BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 26
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 26 (Padilla)
As Amended August 31, 2011
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :39-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Knight, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Hagman, Hill, Mitchell, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Skinner | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that a person who possesses with the intent
to deliver, or delivers, to an inmate or ward in the custody of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) any
cellular telephone or other wireless communication device or any
component thereof, including, but not limited to, subscriber
identity module (SIM) cards and memory storage devices, is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not to exceed
$5,000 for each device, or both. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a person who is visiting an inmate or ward under
the jurisdiction of CDCR who is found to be in possession of a
cellular telephone, wireless communication device, or any
component thereof, as specified, upon being searched or
subjected to a metal detector, shall be subject to having that
device confiscated and returned the same day the person visits
the inmate or ward, except as specified.
2)States that if, upon investigation, it is determined that no
prosecution will take place, the cellular telephone or other
wireless communication device or any component thereof shall
be returned to the owner at the owner's expense.
3)Requires notice of the above confiscation provisions to be
posted in all areas where visitors are searched prior to
SB 26
Page 2
visitation with an inmate or ward in the custody of the
department.
4)Provides that any inmate who is found to be in possession of a
wireless communication device shall be subject to time credit
denial or loss of up to 90 days.
5)States that a person who brings, without authorization, a
wireless communication device within the secure perimeter of
any prison or institution housing offenders under the
jurisdiction of CDCR is deemed to have given his or her
consent to CDCR using available technology to prevent that
wireless device from sending or receiving telephone calls or
other forms of electronic communication. Notice of this
provision shall be posted at all public entry gates of the
prison.
6)Requires CDCR to obtain a search warrant before accessing any
data or communications that have been captured using available
technology from unauthorized use of a wireless communication
device.
7)Prohibits CDCR from capturing data or communications or
accessing data or communications that have been captured using
available technology from an authorized wireless communication
device, except as already authorized under existing law.
8)States that if the available technology to prevent wireless
communications from sending and receiving telephone calls or
other forms of electronic communication extends beyond the
secure perimeter of the prison or institution, the CDCR shall
take all reasonable actions to correct the problem.
9)Provides that any contractor or employee of a contractor or
CDCR who knowingly and willfully, without authorization,
obtains, discloses, or uses confidential information in
violation of the above provisions shall be subject to an
administrative fine or civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for
a first violation, or $10,000 for a second violation, or
$25,000 for a third or subsequent violation.
10)Provides that the state shall require, until January 1, 2018,
as part of the contract for the Inmate Ward Telephone System
that the total cost for intrastate and interstate calls be
SB 26
Page 3
equal to or less than the total costs of a call established in
the contract in effect on September 1, 2011. Other than the
conversation minute charges and prepaid account setup fees,
there shall be no additional charges of any type, including
administrative fees, call-setup fees, detail billing fees,
hard copy billing fees, or any other fees.
11)Adds an urgency clause.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Major one-time costs of about $1 million per prison ($33
million) for implementation of the managed access system.
These costs, however, will be covered by new revenues as the
cost of the system is being built into the new inmate
telephone system contract, which pays the contractor based on
inmate call volume. Ongoing maintenance costs will also be
covered by the new contract. (The contract process is
underway; CDCR expects to select and sign a new contractor in
February 2012.)
CDCR's rationale is that significantly reducing, if not
eliminating, inmate access to illegal cell phones and wireless
devices will dramatically increase use of the inmate telephone
system, thereby allowing the contractor's profits to increase
sufficiently to provide managed access at no new cost to the
state and with no increase to inmate phone charges, which
range from about 50 cents to $6.50 for a 15 minute phone call.
Because the length of the contract will be at least six years,
the contractor should have time to recoup its managed access
costs. For the past two years the inmate call system has
created revenues of about $30 million for the current
contractor.
2)Significant annual General Fund (GF) costs, potentially in the
range of $2 million, for longer prison terms as a result of
credit forfeiture.
This bill specifies any inmate who possesses a cell phone may
lose up to 90 days of credit. Current law specifies up to 30
days of sentence credit may be forfeited for a single
SB 26
Page 4
disciplinary offense as defined by CDCR. According to the
Office of the Inspector General, in 2006, correctional
officers seized 261 cell phones. In 2008, the number
increased to 2,811. In 2011, CDCR is on pace to seize about
15,000 cell phones. Many of these phones were taken from
staff and visitors; others were discovered on the grounds. If
managed access reduces the current annual seizure pace by 50%,
if 25% of the phones seized are from inmates, and if 25% of
those seizures result in an additional two months in prison,
the annualized GF cost would be about $2 million, based on
overcrowding costs.
3)Unknown nonreimbursable local law enforcement and
incarceration costs to the extent correctional staff and/or
others are convicted of trafficking cell phones in state
prisons. For example, if 33 persons served six months in
county jail, local incarceration costs would be in the range
of $600,000, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue.
4)In addition, to the extent that a person convicted of
misdemeanor cell phone trafficking was on parole or probation,
and is revoked to state prison as a result, state GF prison
costs would increase. For example, if six persons were
revoked to state prison as a result of this bill, annual costs
would be in the range of $100,000.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Smuggled cell phones in our
State prison system are a growing and dangerous problem.
Inmates with access to cell phones have been ordering murders,
organizing escapes, facilitating drug deals, controlling street
gangs, and terrorizing rape victims. In 2006 the number of
phones confiscated was 261. Last year it reached 11,000. This
year we are on pace to exceed 13,000. 43 states and the federal
government have taken action to tackle this problem in their
prisons. Yet California which has the biggest problem has
failed to act year after year."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0002295
SB 26
Page 5