Download Public-Safety-Agenda-3-30-17 - League of California Cities

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Mass surveillance wikipedia, lookup

Surveillance wikipedia, lookup

Militarization of police wikipedia, lookup

Public-order crime wikipedia, lookup

Criminalization wikipedia, lookup

History of criminal justice wikipedia, lookup

Counter-terrorism wikipedia, lookup

California Proposition 36, 2012 wikipedia, lookup

Law enforcement agency wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
Thursday, March 30
10:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Doubletree Hotel, 222 N. Vineyard Avenue, Ontario
Individuals who wish to review the full text of bills included in this packet are encouraged to do so by visiting the League’s
website at www.cacities.org and clicking on “Bill Search” found at the left column. Be sure to review the most recent
version of the bill.
AGENDA
SPECIAL ORDER: State Budget and Issues Briefing for all policy committee members
10:00 – 10:15 a.m., Harvest Room
Upon adjournment, individual policy committee meetings will begin.
(Given the limited flight schedule and meetings ending at 1:30 p.m., this briefing will be limited to only several major issues.)
I.
Welcome and Introductions
II.
Public Comment
Speaker: Jarhett Blonien, Partner, DBC Public Affairs: Communities for California Card Rooms
“SB 654 and the Need for Local Regulatory Flexibility”
III.
Legislative Update (Attachment A)
1.
Legislation Furthering Strategic Goal No. 4
2.
AB 1578 (Jones-Sawyer) Marijuana
3.
Proposition 57 Update
4.
AB 887 (Cooper) Public Safety Officers
5.
SB 21 (Hill) Law Enforcement Agencies: Surveillance Policies
6.
SB 654 (Dodd) Local Moratorium: Gaming Tables
7.
SB 695 (Lara) Sex Offenders: Registration
IV.
Informational
Informational
Action Item
Action Item
Action Item
Action Item
Action Item
Next Meeting: Thursday, June 8, Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento
NOTE: Policy committee members should be aware that lunch is usually served at these meetings. The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission takes the position
that the value of the lunch should be reported on city officials’ statement of economic interests form. Because of the service you provide at these meetings, the League
takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported as income (in return for your service to the committee) as opposed to a gift (note that this is not income
for state or federal income tax purposes—just Political Reform Act reporting purposes). If you would prefer not to have to report the value of the lunches as income, we
will let you know the amount so you may reimburse the League.
Brown Act Reminder: The League of California Cities’ Board of Directors has a policy of complying with the spirit of open meeting laws. Generally, off-agenda
items may be taken up only if:
1. Two-thirds of the policy committee members find a need for immediate action exists and the need to take action came to the attention of the policy committee after
the agenda was prepared (Note: If fewer than two-thirds of policy committee members are present, taking up an off-agenda item requires a unanimous vote); or
2. A majority of the policy committee finds an emergency (for example: work stoppage or disaster) exists.
A majority of a city council may not, consistent with the Brown Act, discuss specific substantive issues among themselves at League meetings. Any such discussion
is subject to the Brown Act and must occur in a meeting that complies with its requirements.
Informational Items: Any agenda item listed for information purposes may be acted upon by the Policy Committee if the Chair determines such action is warranted
and conforms with current League policy. If the committee wishes to revise League policy or adopt new policy for an item listed as informational, committees are
encouraged to delay action until the next meeting to allow for preparation of a full analysis of the item.
ATTACHMENT A
State and Federal Legislative Update
Federal Legislative Update
Federal Funding for Local Law Enforcement:
Currently the federal budget protects and safeguards federal grants to state, local and tribal law
enforcement & victims of crime. There is a strong focus on those grants aimed at protecting life
and safety of law enforcement personnel, including programs such as Bulletproof Vest
Partnership, and Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers. There has so far been
no specific mention of COPS grants, but the overall sense is that that funding remains protected.
State Legislative Update
1. Legislation in Furtherance of Strategic Goal No. 4 -- Informational
Text – Strategic Goal No. 4:
Address Public Safety Impacts of Reduced Sentencing Laws, Protect Local Priorities in the
Implementation of AUMA, and Preserve City Rights to Deliver Emergency Medical Services.
Provide tools and resources cities need to respond to recent changes in statewide criminal
sentencing policies. Protect local priorities during development of regulations and legislation to
implement the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. In addition, continue to preserve city rights to
deliver emergency medical services (Health and Safety Code 1797.201).
