BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
3
2
AB 1323 (Gatto) 3
As Amended May 22, 2012
Hearing date: June 26, 2012
Penal Code
JM/AA:mc
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REALIGNMENT:
POST RELEASE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats.
2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats. 2011
ABx1 17 (Blumenfield) - Ch. 12, Stats. 2011
Support: Unknown
Opposition:Chief Probation Officers of California; California
Probation, Parole and Correctional Association;
California Public Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: No longer relevant
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageB
SHOULD A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENACT AN
ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERSONS ON POSTRELEASE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
TO REGISTER WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize any city, county, or
city and county to enact an ordinance requiring a person on
postrelease community supervision to register with the 'chief
law enforcement officer' upon establishing a residence in the
community.
Under current law , pursuant to the 2011 Realignment Legislation
addressing public safety, beginning on October 1, 2011, persons
released from prison after serving a determinate prison sentence
for a non-excluded felony<1> are subject to postrelease
community supervision ('PRCS') provided by a county agency
designated by each county's board of supervisors 'which is
consistent with evidence-based practices, including, but not
---------------------------
<1> Under realignment, prison inmates released after serving a
sentence for one of the following crimes are statutorily
excluded from PRCS, and will continue to be supervised by state
parole: 1) A serious felony as described in subdivision (c) of
Section 1192.7; 2) A violent felony as described in subdivision
(c) of Section 667.5; 3) A crime for which the person has been
sentenced to a life term under the 3-strikes law; 4)Any crime
where the person eligible for release from prison is classified
as a High Risk Sex Offender; 5) Any crime where the person is
required, as a condition of parole, to undergo treatment by the
Department of Mental Health as a mentally ill offender; 6) Any
felony committed while the person was on parole for a period
exceeding three years where the person was required to register
as a sex offender or was subject to parole for life, as
specified. (Penal Code Section 3000.08, as amended by Sections
37 and 38 of AB 117, and Section 17 of ABx1 17; see also Penal
Code Section 3451(b), as amended by Section 47 of AB 117.)
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageC
limited to, supervision policies, procedures, programs, and
practices demonstrated by scientific research to reduce
recidivism among individuals under postrelease supervision.'<2>
Current law sets out mandatory conditions of release to PRCS,
including, among others, the following:
The defendant shall report to the supervising agency
within two days of release and as directed thereafter.
The defendant shall follow the directives of the agency.
The defendant shall report to the agency during the
supervision period as directed.
The defendant shall inform the agency of his or her
place of residence, employment, education or training.
The defendant shall be subject to search and seizure
without a warrant.
The defendant shall report to the agency any anticipated
changes in residence, employment, education or training.
The defendant shall obtain prior approval before
traveling more than 50 miles from his or her residence and
shall obtain a travel pass to leave the state or country
for more than two days.
The defendant shall immediately inform the agency if he
or she is arrested or receives a citation for any offense.
The defendant shall not be in the presence of a firearm
or ammunition. (Penal Code � 3453.)
Current law provides for 'intermediate' and 'appropriate'
sanctions for violations of the terms of PRSC before PRCS is
revoked for a violation. The sanctions include 'flash
incarceration' for up to 10 days. (Pen. Code � 3454.)
Current law provides that PRCS shall not extend beyond three
---------------------------
<2> Penal Code Section 3451 as enacted by Section 479 of AB
109 and amended by Section 47 of AB 117. Realignment requires
counties notify CDCR on or before August 1, 2011, of the county
agencies that have been designated as the local entity
responsible for providing postrelease supervision. (Section 69,
AB 117.)
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageD
years from the date of the person's initial entry onto
postrelease supervision, except where the period is tolled, as
specified.<3> PRCS is required to be 'implemented by a county
agency according to a postrelease strategy designated by each
county's board of supervisors.'<4>
Current law requires the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to inform inmates subject to PRCS of
the inmate's responsibility to report to the county agency that
will supervise the inmate. CDCR also is required to notify the
county of all information otherwise required for parolees, as
specified, thirty days prior to the inmate's release, as
specified.<5>
Current law provides that where a prison inmate is released on
PRCS, CDCR shall release the inmate to the county of last legal
residence prior to incarceration, unless it is in the best
interest of the public to release the person to another county.
