Administration of Justice update 5/2/2014
Mandatory Supervision
AB 579 (Melendez) – Support
Chapter No. 12, Statutes of 2014
AB 579 by Assembly Member Melissa Melendez is an urgency measure that seeks to clarify in state law that the period of mandatory supervision period begins immediately upon release from custody for individuals who have been given a split sentence under Penal Code Section 1170 (h) as a result of 2011 Public Safety Realignment.
This is not a new policy, but rather clean-up language necessary to correct a chaptering out issue created by 2013 legislation that amended the same code section and inadvertently removed the mandatory supervision language.
Governor Brown signed the measure into law on April 28, with its provisions effective immediately, ensuring county probation departments are – once again – able to initiate their mandatory supervision duties as originally intended by statute.
Department of State Hospital Placement Evaluations
AB 2543 (Levine) – Oppose
As amended April 23, 2014
AB 2543, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, would change the process for undertaking evaluations for certain Department of State Hospital (DSH) placements.
DSH has responsibility for providing mental health services to patients in five state hospitals and three in-custody psychiatric programs within state prisons. AB 2543, as currently drafted, would substantially recast the process by which two forensic populations are evaluated for placement into a DSH facility. Under current law, the court selects and appoints experts – with specified experience and credentials – to evaluate defendants who plead not guilty by reason of insanity (under Penal Code section 1370) or those found to be incompetent to stand trial (section 1369). Instead, AB 2543 would replace this process with an evaluation panel drawn from a pool of DSH psychiatrists and psychologists.
CSAC is opposed to the bill for a number of reasons. It appears to create a rather significant conflict by giving DSH the ability to authorize – or, more importantly, deny – placements. We are further concerned that this change could extend already substantial delays in state hospital placements. Finally, there are a range of related policy reforms being considered and discussed through a broad stakeholder process. Given other potential changes specific to the management and movement of IST population that may take place, it seems far more appropriate to evaluate the need for and benefits of a change to the evaluation process through the stakeholder group.
AB 2543 was heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 28. Although the author seemed willing to consider other ways to construct the measure, the committee agreed that the proposed reforms were complex and should be considered in a broader context. The committee held the bill and recommended that additional attention be given to the placement evaluation issue over the summer, leaving open the possibility that the committee could revisit the bill by the end of the legislative session.
Probation
AB 2373 (Hernández) – Oppose
As amended April 24, 2014
AB 2373, by Assembly Member Roger Hernández’s, relates to county probation department funding. Despite recent amendments that improve the content of the bill, CSAC remains opposed.
Existing law requires the chief probation officer to identify in writing to the superior court presiding judge and the board of supervisors when, in his or her opinion, there are insufficient resources to carry out statutory or court-ordered responsibilities. AB 2373 would extend that provision to require a county board of supervisors either to (1) provide the needed level of funding identified by the probation chief or (2) respond in writing within 30 days that it does not have the resources to do so. The premise of the bill, in our opinion, remains objectionable. It would create an unnecessary overlay to the county board of supervisors’ core responsibility to weigh and prioritize budget requests across dozens of county departments and hundreds of vital programs and services delivered at the local level. Further, the bill would set a precedent for other constituencies to seek a similar process. As drafted, AB 2373 effectively elevates probation’s identified needs above all others in the county.
CSAC supports and values the work and significant contributions of probation departments. However, in both principle and practice, the approach proposed in AB 2373 is unacceptable. It sets up an adversarial and one-sided process that will not result in the desired outcomes that may be at the heart of the bill. Questions of funding and how to deploy vital public resources across the vast array of county responsibilities are best managed in the open, public budget process that already exists at the local level.
While we appreciate the fact that the proposed amendments to AB 2373 eliminate other problematic requirements – such as the duty to perform a full financial accounting, this bill still presents structural and operational problems. The bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 29 and has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. We encourage counties to review the measure and weigh in with opposition.
