BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
3
0
AB 2308 (Stone) 8
As Amended June 15, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:mc
PRISONERS:
IDENTIFICATION CARDS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 2262 (Bass and Block)-2010, held in Senate
Appropriations
AB 777 (Bass)-2009, held in Assembly
Appropriations
AB 639 (Hancock)-2007, vetoed by Governor
Support: Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers
Association; Long Beach Police Officers Association;
California Fraternal Order of Police; Santa Ana Police
Officers Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs
Association; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; Los Angeles Police Protective League;
Riverside Sheriff's Association; Los Angeles Probation
Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685; Crime Victims
United of California; Californians United for a
Responsible Budget; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; Friends Committee on Legislation of
California; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children;
National Alliance on Mental Illness; Families to Amend
(More)
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageB
California's Three Strikes (FACTS) Education Fund; Life
Support Alliance; Taxpayers for Improving Public
Safety; Dignity and Power Now; California Catholic
Conference of Bishops; California Workforce
Association; Chief Probation Officers of California;
California Correctional Peace Officers Association;
San Diego County District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis;
American Federal of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; William James Association;
California Coalition for Women Prisoners; San Diego
Reentry Roundtable; American Civil Liberties Union;
California Cure
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 1
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD ALL ELIGIBLE INMATES BEING RELEASED FROM STATE PRISON BE
PROVIDED VALID CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION CARDS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to require the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and
Department of Motor Vehicles to ensure that all inmates released
from state prisons have valid identification cards.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
to issue an identification card to any person attesting to the
true full name, correct age, and other identifying data as
certified by the applicant for the identification card. Every
application for an identification card shall be signed and
verified by the applicant before a person authorized to
administer oaths and shall be supported by bona fide documentary
(More)
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageC
evidence of the age and identity of the applicant as DMV may
require, and shall include a legible print of the thumb or
finger of the applicant. (Vehicle Code � 13000.)
Existing law provides that upon application for an original or
duplicate license DMV may require the applicant to produce any
identification that it determines is necessary in order to
ensure that the name of the applicant stated in the application
is his or her true, full name and that his or her residence
address as set forth in the application is his or her true
residence address. (Vehicle Code � 12800.7.)
Existing law states that DMV, notwithstanding any other law,
shall require an application for a driver's license to contain
the applicant's social security account number and any other
number or identifier determined to be appropriate by the
department. (Vehicle Code � 12801(a).)
Existing law provides, notwithstanding the above provision, an
applicant who provides satisfactory proof that his or her
presence in the United States is authorized under federal law,
but who is not eligible for a social security account number, is
eligible to receive an original driver's license if he or she
meets all other qualifications for licensure. (Vehicle Code �
12801 (b).)
Existing law requires DMV to issue an original driver's license
to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the
applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under
federal law if he or she meets all other qualifications for
licensure and provides satisfactory proof to the department of
his or her identity and California residency. (Operative date
of January 1, 2015, or on the date the director of DMV executes
a specified declaration, whichever is sooner.) (Vehicle Code �
12801.9.)
Existing law states the finding of the Legislature that the
period immediately following incarceration is critical to
successful reintegration of the offender into society and to
positive citizenship. It is in the interest of public safety
(More)
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageD
for the state to provide for the effective supervision of and
surveillance of parolees, including the judicious use of
revocation actions, and to provide educational, vocational,
family and personal counseling necessary to assist parolees in
the transition between imprisonment and discharge. (Penal Code
� 3000(a)(1).)
This bill would require CDCR and DMV to ensure that all eligible
inmates released from state prisons have valid identification
cards, issued pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
13000) of Chapter 1 of Division 6 of the Vehicle Code.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
(More)
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageE
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
(More)
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageF
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
(More)
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for Legislation
The author states, in part:
Inmates leaving prison without a valid state-issued
identification (ID) card are at a distinct
disadvantage in their efforts to reintegrate into the
community post-incarceration.
People coming out of prison are released without any
official state ID and are unable to obtain a job, a
place to live, public benefits including Medi-Cal or
Cal Fresh, or other necessities in the community.
Moreover, the process of obtaining important documents
such as birth certificates, social security cards, and
state ID cards, especially for those individuals who
have been incarcerated for many years, can be
daunting. Failure to do so quickly can doom their
chances of successfully reintegrating into the
community and ultimately make it more difficult for
them to avoid recidivating.
While some individuals enter prison with current
state-issued IDs, regular ID cards issued by the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) expire after 6
years and senior ID cards expire after 10 years. The
process and cost to apply for or renew a DMV ID card
is an unnecessary hurdle for people recently released
from prison who often have no assets or means of
traveling to a DMV office.
There is currently no statutory requirement for CDCR
to ensure that inmates released from state prisons
(More)
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageH
have a valid ID card.
2. Effect of Legislation
CDCR implemented the Cal-ID program in October 2013. The Cal-ID
program provides a valid California identification card to
eligible inmates upon their release from prison. The Cal-ID
Program is located at each prison facility that is currently
designated as a Reentry Hub institution.<1> All eligible
inmates scheduled for release from Reentry Hub institutions can
apply for a Cal-ID if they meet the eligibility requirements.
To be eligible inmates must:
Be within 120-210 days of release;
Have no active felony hold, warrant, or detainer
that may result in additional incarceration following
release;
Not have an active Immigration and Customs
Enforcement hold, which would result in deportation;
Provide a valid Social Security number;
Have been issued a California identification card or
driver license from the Department of Motor Vehicles
within the previous 10 years; and,
Provide an address, including Zip code, where he/she
will reside upon release.
According to information provided to by CDCR, "As of May 31,
2014, since the program's inception in October 2013, the
Department has delivered a total of 2,714 applications to the
DMV on behalf of eligible inmates, with approximately 1,875
applications being approved and IDs delivered to inmates upon
their release. (Please note that the application number
includes 486 applications that were submitted in May but have
not yet been processed by DMV, so the approval number is
expected to increase.) Generally, DMV approves approximately
84% of the applications that have been submitted during this
program."
---------------------------
<1> According to information provided by CDCR, the Cal-ID
program is offered at each of the 13 designated Reentry Hubs.
AB 2308 (Stone)
PageI
The Budget Act of 2014, SB 852 (Leno), appropriated $2.175
million from the inmate welfare fund to CDCR for the purpose of
expanding the Cal-ID program to all state prisons. The Budget
Act was presented to the Governor on June 15, 2014. This
legislation, similar to the Budget Act, would expand the program
to all inmates being released.
***************