BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
3
2
6
SB 326 (Beall)
As Amended April 24, 2013
Hearing date: April 30, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS:
PRESENCE ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1128 (Alquist) - Ch. 337, Stats. 2006
Support: California Protective Parents Association; The
Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc.;
Communications Committee at Saint Frances Cabrini School in San
Jose; Ladies Leagues at Saint Frances Cabrini School in San
Jose; several individuals
Opposition:Los Angeles Unified School District; American Civil
Liberties Union
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW AUTHORIZING SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO PERMIT A REGISTERED
SEX OFFENDER TO COME ON A CAMPUS BE REVISED TO PRESCRIBE HOW THAT
DECISION IS MADE?
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prescribe a process school
officials must use in deciding whether to allow a registered sex
offender on a school campus, as specified.
Current law generally requires persons convicted of enumerated
sex offenses to register within five working days of coming into
a city or county, with specified law enforcement officials in
the city, county, or city and county where he or she is
domiciled, as specified.<1> (Penal Code � 290.)
Current law requires that any person who is required to register
as a sex offender who comes into any school building or upon any
school ground without lawful business thereon and written
permission from the chief administrative official of that
school, is guilty of a misdemeanor, subject to the following
punishment:
(1) Upon a first conviction by a fine of not exceeding
---------------------------
<1> Penal Code section 290(b) provides: "Every person
described in subdivision (c) for the rest of his or her life
while residing in, or, if he or she has no residence, while
located within California, or while attending school or working
in California, as described in section 290.002 and 290.01, shall
be required to register with the chief of police of the city in
which he or she is residing, or if he or she has no residence,
is located, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is
residing, or if he or she has no residence, is located, in an
unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and,
additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the
University of California, the California State University, or
community college if he or she is residing, or if he or she has
no residence, is located upon the campus or in any of its
facilities, within five working days of coming into, or changing
his or her residence or location within, any city, county, or
city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily
resides, or, if he or she has no residence, is located."
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageC
$500, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more
than six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(2) If the defendant has been previously convicted once of
a violation of this section, by imprisonment
in a county jail for a period of not less than 10 days or more
than six months, or by both imprisonment and a fine of not
exceeding $500, and shall not be released on
probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has
served not less than 10 days.
(3) If the defendant has been previously convicted two or
more times of a violation of this section, by imprisonment in a
county jail for a period of not less than 90 days or more than
six months, or by both imprisonment and a fine of not exceeding
$500, and shall not be released on probation, parole, or any
other basis until he or she has served not less than 90 days.
(Penal Code � 626.81.)
This bill would revise this provision as follows:
Require that the written permission for a sex offender
registrant to come into any school building or upon any
school ground indicate the date or dates and times for
which permission has been granted;
Require any "chief administrative official" of the
school who, in his or her discretion, elects to consider
whether to grant permission comply with the following
requirements:
the chief administrative official first has
consulted with the sex offender registrant's registering
authority;
the registering authority discloses to the chief
administrative official the following information:
(A) The person's most recent risk assessment scores
if available, as specified;
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageD
(B) A brief description of the facts underlying the
offense or offenses for which the person is required
to register, if available, police reports, or
presentencing reports.
(C) Any facts known to the registering authority that
indicate the person poses a current risk to children,
including, but not limited to, the presence of risk
factors associated with committing sexual or violent
offenses.
(D) The registering authorities' assessment, based on
the information identified above, of the risk that
the person will reoffend.
This bill would require that, if the school administrator
determines after consulting with the registering authority that
the registrant will be granted permission to come into a school
building or upon school grounds and the registering authority
has concluded that the person poses a moderate to high risk of
reoffending, the school administrator may grant the person
permission, provided that least 14 days prior to the first date
for which permission has been granted, the school administrator
notifies or causes to be notified the parent or guardian of each
child attending the school that a person who is required to
register as a sex offender has been granted permission to come
into a school building or upon school grounds, the date or dates
and times for which permission has been granted, and his or her
right to obtain information regarding the person from a
designated law enforcement entity, as specified. This bill
describes the manner of this notice, as specified.
This bill would provide that any chief administrative official
or school employee who in good faith disseminates the
notification and information as provided in its provisions shall
be immune from civil liability.
This bill would define the "registering authority" as "the law
enforcement agency or agencies with which a person (subject to
this bill) is currently required to register (as a sex
offender).
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageE
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 which 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. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
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 issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part 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, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part 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
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageF
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered 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."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
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.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageG
This section allows the chief administrative official,
or principal of a school to grant a written permission
to sex offender to be on school grounds with no
prerequisite other than the registrant must have
"lawful business". Our office believes this to be
insufficient.
Sex offenders vary in degree of offense and risk level
of reoffending. SB 326 would require administrative
officials call the appropriate registering law
enforcement agency to obtain risk level and other
facts known about registrant prior to giving a written
permission. By requiring a simple phone call, SB 326
would provide the necessary information for a Chief
Administrative Official to make a well informed
decision whether a registrant should receive a
permission slip to be on school grounds.
Additionally, if the registering authority has
concluded that the person poses a moderate to high
risk of reoffending, the chief administrative official
may still grant permission, provided that they notify
all parents of children enrolled at the school.