Address Public Safety Impacts of Reduced Sentencing Laws
Consistent with the Strategic Goal above the League has taken a Support position on the
following bills:
AB 27 (Melendez) Violent Felonies: Sex Offenses – League Position: SUPPORT
This measure clarifies that various sex crimes, including rape, sodomy, sexual penetration with a
foreign object, or oral copulation, are violent felonies, even when committed when a victim is
unconscious, too intoxicated to give consent, misled as the identity of the person committing the
act, or accomplished against the victim’s will by the use of threats of the use of one’s authority
as to a public official.
AB 1326 (Cooper) Theft: Aggregate Valuation -- League Position: SUPPORT
This measure will address a sustained increase in theft crimes in the wake of Proposition 47 by
allowing law enforcement authorities to aggregate the monetary value of property stolen by an
individual over the course of a year, and authorize felony prosecution if that monetary value
meets the $950.00 threshold.
SB 75 (Bates) Violent Felonies -- League Position: SUPPORT
This measure clarifies that a host of offenses, including solicitation of murder, child abuse,
domestic violence, rape, sodomy, vehicular manslaughter, human trafficking, assault, battery,
discharging a firearm at an occupied dwelling or vehicle, and arson, are to be classified under the
Penal Code as violent felonies.
1
Other Administrative Remedies
In addition, the League has expressed an interest in entering a dialogue with the Administration
on other ways to address the enhanced parole eligibility under Proposition 57 for the universe of
non-violent felons. However, as the League Board of Directors has previously been advised by
staff, this will happen at a time in and in a manner of the Administration’s choosing.
Protect Local Priorities in the Implementation of AUMA
Restoring Evidence of Local Compliance to Proposition 64 Implementation
The number one priority of the League and the California Police Chiefs Association is the
protection of local control. Local control was compromised to a degree by Proposition 64, which
did not require evidence of local approval to be submitted with the application for state licensure.
The League and the Police Chiefs have successfully negotiated a provision giving local
governments 90 working days in which to respond before a state licensing entity can universally
deem an application to be in compliance with local ordinances. If local governments do not
respond within 90 working days of receiving an inquiry from a state licensing entity regarding a
specific application, either to indicate than an application is approved, denied for lack of
compliance, or still under review, only then can the state unilaterally issue a license for the
business to operate within that jurisdiction. Ninety working days is equivalent to 18 full weeks.
AB 1627 (Cooley) Guidance for Local Government Grant Monies
This measure, to be jointly sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California
Police Chiefs Association, will address the lack of guidance in Proposition 64 for the
circumstances under which grant monies under the control of the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC) will be distributed to local governments. While Prop. 64 creates a revenue
stream intended for local governments in the form of grant monies, it provides BSCC with no
guidance whatsoever for the criteria under which those monies are to be distributed. AB 1627
would at a minimum require a competitively awarded process with the goal of regional balance,
and would provide bonus points for applications reflecting specific regulatory and enforcement
priorities.
Ensuring Integrity in the Distribution Model for Marijuana
The second priority of the League and the California Police Chiefs Association is the
establishment of a distribution system that protects against diversion and inversion of marijuana,
and does not provoke federal intervention. Our organizations have jointly signed off on vertical
integration, which will allow for businesses to distribute their own product, but only if key
protections are in place, including an independent auditor-inspector to confirm quality control,
select samples for testing, and perform other oversight functions.
Preserve City Rights to Deliver Emergency Medical Services
The League has crafted a proposal attempting to codify the scope of local agency autonomy in
regard to providing pre-hospital emergency medical services. At this writing it is being vetted by
the League’s Fire Chiefs Department, and the plan in the near future is to vet it with the
California Fire Chiefs Association, the California Professional Firefighters, and other relevant
entities to determine its viability as a legislative proposal.
2
2. AB 1578 (Jones-Sawyer) Marijuana: Cooperation with Federal Authorities -Informational
League Position: Joint Opposition letter with Police Chiefs is Pending
Bill Summary:
This measure prohibits state and federal agencies from using their resources to assist a federal
agency to investigate, detect, report or arrest a person for cannabis activity (whether commercial
or non-commercial) that is authorized under California law. It prohibits a range of additional
activities that could obstruct federal enforcement efforts.
