BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
4
9
AB 2499 (Bonilla) 9
As Amended April 21, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
LOCAL CORRECTIONS:
CUSTODY CREDITS AND GPS DATA
HISTORY
Source: California State Sheriffs' Association; Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011
SB 619 (Speier) - Chapter 484, Statutes of 2005
SB 963 (Ashburn) - Chapter 488, Statutes of 2005
Support:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Police Chiefs Association; California Probation, Parole
and Correctional Association; California Public
Defenders Association; Sheriff of Calaveras County;
Glenn County Sheriff's Department; Sheriff of Yolo
County; San Diego County Sheriff's Department; Sheriff
of Inyo County; Sheriff of Shasta County; Sheriff of
Kings County; Sheriff of Kern County
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 56 - Noes 0
(Analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 2
committee.)
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO INFORMATION
RELATING TO OFFENDERS ON ELECTRONIC MONITORING?
SHOULD OFFENDERS BE ALLOWED TO EARN CREDITS WHILE PARTICIPATING IN
ELECTRONIC MONITORING OR WORK RELEASE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to (1) expand the information
about offenders on electronic monitoring that can be provided to
law enforcement in the jurisdiction where the offender is being
monitored, as specified; and (2) provide offenders, who are
subject to the custody of a local correctional administrator,
with the opportunity to earn credit while participating in
electronic monitoring and work release.
Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of any county
to authorize the sheriff or other official in charge of county
correctional facilities to offer a voluntary program under which
any person committed to the facility may participate in a work
release program in which one day of participation will be in
lieu of one day of confinement. (Penal Code � 4024.2(a).)
Existing law states, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the county
correctional administrator to offer a voluntary or involuntary
home detention program in lieu of confinement in the county
jail, or other correctional facility or program under the
auspices of the probation officer. (Penal Code � 1203.016(a).)
Existing law defines "correctional administrator" as the
sheriff, probation officer, or director of the county department
of corrections. (Penal Code �� 1203.016(h), 1203.017(g), and
1203.018 (k)(1).)
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 3
Existing law provides that the participant in a home detention
program shall agree to the use of electronic monitoring, which
may include global positioning system (GPS) devices or other
supervising devices for the purpose of helping to verify his or
her compliance with the rules and regulations of the home
detention program. (Penal Code � 1203.016(b)(3).)
Existing law authorizes the police department of a city where an
office is located to which persons on an electronic monitoring
program report to request the county correctional administrator
to provide information concerning those persons. This
information shall be limited to the name, address, date of
birth, and offense committed by the home detainee. Any
information received by a police department pursuant to this
paragraph shall be used only for the purpose of monitoring the
impact of home detention programs on the community. (Penal Code
� 1203.016(i).)
Existing law authorizes, upon request of a local law enforcement
agency with jurisdiction over the location where a participant
in an electronic monitoring program is placed, the correctional
administrator shall provide the following information regarding
participants in the electronic monitoring program:
The participant's name, address, and date of birth;
The offense or offenses alleged to have been committed
by the participant;
The period of time the participant will be placed on
home detention;
Whether the participant successfully completed the
prescribed period of home detention or was returned to a
county correctional facility, and if the person was
returned to a county correctional facility, the reason for
the return; and,
The gender and ethnicity of the participant.
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 4
(Penal Code � 1203.018(l).)
Existing law states that any of the information received by a
law enforcement agency pursuant to the provisions above shall be
used only for the purpose of monitoring the impact of home
electronic monitoring programs in the community. (Penal Code �
1203.018(m).)
Existing law requires when a defendant has been in custody,
including, but not limited to, any time spent in a jail, camp,
work furlough facility, and other specified facilities, all days
of custody of the defendant, including, home detention for
inmates who otherwise would be in jail in lieu of bail, are
credited toward the term of imprisonment or toward any fine that
may be imposed, at the rate of not less than $30 per day, or
more, in the discretion of the court imposing the sentence.
(Penal Code � 2900.5(a).)
Existing law provides that the time a defendant spent in a jail,
camp, work furlough facility, and other specified facilities,
qualifies as mandatory time in jail if the statute under which
the defendant is sentenced requires a mandatory minimum period
of time in jail. (Penal Code � 2900.5(f).)
Existing law authorizes good conduct and work performance credit
for prisoners confined in city or county jails, industrial farms
or road camps. (Penal Code � 4019.)
This bill authorizes the application of good conduct and work
performance credits in one of the home detention programs or
work release programs specified.
This bill expands the information a local law enforcement agency
may receive to include current and historical GPS coordinates,
if available, of a participant who is within the jurisdiction of
the local law enforcement agency and in an electronic monitoring
program in lieu of bail, is on a home detention program during
his or her sentence in lieu of confinement.
This bill provides that the release of GPS coordinate
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 5
information is discretionary.
This bill provides that the GPS coordinate information shall
only be released for investigatory purposes.
This bill states that a law enforcement agency that does not
have primary responsibility to supervise participants in the
electronic monitoring program that receives information on the
participant shall not use that information to conduct
enforcement actions based on administrative violations if the
home detention program.
This bill requires an agency that has knowledge that the subject
in a criminal investigation is a participant in an electronic
monitoring program shall make reasonable efforts to notify the
supervising agency prior to serving a warrant or taking any law
enforcement action against a participant in an electronic
monitoring program.
