BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
4
1
AB 2411 (Bonta) 1
As Amended May 23, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
AA:sl
SEX OFFENDERS:
CONTAINMENT MODEL
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1844 (Fletcher) - Ch. 219, Stats. 2010
Support: California Sex Offender Management Board
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTAINMENT MODEL
ESTABLISHED IN 2010 BY "CHELSEA'S LAW," APPLICABLE TO SEX OFFENDERS
ON PROBATION OR PAROLE, BE CLARIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to clarify that certain sex
offenders who are on parole or probation are subject to
AB 2411 (Bonta)
PageB
supervision consistent with the containment model requirements
of "Chelsea's Law," regardless of when the person's crime or
crimes were committed, as specified.
Current law generally specifies that persons placed on formal
probation and parole for a crime that requires registration as a
sex offender be required to participate in, and successfully
complete as a condition of release from probation, an approved
sex offender management program, as specified. (Penal Code ��
1203.067 and 3008.)
This bill would clarify these sections, stating that
participation in this program applies to every person described
without regard to when his or her crime or crimes were
committed.
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
(More)
AB 2411 (Bonta)
PageC
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
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 2411 (Bonta)
PageD
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,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
(More)
COMMENTS
1. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would clarify that the supervision requirements for
sex offenders on probation or parole which were enacted in 2010
as part of Chelsea's Law- generally known as the "Containment
Model" - apply to these offenders without regard to when their
crime or crimes were committed.
2. Background - Containment Model
In 2006, the California Sex Offender Management Board was
created to "address any issues, concerns, and problems related
to the community management of adult sex offenders. The main
objective of the board, which shall be used to guide the board
in prioritizing resources and use of time, is to achieve safer
communities by reducing victimization."<1>
The Board stated in its January 2010 report that it strongly
recommended that the sex offender management strategies
collectively known as the Containment Model be implemented
statewide.
The Containment Model has been identified by the
CASOMB as the best practice for community supervision
of sex offenders. . . .
The Containment Model calls for a collaborative effort
of sex offender specific treatment providers, law
enforcement supervising agents such as probation
officers or parole agents, polygraphists providing
specialized testing as both a treatment and monitoring
tool and victim advocacy participants whenever
possible. The offender is supervised and overseen
within this context. . . . Supervision alone is
not as effective as the full Containment Model.
Public safety would be increased if the Containment
Model were required throughout the State for all sex
----------------------
----------------------
<1> Penal Code � 9002, enacted by AB 1015 (Chu and
Spitzer)(Ch. 338, Stats. 2006).
AB 2411 (Bonta)
PageF
AB 2411 (Bonta)
PageG
offenders, whether on parole or probation.<2>
In a February 2013 update on Chelsea's Law implementation, the
Board stated in part:
To provide assistance with the implementation of the
Containment Model statewide - a sex offender
management approach required by Chelsea's Law - CASOMB
partnered with the Chief Probation Officers of
California to sponsor five Containment Model trainings
in various locations statewide for probation officers
and other appropriate attendees. The original idea of
developing
and presenting such trainings originated with CASOMB.
Implementation was accomplished through the direct
efforts of CASOMB Board Members, CASOMB staff and the
contributions of volunteer experts. It appears that,
through the training process, important communication
links are increasing between probation officers,
treatment providers, local law enforcement agencies
and polygraph examiners. Had these trainings not been
held, the concept of "Containment" would have remained
a vague and poorly understood buzz word that conveyed
little sense of the complex realities involved and had
little impact on day-to-day practices. CASOMB views
its efforts to date as a very positive contribution to
beginning Containment implementation.
***************
---------------------------
<2> Id at 32-33.