Bill Description:
This measure is intended to protect California-based marijuana businesses by expressly
prohibiting use of local agency resources, provision of information, responding to requests, or
transferring an individual into federal custody, for purposes of marijuana enforcement.
Background:
The State of California, via its initiative process, made medical marijuana legally available to its
residents when it approved Proposition 215 in 1996. Senate Bill 420 (2003) created the Medical
Marijuana Program and created a voluntary medical marijuana card program administered by the
Department of Public Health. In 2015, Governor Brown signed the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act into law, creating a statewide regulatory structure for the first time
since Prop. 215 was enacted. In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, legalizing
marijuana for recreational use by adults.
The federal government has been inconsistent in its reaction to California’s evolution toward
legalization. Most recently, during the summer of 2013, guidance was provided in the form of
the Cole Memorandum, named for James Cole, the Deputy U.S. Attorney General who penned
it. The Cole Memo laid out eight enforcement priorities that could trigger federal enforcement
action:
• Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs,
and cartels;
• Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in
some form to other states;
• Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for
the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana;
• Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use;
• Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and
environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
• Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
More recently, with the election of President Trump and his selection of Jeff Sessions as
Attorney General, there is question as to whether the Department of Justice will adhere to the
3
terms of the Cole Memo, coupled with speculation based in part on public comments Mr.
Sessions has made about marijuana that federal enforcement activity under the Trump
Administration will be more likely.
In any case, AB 1578 raises a concern that it will serve to provoke federal enforcement action
rather than offer meaningful protection to any businesses, to the extent that it erects barriers to
cooperation with federal authorities on investigations into matters involving violations of federal
law.
The Police Chiefs have raised a specific concern about the possibility that a business entity
licensed by the state to conduct cannabis operations could be in full compliance with both state
law and local ordinances, and yet still be in violation of ancillary or unrelated federal laws, such
as racketeering, money laundering, human trafficking, or other controlled substances. AB 1578
as written makes no meaningful distinction or exemption for such criminal investigations, and
would prevent state and local law enforcement from cooperation, so long as the person or entity
is licensed by the state.
Fiscal Impact:
This measure could result in significant costs to local governments in educating their law
enforcement and other entities on the required change in the law. It could also trigger further
cuts to federal aid in large, unspecified amounts, above and beyond direct aid to law
enforcement.
Existing League Policy:
The League has no specific policy on the issues presented by this legislation, but has generally
been supportive of ongoing communication and cooperation between local, state and federal law
enforcement entities in the context of anti-terrorism efforts, organized crime task forces, and
other joint task forces involving local law enforcement and federal agencies.
Support and Opposition:
Support: Drug Policy Alliance (Sponsor)
Opposition: None at this time
Status: A joint OPPOSE letter with the Police Chiefs is being developed based on existing
League policy directing the preservation of local control in the context of marijuana regulation.
Local control will most certainly be jeopardized by legislation threatening to provoke federal
enforcement action.
3. Proposition 57 Update
Action Item
At the January Public Safety Committee meeting, there was discussion of the possible
formation of a working group to address concerns raised by the enactment of Proposition 57.
Since that time, the League has taken public positions on a series of key bills speaking
directly to concerns that both this Committee voiced in recommending an Oppose position to
the League’s Board of Directors, and that the Police Chiefs raised about the initiative during
4
the campaign (see related update under “Legislation in furtherance of Strategic Goal No. 4,”
above).
In addition, as noted above, the League has signaled to the Administration a willingness to
enter into a dialogue, likely in conjunction with the Police Chiefs, to achieve administrative
remedies that would guide implementation of Prop. 57 in a fashion consistent with public
safety. In response, Secretary Kernan of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
has met privately with both the League and the Police Chiefs to review a draft of the Prop. 57
implementing regulations.
The Police Chiefs have found the Administration to be very open to dialogue on this subject
as well as receptive to suggestions for enhancing public safety. We have every indication at
the current time that we should follow the lead of the Police Chiefs in this area, and continue
to participate in private discussions with a view toward ameliorating the impact of Prop. 57.
We are now on the path toward achieving the purpose for which a Working Group would
have been formed, namely achieving Prop. 57 implementation guidance enhancing public
safety. This is consistent with a strategy considered by the District Attorneys Association as
far back as December.