(Pen. Code � 3003, subd. (a).)
Current law provides that upon the release of an inmate to
parole or PRCS, CDCR shall provide the following information, if
available, to local law enforcement agencies where the person is
to be released:
Last, first, and middle name.
Birth date.
Sex, race, height, weight, and hair and eye color.
Date of parole and discharge.
Registration status, if the inmate is required to
register as a result of a controlled substance, sex, or
arson offense.
California Criminal Information Number, FBI number,
--------------------------
<3> Penal Code Section 3455, as enacted by Section 479 of AB
109 and amended by Section 50 of AB 117 and Section 30 of ABx1
17.
<4> Penal Code Section 3451(c) (1), as amended by Section 47
of AB 117.
<5> Penal Code Section 3451(c) (2), as enacted by Section 479
of AB 109 and amended by Section 47 of AB 117.
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageE
social security number, and driver's license number.
County of commitment.
A description of scars, marks, and tattoos on the
inmate.
Offense or offenses for which the inmate was convicted
that resulted in parole in this instance.
Address, including all of the following information:
o Street name and number. Post office box
numbers are not acceptable for purposes of this
subparagraph.
o City and ZIP Code.
o Date that the address provided pursuant to
this subparagraph was proposed to be effective.
Contact officer and unit, including all of the following
information:
o Name and telephone number of each contact
officer.
o Contact unit type of each contact officer such
as units responsible for parole, registration, or
county probation.
A digitized image of the photograph and at least a
single digit fingerprint of the parolee.
A geographic coordinate for the parolee's residence
location for use with a Geographical Information System
(GIS) or comparable computer program. (Pen. Code � 3003,
subd. (e).)
Current law requires that '(a)ll 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. (Penal Code � 3003, subd.
(e)(3).)
Current law requires the county agency implementing PRCS to
provide CDCR with any requested information about person on PRCS
so as to ensure that information in LEADS is accurate. (Pen.
Code � 3003, subd. (k).)
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageF
Current law provides that CDCR shall be responsible for the
automated information system (Law Enforcement Automated Data
System - LEADS) about released inmates required by subdivision
(e) of Section 3003. (Pen. Code � 3003, subd. (k)(1).)
Current law provides that where a person is released from prison
to PRCS, CDCR shall, at least 30 days prior to release, provide
the county with all the information about the person required by
Penal Code Section 3003, subdivision (e). (Pen. Code � 3451,
subd. (c)(2).)
Current law requires that CDCR, in addition to entering
information into LEADS, submit information about persons subject
to PRCS to the California Department of Justice to be included
in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(CLETS - Gov. Code �� 15150-15167) to inform law enforcement of
each persons on PRCS and agency supervising the person. (Pen.
Code � 3003, subd. (l).)
This bill would authorize a city, charter city, or city and
county to 'adopt and enact an ordinance that requires anyone who
is placed on postrelease community supervision to register with
the chief law enforcement officer of the city, charter city, or
city and county upon establishing residency in that city,
charter city, or city and county.'
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
('ROCA')
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as 'ROCA' (which stands for
'Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation'), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageG
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
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. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageH
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
With the recent public safety realignment, local law
enforcement agencies have been forced to assume much of the
responsibility for monitoring people under post-release
community supervision. As counties have been charged with
developing schemes for overseeing this post-release community
supervision, along with finding way to fully fund them, there
can be gaps in county supervision that allow for some people
to continue committing crimes in the cities they reside in.
In particular, the city of Glendale has asked for another tool
to keep track of individuals released back to their community.
Specifically, they are asking the state for the authority to
require any individual released under post-release supervision
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageI
to register with the Chief of Police upon establishing
residency within their city limits.
This information would better allow city police departments to
keep track of these persons and help shoulder some of the
burden of realignment while increasing public safety.
AB 1323 would require anyone released under post-released
supervision to register with the chief law enforcement officer
of the city they move into. This new obligation to register
would only apply in cities where a city council enacts an
ordinance establishing this requirement.
