60 days
the period of time in which BPH or CDCR must notify local law
enforcement of the scheduled release of an inmate convicted of a
violent felony.
Existing law requires that whenever a person is confined in the
state prison for a conviction of a violent felony, within 45
days of the scheduled release of that person, the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) (in the case
of determinately sentenced inmates) or the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) (in the case of indeterminately sentenced
inmates) shall notify the sheriff, chief of police, or both, and
the district attorney that have jurisdiction over the community
in which the person was convicted and that have jurisdiction
over the community in which the person is scheduled to be
released. (Penal Code � 3058.6.)
Existing law provides that the sheriff or the chief of police,
when notified as to the pending release of a violent felon may,
without incurring any liability, notify any person they deem
appropriate of the pending release. (Penal Code � 3058.7(a).)
Existing law also requires the CDCR or BPH to send a notice to a
victim or witness who has requested notification that a person
convicted of a violent felony is scheduled to be released.
(Penal Code � 3058.8(a).)
Existing law requires that, except as specified, an inmate who
is released on parole or post release supervision shall be
returned to the county that was the last legal residence of the
inmate prior to his or her incarceration. Nonetheless, an inmate
may be returned to another county if that would be in the best
interests of the public. In making its decision, the paroling
authority shall consider, among others, specified factors,
giving the greatest weight to the protection of the victim and
the safety of the community. (Penal Code � 3003(a), (b).)
Existing law provides that an inmate who is released on parole
(More)
AB 44 (Logue)
Page 3
shall not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the
actual residence of a victim of, or a witness to, specified
violent felonies or a felony in which the defendant inflicts
great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice, as
specified, if the victim or witness has requested additional
distance in the placement of the inmate on parole, and if the
BPH or the CDCR finds that there is a need to protect the life,
safety, or well-being of a victim or witness. (Penal Code �
3003(f).)
Existing law provides that an inmate who is released on parole
for specified sex crimes whom the CDCR determines poses a high
risk to the public shall not be placed or reside, for the
duration of his or her parole, within one-half mile of any
public or private school including any or all of kindergarten
and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (Penal Code � 3003(g).)
Existing law provides that an inmate who is released on parole
for an offense involving stalking shall not be returned to a
location within 35 miles of the victim's actual residence or
place of employment if the victim or witness has requested
additional distance in the placement of the inmate on parole,
and if the BPH or the CDCR finds that there is a need to protect
the life, safety, or well-being of the victim. (Penal Code �
3003(h).)
Existing law provides that the authority shall give
consideration to the equitable distribution of parolees and the
proportion of out-of-county commitments from a county compared
to the number of commitments from that county when making parole
decisions. (Penal Code � 3003(i).)
This bill would extend from 45 days to 60 days the period of
time in which BPH or CDCR must notify local law enforcement of
the scheduled release of an inmate convicted of a violent
felony.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
AB 44 (Logue)
Page 4
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
(More)
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
The current timeline that CDCR follows to notify
counties of the release of a parolee is problematic.
The recent high profile release of Loren Herzog, a
convicted serial killer, into Lassen County in my
district caused a great deal of anxiety in the
community and gave law enforcement very little time to
prepare for Herzog's release. This is a perfect
example of the need for CDCR to think further ahead
than the current 45-day timeline. The solution
proposed by AB 44 is to extend the required
notification date from 45 days to 60 days before the
release date. While not a perfect solution, this will
give counties and law enforcement additional notice
and reduce the likelihood of a short notice release.
2. Current Notification Procedures at CDCR
CDCR summarized their current notification process as follows:
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) sends release notifications 90 days prior to
parole to those victims/witnesses who have requested a
notice. This will give victims adequate time to
challenge the residential placement in accordance with
established CDCR procedures.
The CDCR also provides notification of release 60 days
prior to parole to law enforcement agencies, district
attorneys and family members pursuant to Penal Code
(PC) Sections 3058.6, 3058.9, 3060.6, 3058.61 and
(More)
AB 44 (Logue)
Page 6
3058.65.
CDCR informed Committee staff that, whenever possible, they
provide notice 90 days prior to the release of a person
convicted of a violent felony to victims and witnesses who have
requested such notice.
SHOULD THIS NOTICE PERIOD BE EXTENDED?
***************