Given the Democratic two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature, change in this
area via legislation is uncertain, although we are supporting bills in this area. However,
changes to Prop. 57 along the lines that the Police Chiefs and the League are likely to
support, are more likely if they are the result of a stakeholder process managed directly by
the Administration, and which is already underway.
Staff Recommendation: Discuss. Direct staff to work with the Police Chiefs and proceed
with negotiations with the Administration and the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation to mitigate the public safety impacts of Proposition 57.
4. AB 887 (Cooper) Public Safety Officers
Bill Summary:
This measure expands upon existing law, the Peace Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, requiring
public safety officers to be informed of the nature of an investigation prior to any interrogation of
the officer.
Bill Description:
AB 887 requires certain disclosures be made to a public safety officer prior to the start of any
interrogation. Specifically, it requires disclosure of the following:
1) The time and date of any incident at issue.
2) The location of any incident at issue.
3) The internal affairs case number, if any.
4) The title of any alleged violation.
5) A brief factual summary of any complaint.
5
This measure also clarifies that it does not apply to any interrogation of a public safety officer in
the normal course of his or her duty, including any unplanned contact with a supervisor or any
other public safety officer, or to an investigation concerned solely and directly with alleged
criminal activities.
Background:
This measure appears designed to help ensure that a public safety officer is sufficiently informed
as to the nature of an investigation the officer is questioned about to know whether he or she
should informed of his her constitutional rights, and whether he or she should, among other
things, invoke his or her right of representation in the context of the interrogation.
Fiscal Impact:
This measure can be expected to have negligible fiscal impact on local law enforcement
agencies, as it is a refinement of an existing provision of law.
Existing League Policy:
The League opposes state-mandated legislation related to employer/employee relations that are
not mutually agreed upon by the local public agency and its employee organizations, except as
provided by local law.
The League opposes legislation making it a misdemeanor to disclose peace officer personnel
records and citizen complaint records, as well as prohibiting the use of documents or information
obtained in violation of this procedure in any administrative proceeding against a peace officer,
and any measure that makes it more difficult to discipline the misconduct of police officers.
Support and Opposition:
Support: PORAC
Opposition: California Police Chiefs Association
Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE.
5. SB 21 (Hill) Law Enforcement Agencies: Surveillance Policies
Bill Summary:
This measure will expand the existing privacy standards that currently apply to license plate
readers and mobile cell phone towers to all surveillance technologies employed by law
enforcement agencies.
Bill Description:
This measure expands upon existing law in the area of the use of surveillance technology by
requiring for the first time the following:
1) Approval by the local governing body of the local law enforcement agency’s
surveillance policy;
2) Disclosure of what technology is already in use;
6
3) A description of each technology;
4) A more detailed disclosure regarding proposed acquisition of new surveillance
technologies;
5) Period reports “at a time interval agreed to by the law enforcement agency and the
governing body” that would include the following:
a. The total cost of the specific technology
b. The frequency with which it is used
c. The type of data collected
d. The frequency with which it is loaned out to other agencies
e. Disclosure of any use of the technology that was out of compliance with the
local agency policy
Senate Bill 21 would also expressly provide a private right of action for any individual harmed
by a violation, allowing for civil lawsuits against local agencies for actual damages, punitive
damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief.
Finally, the bill provides an exception for exigent circumstances allowing a law enforcement
agency to temporarily acquire and/or use a surveillance technology without prior approval of its
local governing body. In that case, such acquisition or use must be reported to the local
governing body within 90 days following the end of the exigent circumstances.
Background:
California enacted two laws in 2015: SB 34 (Hill) and SB 741 (Hill) – which required law
enforcement agencies to develop privacy and use policies if they use either an automatic license
plate readers or cell-phone intercept devices (also known as mobile cell phone towers or
“stingrays,” both of which are surveillance technologies intended to collect wide-ranging
information on persons suspected of criminal activity, but can also be directed against members
of the public in general. The laws also generally require a public discussion before either of these
surveillance technologies are deployed.
While these laws appropriately balance protecting the civil liberties and privacy of Californians
with the law enforcement community’s ability to use the technologies to fight crime, they are
only applicable to two specific technologies. The laws do not apply to any other surveillance
technology used by police agencies.
As new surveillance technologies become available, law enforcement agencies are making a use
of a number of them, including: facial recognition, social media scrubbers, radar, and more.