2. Post Release Community Supervision; Information about
Persons Subject to PRCS
As explained above, under the criminal justice realignment of
2011 many felons sentenced to prison are supervised for a period
of time directly following their release from prison by a county
agency - probation, as now determined by all counties - under
postrelease community supervision ('PRCS'). The criminal
justice realignment codifies legislative findings and
declarations including, with respect to PRCS, the following:
Realigning the postrelease supervision of certain felons
reentering the community after serving a prison term to
local community corrections programs, which are
strengthened through community-based punishment,
evidence-based practices, and improved supervision
strategies, will improve public safety outcomes among adult
felon parolees and will facilitate their successful
reintegration back into society.
Community corrections programs require a partnership
between local public safety entities and the county to
provide and expand the use of community-based punishment
for offenders paroled from state prison. Each county's
local Community Corrections Partnership . . . should play
a critical role in developing programs and ensuring
appropriate outcomes for persons subject to postrelease
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageJ
community supervision.<6>
Current law requires CDCR to place relatively extensive
information about persons subject to PRSC into a computer system
used by local law enforcement officers. The system is called
LEADS - the Law Enforcement Automated Data System. LEADS
contains identifying information, physical characteristics,
address a photograph and at least one fingerprint. The file
also contains contact information for the officer responsible
for supervising the person in the community.
Penal Code Section 3003, subdivision (l), also requires CDCR to
submit data to the Department of Justice on all persons released
on PRCS for inclusion in CLETS - the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System. The information also includes the
agency supervising each released person.
Probation departments supervising persons subject to PRCS are
required to do the following concerning PRCS:
County agencies supervising inmates released to
postrelease supervision ? shall provide any
information requested by the department to ensure the
availability of accurate information regarding inmates
released from state prison. This information may
include the issuance of warrants, revocations, or the
termination of postrelease supervision. On or before
August 1, 2011, county agencies designated to
supervise inmates released to postrelease supervision
shall notify the department that the county agencies
have been designated as the local entity responsible
for providing that supervision. (Penal Code �
3003(k)(1).)
Members may wish to discuss these existing provisions of law,
and whether they are a sufficient foundation provided by state
law to support and facilitate adequate and appropriate
communication between local law enforcement entities with
---------------------------
<6> Penal Code Section 3450, as enacted by Section 479 of AB
109 and amended by Section 27 of ABx1 17.
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageK
respect to persons on PRCS, especially in the context of this
very early stage of realignment. To the extent these local
relationships may not have yet achieved the level of
collaboration and partnership envisioned by the architects of
realignment, members may wish to discuss the role of county
leaders in promoting these qualities as they work to achieve the
goals of realignment.
With respect to the use of registration as a law enforcement
tool, by way of comparison the most widely-known registration
requirement in existing law is the requirement that sex
offenders register with local law enforcement. Most sex
offender registrants are not on probation or parole. In
contrast with sex offender registrants, persons subject to PRCS
are supervised in the community by a local probation department
which knows the community well and may know the person on PRCS
from prior probation terms. Members may wish to discuss what
additional public safety goals and outcomes would be gained from
requiring PRCS defendants to register with the police or sheriff
in addition to their existing requirements under PRCS.
3. Likely Criminal Penalties in Ordinances Authorized by this
Bill
This bill authorizes local government entities to enact
ordinances requiring persons released on PRCS to register with
local law enforcement when the person establishes a residence in
a community or moves to a new residence. It is likely that many
ordinance adopted pursuant to this bill will include misdemeanor
penalties, the maximum offense that can be defined in a local
ordinance.
The bill arguably could create a circumstance where a person who
is performing well on PRCS nevertheless could be convicted of a
crime - failure to register as a PRCS - and be incarcerated in
county jail. A PRCS defendant could be convicted of the crime
even where local law enforcement knows where the person lives
and works through the existing information sources described
above. Persons under PRCS are subject to numerous mandatory
conditions of release and, where they violate these terms, an
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageL
array of sanctions including custodial sanctions. It is unclear
how persons on PRCS would be aware of the duty to register. The
bill does not require that PRCS defendants be informed about the
duty to register.
