BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
3
5
SB 1351 (Rubio) 1
As Introduced February 24, 2012
Hearing date: March 27, 2012
Penal Code (URGENCY)
SM:mc
LOCAL CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS
HISTORY
Source: Association of Cities Allied with Public Safety
Prior Legislation: AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Chapter 39,
Statutes of 2011
AB 3401 (Waters) - Chapter 1285, Statutes of 2000
Support: City of Shafter; City of Delano; California State
Sheriffs' Association; California State Association of Counties;
Urban Counties Caucus; Regional Council of Rural Counties
Opposition:None known
(NOTE: AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED - SEE COMMENT #4.)
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DEFINITION OF "LOCAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER," AS SPECIFIED,
INCLUDE PEACE OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND
COUNTY WHICH OPERATES A LOCAL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY UNDER
CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, AS SPECIFIED, WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 2
AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING CUSTODY OF INMATES SENTENCED TO
OR HOUSED IN THAT FACILITY, AND WHO PERFORM TASKS RELATED TO THE
OPERATION OF THAT FACILITY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that the definition of
"local correctional officer," as specified, would include peace
officers employed by a city, county, or city and county which
operates a local community correctional facility under contract
with public agencies other than the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR), as specified, who have the authority
and responsibility for maintaining custody of inmates sentenced
to or housed in that facility, and who perform tasks related to
the operation of that facility.
Current law establishes various classifications of peace officer
with limited powers. (See Penal Code �� 830, et seq.) One such
classification is a peace officer employed by a city, county, or
city and county which operates a local community correctional
facility under contract with the state Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, as specified, who has the authority and
responsibility for maintaining custody of specified state prison
inmates or wards, and who performs tasks related to the
operation of a detention facility used for the detention of
persons who have violated parole or are awaiting parole back
into the community or, upon court order, either for their own
safekeeping or for the specific purpose of serving a sentence
therein. (Penal Code � 830.55(a).)
Current law states that these local correctional officers shall
have no right to carry or possess firearms in the performance of
his or her prescribed duties, except, under the direction of the
superintendent of the facility, while engaged in transporting
prisoners, guarding hospitalized prisoners, or suppressing
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 3
riots, lynchings, escapes, or rescues in or about specified
detention facilities. (Penal Code � 830.55(b).)
Current law provides that local correctional officers, within 90
days following the date of the initial assignment to that
position, shall satisfactorily complete the training course
specified in Section 832. In addition, these employees, within
one year following the date of the initial assignment as an
officer, shall have satisfactorily met the minimum selection and
training standards prescribed by the Board of Corrections
pursuant to Section 6035. These local correctional officers,
before the expiration of the 90-day and one-year periods
described in this subdivision, who have not yet completed the
required training, may perform the duties of a correctional
officer only while under the direct supervision of a
correctional officer who has completed the training required in
this section, and shall not carry or possess firearms in the
performance of their prescribed duties. (Penal Code �
830.55(c).)
Current law provides that it shall not be construed to confer
any authority upon a local correctional officer except while on
duty. (Penal Code � 830.55(d).)
Current law states that a local correctional officer may use
reasonable force in establishing and maintaining custody of
persons delivered to him or her by a law enforcement officer,
may make
arrests for misdemeanors and felonies within the local detention
facility pursuant to a duly issued warrant, and may make
warrantless arrests pursuant to Section 836.5 only during the
duration of his or her job. (Penal Code � 830.55(e).)
Current law provides that, upon agreement with the sheriff or
director of the county department of corrections, a board of
supervisors may enter into a contract with other public agencies
to provide housing for inmates sentenced to county jail in
community correctional facilities created pursuant to Chapter
9.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Title 7. This section
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 4
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2015, and as of
that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before that date, deletes or extends that date. (Penal
Code � 4115.55.)
This bill would provide that the local correctional officer
classification described above would include peace officers
employed by a city, county, or city and county which operates a
local community correctional facility under contract with public
agencies other than CDCR, as specified, who have the authority
and responsibility for maintaining custody of inmates sentenced
to or housed in that facility, and who perform tasks related to
the operation of that facility.
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
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
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 5
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
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:
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 6
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:
CCFs are critical to ensuring that realignment works
in California. Currently, custody staff at CCFs
across the state are unable to work without peace
officer status. In the Central Valley, SB 1351 would
restore over 200 well-paying jobs at public CCFs.
