BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
8
3
3
SB 833 (Liu)
As Introduced: March 18, 2014
Hearing date: March 25, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
JAILS: DISCHARGE OF PRISONERS
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; California
Public Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and
Justice; Urban Counties Caucus; California Catholic Conference;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety (January 6, 2014 version)
Opposition: Three private citizens (January 6, 2014 version)
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD SHERIFFS HAVE THE OPTION OF CREATING A PROGRAM IN WHICH
INMATES CAN VOLUNTARILY REMAIN IN JAIL FOR UP TO 16 HOURS BEYOND
THEIR RELEASE DATE, SO THAT THE INMATE MAY BE RELEASED DURING
DAYTIME HOURS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to give sheriffs the option of
(More)
SB 833 (Liu)
PageB
creating a program in which those in custody can voluntarily
remain in jail for up to an additional 16 hours after their
release date or until normal business hours, whichever is
shorter, so that they may be discharged to a treatment center or
during daytime hours.
Current law allows a sheriff to discharge any inmate from county
jail at such time on the last day such inmate may be confined as
the sheriff shall consider to be in the best interests of the
inmate.
This bill would allow a sheriff to develop a voluntary program
in which the inmate being released from jail custody,<1> could
choose to stay in the custody facility for up to 16 additional
hours or until normal business hours, whichever is shorter, in
order for the inmate to be discharged to a treatment center or
during daytime hours.
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
---------------------------
<1> This legislation would apply to inmates who have completed
their sentence or "the release of a inmate ordered by the court
to be effected the same day, including inmates who are released
on their own recognizance, have their charges dismissed by the
court, are acquitted by a jury, are cited and released on a
misdemeanor charge, have posted bail, or have the charges
against them dropped by the prosecutor. . ."
(More)
SB 833 (Liu)
PageC
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
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
(More)
SB 833 (Liu)
PageD
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,
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 February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 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)
SB 833 (Liu)
PageE
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
This bill will let an inmate in a county jail delay
their release voluntarily to make sure they have safe
travel or transfer arrangements to a substance abuse
treatment center, homeless shelter, reentry housing or
other facilities.
County jails in California regularly release inmates
at night, often because state law requires they be let
out before midnight on the last day of their sentence.
Inmates are also released when a court order requires
release, if charges are dismissed, or in other
circumstances.
Many inmates are discharged to reentry centers for
substance abuse treatment, transitional housing or
other services. However, most of these centers do not
have transportation services available at night or
cannot admit clients during nighttime hours. Public
transportation can be limited or nonexistent at night
in some areas.
This bill would let a County Sheriff offer a voluntary
program for the inmate to remain in custody for 16
hours or until normal business hours resume the next
day, so the inmate can be discharged, transported and
admitted directly to a treatment center or other
facility.
(More)
This voluntary custody will apply only if a County
Sheriff decides to offer the option. The inmate must
meet one of the following requirements:
Complete their court-ordered sentence;
Be released on their own recognizance;
Have charges dismissed by the court;
Be acquitted by a jury;
Be cited and released on a misdemeanor
charge;
Post bail; or,
Have charges dropped by a prosecutor.
Inmates must also provide expressed written consent
that they are voluntarily remaining in county jail
custody pending transfer or travel arrangements.
2. Effect of this Legislation
A sheriff may discharge any inmate at such time, on the last day
of confinement, as the sheriff considers to be in the best
interest of the inmate. (Penal Code � 4024.) A sheriff, with
court approval, may accelerate the release of inmates to relieve
overcrowding (Penal Code � 4024.1.); there are, however, no
provisions in existing law that allow an inmate to remain in
custody beyond his or her release date. SB 833 would give
sheriffs the ability to offer a voluntary program to the inmate
that would allow the inmate to remain in custody beyond his or
her release date (16 hours or until normal business hours,
whichever is shorter), so that the inmate has the ability to be
discharged to a treatment center or during daylight hours.
3. Argument in Support
The County of Los Angeles states:
Current law authorizes county sheriffs to discharge
inmates from a county jail on the last day of their
sentence during a timeframe that the sheriff deems to
be in the best interest of the inmate. The sheriff,
however, cannot hold an inmate beyond the completion
(More)
SB 833 (Liu)
PageG
of the sentence or after a judicial order for release.
For inmates who are discharged to re-entry facilities
for substance abuse treatment or for transitional
housing, transportation services may be restricted or
unavailable during evening hours. As a result,
inmates' safety may be jeopardized if they are unable
to navigate to a safe environment.
SB 833 would allow sheriffs to offer a voluntary
program which would allow an inmate to request to
remain in a jail facility for up to 16 additional
hours or until normal business hours resume. The
additional time would allow the inmate to be
discharged, transported, and admitted directly into a
treatment center or to other community-based programs.
SB 833 will improve the re-entry planning and
transition of individuals from custody to the
community in a more safe and effective manner.
4. Argument in Opposition
A private citizen states in part:
As written, SB 833 fails to address the issue of
public safety realignment with regards to those
persons who are detained and who are not capable of
making sound judgments or decisions about their own
well-being due to mental incapacity; further, the bill
fails to adequately address the issue of detainee or
prisoner health and safety, adequate mental health
evaluation, or the lack of uniform discharge planning
policies by California county jails on public safety.
*************
SB 833 (Liu)
PageH