As with the public safety impact of this bill, members may wish
to discuss how the registration authority proposed by this bill
would impact and interrelate with the existing obligations of
persons on PRCS, and how it would enhance their ability to
successfully complete their period of PRCS.
4. Opposition
The Chief Probation Officers of California, which opposes this
bill, submits:
Existing law sets forth procedures for a change in
residency of a person who is under postrelease
community supervision, while requiring these persons
enter into a postrelease community supervision
agreement as a condition of their release, and that
the agreement include certain conditions, including a
requirement that the person inform the supervising
county agency of his or her place of residence and any
pending or anticipated changes in residence.
Realignment establishes the dynamic for local
jurisdictions to create a plan that is responsive to
their communities. Decisions regarding registration
notification, data collection and sharing, and other
matters relative to this population should be left
with the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP)
which includes representation by probation, the county
board of supervisors, sheriff, district attorney and
other impacted groups. Supervision of offenders must
be coordinated among effected agencies in order to
ensure a reliance on lists, that could be outdated or
contain inaccurate information are not relied upon -
potentially creating a false sense of security and
risk incentivizing less communication and
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageM
collaboration among agencies. That is exactly what
the CCP is intended to address in a thoughtful manner.
There is already general information regarding the
PRCS available to all law enforcement through CDCR
with their LEADS system and DOJ through CLETS. While
realignment implementation procedures continue to be
improved upon, the existence of both of these data
bases would make another registry duplicative.
5. PRCS Roll Out; Realignment 'Frictions'
Effective for less than one year, realignment is presenting
challenging implementation issues for the local law enforcement
partners responsible for its effectiveness, and also for the
offenders subject to its requirements. A recent article in the
Los Angeles Times describes some of this effect:
The first four times Pamela Morris was released from
prison, she would go to her state parole officers or
they would occasionally make unannounced solo visits
to make sure she wasn't committing new crimes.
But after Morris completed a state sentence for
shoplifting earlier this year, she reported to Los
Angeles County probation officers under a new
cost-cutting state program known as realignment and
checked into a group home for newly released female
ex-convicts.
Things were going well, Morris said, until the
afternoon three LAPD officers showed up at her door,
handcuffed her and searched her room.
'They scared the living mess out of me,' said Morris,
who added that she takes medicine for schizophrenia.
'Nobody would tell me what was going on.'
Rather than keeping her on the right track, Morris
said the incident was so unnerving that she briefly
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageN
went back to living on the streets before returning to
the group home.
'It kind of set me back,' she said.
The encounter at Morris' home highlights one of the
new friction points created by a recent shift of
responsibility for thousands of prisoners and
ex-convicts from state to local authorities.
Realignment was intended to relieve California's
overcrowded prison system by keeping more low-level
offenders in local jails rather than transferring them
to state custody. And by giving local agencies more
responsibility for monitoring prisoners freed on
probation, the state can save hundreds of millions of
dollars.
But city and county efforts to keep tabs on nearly
6,000 felons released in L.A. County alone have also
prompted confusion and anger, jockeying among agencies
for millions in public money and warnings that public
safety employees are facing new dangers.
Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies and LAPD
officers have expanded duties for periodic 'compliance
checks' on the reassigned former inmates, who served
time for nonviolent crimes. The volume of checks
means that probation officers, who may already know
the ex-convicts and be better positioned to defuse
situations that can become confrontational, often
aren't available to go along.
In many cases, like Morris', police or deputies
working in teams roll up in multiple squad cars.
Law enforcement officials say officers may not know
what they are walking into and that teams help ensure
safety. Moreover, under the terms of their release,
parolees and probationers generally are subject to
warrantless searches at any time, they note.
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageO
But critics, including some elected officials, argue
that in some cases, the tactics being used are
needlessly intimidating and expensive.
'It really erodes trust when four cars and several
officers pull up,' said Mark Faucette, vice president
of the Amity Foundation, which runs a residential
treatment facility near USC.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who
happened to be visiting Morris' group home when the
LAPD officers arrived, expressed concerned about the
amount of scarce law enforcement resources being used
for the program. 'It's not cost-effective,
particularly when there was no imminent threat of
danger,' he said.