This bill would ensure these employees are rehired
with peace officer status and extend to them the same
powers and responsibilities that they held under
contract with CDCR. This would enable the CCFs to
enter into new contracts with local counties for
inmate housing.
2. What Are Community Correctional Facilities?
Community Correctional Facilities (CCFs) have existed in
California dating back to the 1960s. (Penal Code � 6250, et
seq.) "The primary purpose of such facilities is to provide
housing, supervision, counseling, and other correctional
programs for persons committed to the Department of
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 7
Corrections." (Penal Code � 6251.) The Legislature has, from
time to time, authorized CDCR to establish CCFs for specific
purposes, such as to provide drug treatment (Penal Code �
6250.5.) and to serve as "re-entry" centers:
A community correctional reentry center shall prepare
the inmate for reintegration into society. These
centers shall provide counseling in the areas of drug
and alcohol abuse, stress, employment skills, victim
awareness, and shall, in general, prepare the inmate
for return to society. The program shall also
emphasize literacy training and utilize
computer-supported training so that the inmate can
read and write at least at a ninth grade level.
(Penal Code � 6258. For an impermissible use of a CCF
see Pitts v. Reagan, 14 Cal. App. 3d 112 (1971) �use
of inmates as emergency farm labor].)
(More)
Prior to last year's Public Safety Realignment, CCFs were only
authorized to be operated by CDCR. Under realignment, the
lower-level offenders previously housed at CDCR will now be
"realigned" to the custody of the counties. This is the very
inmate population that was previously housed in CCFs.
Therefore, along with the passage of realignment last year, the
Legislature authorized counties to contract with local public
agencies to use CCFs to house inmates sentenced to county jail.
(Penal Code � 4115.55.) This bill addresses the status of the
correctional officers who supervise inmates at CCFs.
This bill would extend the same limited peace officer status to
local correctional officers employed at CCFs established by
counties as currently applies to those officers employed at CC's
established by CDCR. While the authority to establish CCFs will
now rest predominantly, if not exclusively with counties, the
duties of the correctional staff at these facilities would
appear to be the same.
Penal Code section 13540 requires that the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST) perform a feasibility
study when anyone who is not a peace officer seeks peace officer
status or whenever a peace officer seeks a change to their
status. POST performed such a study in 1991 with respect to
local correctional officers employed at county correctional
facilities for parole violators authorized pursuant to Penal
Code section 2910.5. That study examined the duties of such
officers and concluded that the peace officer status created in
Penal Code section 830.55 was appropriate for those employees in
that setting. (A Report to the Legislature on Local
Correctional Peace Officer, Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training, on file with the Committee.)
With respect to this bill, POST has informed Committee staff
that the duties of local correctional peace officers at CCF's
would be sufficiently similar to those that were the subject of
the 1991 study as to preclude the need for any further
feasibility study and that peace officer status pursuant to
Penal Code section 830.55 is appropriate for these employees.
(More)
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 9
SHOULD PEACE OFFICER STATUS PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION
830.55, BE AFFORDED TO LOCAL CORRECTIONAL STAFF AT CCFs
ESTABLISHED BY COUNTIES?
3. Statement in Support
The City of Shafter states:
With the Legislature's recent passage of AB 109, the
Public Safety Realignment Program, that took effect
October 1, 2011, all public CCFs were closed due to
the state transferring its responsibilities to
counties for the supervision and housing of low-level
inmates who are designated non-sex, non-serious and
non-violent offenders. Through trailer bill language,
public CCFs are the only entities currently authorized
to contract with counties and sheriff departments to
house their local inmate population. This
authorization is in effect for the next three years.
However, overlooked through the realignment process
was the continued authorization for peace officer
status of public CCF custody staff. This designation,
which has been in effect since 1990, is critical in
that many counties and sheriff departments across
California require peace officer status for any entity
they enter into contract with to provide overflow beds
for their local inmates. Already, larger counties in
California are seeing their local jails reach design
capacity limits and are pursuing contracts with public
CCFs for additional bed space they need to house their
local inmate population.
4. Proposed Author's Amendment
The author proposes to amend the bill in Committee to conform
its provisions with Penal Code section 4115.55, which the bill
cross-references. This amendment will clarify that the entity
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 10
with authority to establish a community correctional facility is
the county board of supervisors.
***************