SB 326 will create a safer environment for our
children at their schools.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, in 2006 SB 1128 (Alquist) enacted what now
is the law pertaining to registered sex offenders who come on
school campuses. Under current law, it is a misdemeanor for a
sex offender registrant to come onto a campus for lawful
business without the written permission of the school's
principal ("chief administrative officer" in the code).
This bill revises this statute to prescribe how a principal
makes the decision to allow a registered sex offender on a
school campus. In summary, the bill would require a principal
to:
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageH
Consult with the law enforcement agency that registers
the person as a sex offender;
Have the following information from that law enforcement
agency disclosed to them: 1) the registrant's most recent
risk assessment scores, if available; 2) a brief
description of the facts underlying why the person has to
register as a sex offender, if available; 3) any facts
known to the registering agency that indicates the
registrant poses a current risk to children, as specified;
and 4) the registering agency's assessment of the
registrant's risk that the person will reoffend based on
all of this information.
If this consideration causes the registering authority
to conclude that the registrant poses a moderate to high
risk of reoffending, the principal still can grant the
registrant permission to come on campus, but the principal
first must provide at least 14 days before
(More)
that access starts, parents and guardians have been notified and
told when the person would come on campus and their right to
obtain additional information from law enforcement, as
specified.
3. Background: An Incident at a School
A recent newspaper article describes the origin of this bill:
SAN JOSE -- A bill spurred from parents' outrage over
a convicted sex offender volunteering at a St. Frances
Cabrini Parish festival last fall cleared its first
hurdle this week, and supporters hope it will become a
law that would prevent such a thing from ever
happening again.
It would require school officials to consult with
authorities before allowing a registered sex offender
to volunteer at campus activities. If the offender is
considered to be at risk of re-offending, the school
would have to notify parents of its intention to allow
the violator on campus. . . .
Last Oct. 6, molester Mark Gurries -- who was
convicted in May 2010 on one count of lewd and
lascivious acts on a minor under 14 -- was at the
event attended by many children when he was spotted by
a former student who knew his victim. Parents quickly
demanded that Rev. Lieu Vu remove him from the
festival.
It turned into a heated argument when Vu said Gurries,
51 -- who had a permission slip from the Diocese of
San Jose - had a right to be there. Hours later, a
sheriff's deputy asked the unwanted volunteer to
leave.
In the wake of the incident, parents blasted the
church for allowing a convicted sex offender to work
the festival, Vu resigned as the parish priest in
(More)
SB 326 (Beall)
PageJ
November, and Gurries was sentenced last week to 30
days in county jail for violating his probation. . . .
<2>
4. Background: Sex Offenders
The Department of Justice indicates that currently there are
about 75,000 registered sex offenders living in California
communities. DOJ's website provides the following general
information on how parents can protect their children:
How to Protect Yourself and Your Family
One of the major reasons why it is important to be
informed about sexual assault is so that you can take
steps to prevent it. And, there are indeed steps you
can take to reduce your risk of sexual assault, your
child's risk, or the risk facing others. Also
remember that in the vast majority of cases (up to
90%), children are molested by someone they know.
Your efforts at keeping your child safe must be
informed by this fact and not focused exclusively on
the danger that strangers may present. . . . <3>
The case described above apparently involved a volunteer at a
school. Some national media reports suggest that a more likely
situation for school authorities may be when a parent of a child
at a school is a sex offender, and how to ensure that the
interests of public safety do not come at the expense of a
---------------------------
<2> Kurhi, San Jose: Bill inspired by St. Frances Cabrini sex
offender fiasco wins key approval (San Jose Mercury News, April
18, 2013).
<3>
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/protect.aspx?lang=ENGLISH#parents.
SB 326 (Beall)
PageK
child.<4> Members may wish to discuss whether the provisions of
this bill would effectively balance these interests by
prescribing more informed decision-making with respect to
permitting sex offender registrants on campus.
WOULD THIS BILL IMPROVE PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN ON SCHOOL
CAMPUSES BY REQUIRING THAT SCHOOL PRINCIPALS VERIFY AVAILABLE
INFORMATION ABOUT A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRANT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
BEFORE THEY GRANT PERMISSION FOR THE PERSON TO COME ON CAMPUS?
5. Opposition
The Los Angeles Unified School District, which opposes this
bill, argues that this bill should be amended to not apply in
circumstances when a parent has a right to be present at a
school activity. LAUSD submits that the bill "may intrude on a
parent's right to participate in school activities involving his
or her child who is a student. Statute is clear about parental
rights to participate in situations such as an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) meeting, parent-teacher conferences, or
expulsion proceedings. We believe that current law is
sufficient in allowing school principals discretion in granting
permission to parents to be on school grounds in these
situations."
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO APPLY ITS PROVISIONS ONLY TO
PERSONS WHO ARE NOT A PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF A CHILD ENROLLED AT
A SCHOOL?
***************
---------------------------
---------------------------
<4> Associated Press, Sex-offender parents pose dilemma for
schools (Oct. 3, 2007) http://www.nbcnews.
com/id/21122783/ns/us_news-education/t/sex-offender-parents-pose-
dilemma-schools/
SB 326 (Beall)
PageL