According to the Washington Post, the “number of local police departments that employ some
type of technological surveillance increased from 20 percent in 1997 to more than 90 percent in
2013, according to the latest information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.” 1 Data collected
can be stored indefinitely, perhaps in large, regional databases.
While surveillance technologies can help improve public safety (and have, as in the case
highlighted in the Washington Post article, in which police responded to a possible domestic
1
“The New Way Police are Surveilling You: Calculating Your Threat Score,” by Justin Jouvenal, Washington Post,
January 10, 2016.
7
violence call with a negotiator in tow, once surveillance data revealed the fact that the subject
had a firearms conviction) the proliferation of the technologies has also profound impacts on
Californians civil liberties and privacy. As police agencies continue to use a varied array of
surveillance devices, they gain a greater ability to capture detailed information about where
people go, who they associate with, what they say, and more.
The author argues that laws are needed to ensure that surveillance technologies are used only for
their intended purpose – to catch criminals – rather that to collect data on law-abiding citizens.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact of this measure for local agencies is hard to determine, but there would likely
be additional costs associated with compliance with the requirement to seek approval from the
local governing body, and to comply with the reporting requirements.
Existing League Policy:
Recent League policy in this area has been to align itself with the California Police Chiefs
Association. The Police Chiefs generally have been resistant to increased civilian oversight in
this area based on concerns that too much disclosure will compromise the investigative function
and the effectiveness of surveillance tools that are meant to help apprehend criminals.
Support and Opposition:
Support: None on File
Opposition: California Police Chiefs Association, State Sheriffs Association, California District
Attorneys Association
Staff Recommendation: Oppose Unless Amended. Establishing a mechanism for civilian
oversight of law enforcement use of this technology is a reasonable objective. The author raises
a valid point in highlighting the fact that very little oversight exists currently. However, seeking
approval from local governing bodies for the acquisition and use of this technology, absent
amendments allowing for closed session deliberation and decision making, raises serious
questions about Brown Act and Open Meeting Act compliance in the context of implementation.
This is turn provides credence to the law enforcement community’s argument that this measure
may well provide a road map to criminals on how and when law enforcement uses surveillance
technology, thereby frustrating the very purpose of its use.
This measure could be palatable if its governing body approval and reporting provisions were
amended to require that they be conducted in closed session in their entirety.
6. SB 654 (Dodd) Local Moratorium: Gaming Tables
Bill Summary:
This measure will allow local governments an additional measure of flexibility in regulating card
rooms, by providing them increased discretion in setting card room operating hours, and in
expanding the current number of tables in local card rooms, thereby assisting local governments
8
in managing local revenue streams from this source, which according to the sponsor of the
measure, Communities for California Card Rooms, amounts to $150 million statewide.
Bill Description:
This bill authorizes local governments in non-charter cities to use two additional tools to regulate
card rooms:
1) To amend their ordinances to allow gambling establishments to operate up to 24
hours a day, 7 days a week;
2) To increase the number of gambling tables in an establishment by less than 25 percent
of the number of tables authorized in the local ordinance in effect as of January 1,
1996.
The bill makes clear that locals may take this action either through enactment of an ordinance or
submitting the issue to the voters on a local ballot. Its provisions will sunset in January 2024.
Background:
The Gambling Control Act created a comprehensive statutory framework to regulate gambling in
California. The Act also bifurcated the regulatory system into a Bureau of Gambling Control
within the Department of Justice, and a five-member California Gambling Control Commission.
The Bureau is responsible for the processing of applications for licensure, assuring compliance
with laws and regulations, approving the play of controlled games, and initiating disciplinary
actions.
Despite its statutory mandate, and increased funding from industry fees, the Bureau has been
unable to keep up with its statutory responsibilities. Currently there is a backlog of nearly 3,000
licensing applications. While state law sets a standard for approval of new license applications in
180 days, few if any applications are approved within that time period, and approvals of all new
or modified games have also recently been halted completely.
Further, for the past few years, the Bureau has often taken more than a year to respond to local
governments regarding review of their proposed ordinance amendments, as required by law. This
has created much confusion and unwarranted delay in implementation of new ordinances.
Fiscal Impact:
This measure is expected to increase local revenues by an undetermined amount in cities that are
host to card room establishments.
Existing League Policy:
The League has no existing policy on this particular issue. To the degree policy on gambling
exists, it focuses solely on Indian gaming.