Ridley-Thomas said he was so disturbed by the scene at
the group home, which was videotaped by a staff member
and posted on YouTube, that he phoned LAPD Chief
Charlie Beck. Beck told him officers were still
adapting to their new duties and that procedures were
still evolving, Ridley-Thomas said.
(More)
Beck confirmed the conversation in an email. 'This is
a new role for us, and we are working to develop the
protocols that our officers use with this population,'
he said.
The compliance checks top a growing list of
controversies quietly brewing as realignment takes
hold in communities across California. Other
complaints include cuts in public transportation
assistance for newly released inmates and delayed
payments to nonprofit groups providing drug
counseling, job training and other services intended
to keep ex-convicts from committing new crimes.
The state gave Los Angeles County about $120 million
this fiscal year for its law enforcement and social
service obligations under the realignment program.
Given the state budget shortfall, it's unclear how
much may be provided next year. An estimated $10.6
million of that will be spent by the county Sheriff's
Department on compliance checks. A team of 50
deputies, plus other personnel, are assigned to the
effort. The LAPD estimates that checks on ex-convicts
in its territory will cost the city more than $35
million a year. Thus far, it has been unable to
obtain reimbursement through the county.
LAPD officials say they asked for probation officers
to be assigned to each of the department's 21 stations
to assist in compliance checks. But only five were
assigned because of the cost.
Unions representing probation officers say the checks
would be more efficient - and less risky - if their
members were involved. Leaders of the groups recently
wrote county supervisors, criticizing them for not
hiring more staff to deal with added increased
workloads.
(More)
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageQ
'We are all collectively sitting on a tinderbox
waiting to explode,' they wrote. 'It is no longer a
case of 'if' an officer gets injured in the line of
duty; it is a matter of 'when.''
But supervisors say they need to move cautiously in
divvying up a limited amount of realignment funding.
'There are some departments that see this as an
opportunity to grab a chunk of cash,' said Supervisor
Zev Yaroslavsky. 'We should be husbanding our money
and being conservative, not overly generous in how we
appropriate the money.'
Those money concerns underscore the need to reexamine
the tactics employed in compliance checks, some say.
'They're having four people do the job of one person,'
said Jeff Christensen, the project director of the
nonprofit Sober Living Network, which advocates for
group homes. Christensen said he's heard more
complaints in the last five months about compliance
checks than he received over the previous decade. . .
.
. . .
On the day of the LAPD compliance check, (Morris)
said, she had just finished telling Ridley-Thomas and
other visiting county officials about the progress she
was making. When she was approached by three officers
and placed in handcuffs, she said, 'I thought I was
getting arrested.'
She said little during the incident, Morris said. The
video shows New Way of Life's executive director,
Susan Burton, angrily confronting the officers in the
street afterward. Burton demanded their business
cards and asked why they had handcuffed Morris.
'This is a waste of taxpayer money,' Burton tells the
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageR
officers at one point.
'I agree,' one officer responds. LAPD Capt. Phil
Tingirides later viewed the video at a community
meeting in South Los Angeles where complaints about
the tactics were aired. An online video of the
meeting shows Tingirides telling Morris he was sorry
she felt embarrassed but that the officers acted
appropriately.
In a Times interview, he said that the same team had
found guns during other compliance checks. 'It is not
like we can go into these checks knowing beforehand
that one person is a big deal and another isn't,' he
said.
Still, Tingirides said he hopes officers can undergo
more training because the searches are creating
tension. 'If we keep going as we are, we are going to
alienate people,' he said.
Morris said she appreciated Tingirides' apology. But
she worries about her next compliance check.
'I don't want to get handcuffed again,' she said.
'I've done my time and trying to start a clean
slate.'<7>
***************
---------------------------
---------------------------
<7> Jason Song, Realignment Plan for California Causing New
Frictions (Los Angeles Times, May 29, 2012).
AB 1323 (Gatto)
PageS