AB 2314 (Hall) – Oppose
As amended April 23, 2014
AB 2314, by Assembly Member Isadore Hall, would authorize any probation officer to carry a firearm in the line of duty as determined by the chief probation officer on a case-by-case basis under terms and conditions specified by the chief probation officer. CSAC – jointly with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), and Los Angeles County — are opposed to the measure, despite recent amendments that eliminate a blanket requirement that all probation officer must be armed.
Under current law, probation officers may be authorized by their employing agency to carry a firearm. It is our understanding that in a vast majority of counties – more than 90 percent – the probation department arms at least some of their officers. Arming decisions are – appropriately, in our view – arrived at locally, based on the needs, preferences and requirements of that particular community as determined by the county. This model works well and allows county boards of supervisors and chief probation officers to evaluate and assess the circumstances, caseload, and risk exposure that might necessitate officer arming on a case-by-case basis. Questions of officer safety; designating the specific personnel or caseload types that may warrant arming; and consideration of the rather significant issues of — among others — liability, cost, and training are all decisions best left at the local level.
AB 2314 would provide that if a chief probation officer has not armed or has not adopted a policy regarding arming probation officers prior to January 1, 2015, the chief probation officer must develop a policy by June 30, 2015. In our view, your measure is unnecessary given that the number of departments (55 of the 59) arming their probation officers suggest that the local decision making process is working. The current process allows for counties to consider and make appropriate adjustments in light of the changed environment resulting from the implementation of 2011 public safety realignment. The requirement to put an arming policy in writing may create unnecessary liability for counties.
The Assembly Public Safety Committee passed AB 2314 on April 28. During the hearing, the committee chair acknowledged the merits of the opponents’ testimony and. The bill next will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Restitution: Collection of Fines and Fees
SB 419 (Block) – Support
As amended March 10, 2014
CSAC supports SB 419, by Senator Marty Block, which would clarify the authority of local agencies to collect restitution fines from specified criminal justice populations and make these fines enforceable by the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. The bill is sponsored by the Chief Probation Officers of California.
Specifically, SB 419 would amend Penal Code Sections 1214 and 2085.5 to make it clear that local collection programs and agencies designated by a county board of supervisors have the ability to collect restitution from inmates that have either: completed their sentence in county jail; have been sentenced to post-release community supervision; or have been sentenced to mandatory supervision. The bill also clarifies that restitution orders for these populations are fully enforceable by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
SB 419 is needed to ensure that local entities tasked with the collection of restitution from county jail inmates who previously would have served a prison term prior to Realignment, as well as those in the community on mandatory or post-release community supervision have the clear authority to carry out the duties assigned to them.
In our view, SB 419 further clarifies authority necessary to improve restitution recovery at the local level. With the proper authority granted under SB 419, restitution recovery procedures will be more practical and workable for counties and our local law enforcement partners. The bill awaits a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee
Court Records: Sealing and Destruction
AB 1756 (Skinner) – Oppose
As amended March 20, 2014
CSAC is opposed to Assembly Bill 1756, by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, which would prohibit a court from charging a fee for the destruction and sealing of juvenile court records when the record in question belongs to a person who is 26 years old or younger.
Under current law, when a petition is ordered for the sealing of a record, an individual, if that person is an adult, or the person responsible for the individual, if that person is a minor, may be required to reimburse the county and court for the costs associated with sealing the record at a rate determined by the county board of supervisors and the court. The fee is not to exceed $150 and the court may order reimbursement in any case in which the petitioner appears to have the ability to pay, without undue hardship, all or a portion of the cost of the service.
While CSAC appreciates the author’s intent to make the record sealing process more affordable for California’s youth, we believe that current law is sufficient in that it already provides that local jurisdictions determine whether petitioners have the ability to pay for services rendered. Further, under existing law, counties may choose not to impose a fee for the destruction of records all together as a matter of policy.
This bill places yet another financial burden on counties by limiting local authority for reimbursement for services at a time when courts and county probation departments are struggling for resources. AB 1756 passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and now awaits a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.