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
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 6
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
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
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 7
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,
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)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 8
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
This bill fixes inconsistences in the Penal Code which
were created by realignment as well as several
provisions that should be inapplicable to lower level
felony offenders, such as the prohibition of sharing
inmate information with other law enforcement
agencies. Additionally, counties have found that some
inmates refuse to participate in electronic monitoring
programs because of the inability to earn conduct
credits. Fixing these problems helps county sheriffs
who are looking to implement or expand their
Electronic Monitoring programs.
After realignment, county jails have much larger
inmate populations because non-serious, non-violent or
non-sex offenders were transferred out of state
prisons. The counties also became responsible for the
post-release supervision of these low-level offenders
who are on probation.
Electronic monitoring has become an important tool for
may county sheriffs to supervise these low-level
offenders and reduce jail populations while still
keeping more violent offenders in jail.
AB 2499 does this by allowing the following:
1) Good time and work time credits an inmate has
already earned in other home detention programs may be
transferred to a county's Electronic Monitoring
program. This will encourage eligible inmates to
participate in Electronic Monitoring programs.
2) A local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction
over the location of an individual participant in an
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 9
electronic monitoring program may request the GPS
coordinates of that individual.
2. Electronic Monitoring Information Sharing
The California Sheriffs' Association, which supports this
legislation, states:
Existing law prohibits law enforcement agencies from
sharing certain information regarding persons
participating in an electronic monitoring program.
Now that sentenced, realigned felons can participate
in such programs, it is essential that law enforcement
is able to share information such as current and
historical GPS coordinates with other agencies.
This legislation would increase the amount of information
that can be provided to law enforcement in the jurisdiction
in which the offender is on electronic monitoring. This
legislation does, however, limit the release of such
information for solely investigatory purposes.
(More)
3. Credits for Offenders Participating in Electronic
Monitoring
In 2002, the District Attorney in the County of Madera requested
an opinion as to whether persons committed to county jail who
participate in an electronic monitoring home detention program
pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.016 are eligible for good
conduct and work credits under Penal Code Section 4019. The
Attorney General opined that these credits do apply (85
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 106 (2002)):
The phrase "in actual custody" may, of course, have
several different meanings. Does the phrase require
that the confinement be in a penal institution rather
than a nonpenal setting or be the result of a court
order? (See People v. Lapaille, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 1172-1173; People v. Tafoya (1987) 194
Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4.) In People v. Rodgers (1978)
79 Cal.App.3d 26, 31, the court recognized an
"expanded" definition of "custody" in habeas corpus
law under which "anyone subject to restraints not
shared by the 'public generally'" may seek the writ,
but federal courts interpreting the federal custody
credit statute have consistently refused to borrow
from habeas corpus law in defining the term "custody"
(see Dawson v. Scott (11th Cir. 1995) 50 F.3d 884,
888-889, fn. 8; U.S. v. Insley (4th Cir. 1991) 927
F.2d 185, 187; U.S. v. Woods (10th Cir. 1989) 888 F.2d
653, 655; Ramsey v. Brennan (7th Cir. 1989) 878 F.2d
995, 996; U.S. v. Mares (5th Cir. 1989) 868 F.2d 151,
152; Villaume v. United States Dept. of Justice (8th
Cir. 1986) 804 F.2d 498, 499).
The usual and ordinary definition of the term
"custody" was given in People v. Reinertson (1986) 178
Cal.App.3d 320, 327, where the court observed that
"the concept of custody generally connotes a facility
rather than a home. It includes some aspect of
regulation of behavior. It also includes supervision
(More)
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 11
in a structured life style." Most recently, in People
v. Pottorff, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 1709, the court
applied this traditional definition of "custody," as
expressed in Reinertson, to conclude that a section
1203.016 participant was "in custody." The court
reviewed the various requirements of section 1203.016
in finding that participation in a section 1203.016
program was "akin to confinement in a facility or
institution." (Id. at pp. 1719-1720, fn. 15.)
Accordingly, we follow [People v. Wills (1994) 22
Cal.App.4th 1810] in determining that a person
"committed to" county jail, without confinement in a
jail, industrial farm, or road camp, may be eligible
for section 4019 credits if the person is "in actual
custody" under the terms of subdivision (f) of the
statute. Following Pottorff, we apply the traditional
definition of "custody" in determining that
participants in a section 1203.016 program are "in
actual custody" for purposes of subdivision (f). We
find it particularly significant that a person who
makes an unauthorized departure from a place of home
detention is guilty of the crime of escape, a felony.
(�� 4532, subd. (a), 1203.016, subd. (f); see Toney v.
Maryland (2001) 140 Md.App. 690 [782 A.2d 383]; People
v. Moncrief (1995) 276 Ill.App.3d 533 [659 N.E.2d
106]; State of Fellhauer
(1997) 123 N.M. 476 [943 P.2d 123]; State v. Magnuson
(2000) 233 Wis.2d 40 [606 N.W.2d 536].) (Id. at pp.
6-7.)
This bill allows participants in other home detention and work
release programs, not just the program under Penal Code Section
1203.016, to earn good conduct and work performance credits
pursuant to Penal Code Section 4019.
4. Proposed Amendments
The bill will be amended to: (1) modify the provisions of
AB 2499 (Bonilla)
Page 12
the legislation relating to the release of GPS information
to make the release of information optional and to only
authorize the release of information for purposes of
investigation; (2) replace the language in subdivision
4019(j) with "This section shall apply prospectively;" and,
(3) add subdivision 4019(a)(7) stating "When a prisoner is
confined pursuant to Section 1203.016 or 4024.2."
***************