Support and Opposition:
Support: Communities for California Cardrooms (Sponsor); Stones Gambling Hall, Parkwest
Casinos, Lucky Chances Casino, Capitol Casino, Seven Mile Casino, Players Club, City of
Citrus Heights, City of Ventura
9
Opposition: None at this time.
Staff Recommendation: Support. This measure is worthy of the League’s support in that it
will assist a certain universe of cities increase their revenue streams, particularly if it does not
present a serious conflict with cities hosting larger, casino-type gaming such as Hawaiian
Gardens.
7. SB 695 (Lara and Mitchell) Sex Offenders: Registration
Bill Summary:
This measure will establish a tiered registry for all sex offenders. Proposed tiers are based on the
seriousness of the offense, the individual risk of recidivism, and the individual’s criminal history.
It is intended to more directly focus Sex Offender Management Board and Parole Officer
resources where they will be most effective, tracking and monitoring the highest-risk offenders.
Bill Description:
SB 695 established a tiered registry system for all sex offenders that the sponsors expect to
enhance public safety, as follows:
• Tier 1: Registration for 10 years for misdemeanor or non-violent felonies;
• Tier 2: Registration for 20 years for serious or violent sex offenses; and
• Tier 3: Registration for life for high risk offenders, including but not limited to sexually
violent predators, repeat violent offenders, and sex offenses requiring a life term.
Courts will have discretion to decide which tier an offender is initially required to register under,
and whether a petition for registration termination should be granted, based on factors such as the
nature of the offense, the age and number of victims, whether any victim was personally known
to the offender at the time of the offense, the criminal and relevant non-criminal behavior of the
offender before and after conviction for the registerable offense, any previous arrests and
convictions for a sexually motivated offense, and the individual’s risk of recidivism, i.e.
propensity to commit a future sexual or violent offense.
Background:
California is one of four states (Alabama, Florida and South Carolina are the others) with a
lifetime sex offender registration requirement for all registered sex offenders. This state is in
need of a new registration system focusing attention and resources where they are most needed –
on high-risk and violent sex offenders. Law enforcement cannot effectively protect the
community when their time is occupied tracking and documenting efforts to track low-risk
offenders.
The overarching purpose of the Sex Offender Registry is to increase public protection, deter
offenders from committing future sex crimes, and provide law enforcement with an effective
investigative tool. However, the registry alone has not been an effective deterrent, and the public
is sometimes unpleasantly shocked at the sheer number of offenders whose residential location in
each neighborhood. Under the current system, it is difficult to identify which offenders truly
pose a serious danger. The system is in need of a change that will help law enforcement – and
alert the public – as which offenders must be monitored with a high degree of vigilance.
10
Registering offenders in tiers that are based on the offender’s individual record and risk of reoffending will allow law enforcement to concentrate their efforts on ensuring that high-risk and
violent offenders remain in compliance with the law.
Under this bill, removal from the registry would not be automatic. The following protections
would be instituted:
1) Offenders in Tier 1 and Tier 2 would have to petition the court for removal from the
registry at the end of their designated registration period.
2) District attorneys will have the ability to request a petition on the hearing if the
petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements for successful completion of the
registration period – for example, if the petitioner has failed to register at any time,
has been convicted of another offense requiring registration, or if community safety
would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.
a. The District Attorney will be entitled to present evidence which dovetails with
criteria which the court is bound to consider, and in addition may present the
following:
i. Time period during which the individual has not re-offended
ii. Successful completion, or lack thereof, of a Sex Offender Management
Board-certified sex offender treatment program
3) Courts will retain the ability to deny termination of registration termination in certain
circumstances
Fiscal Impact:
To the degree local agencies are involved in the tracking of sex offenders, this measure should
result in some savings since local resources will be more effectively targeted.
Existing League Policy:
The League supports policies that will assist local law enforcement with the comprehensive and
collaborative management of sex offenders, including tools for tracking the location of sex
offenders within local jurisdictions, so long as state-mandated programs provide for full
reimbursement to all local agencies.
Support and Opposition:
Support: The following entities are joint sponsors of this measure: Los Angeles County District
Attorney’s Office; California Sex Offender Management Board; California Coalition Against
Sexual Assault; Equality California
NOTE: At this writing, the review of this bill by the Legislative Committee of the California
Police Chiefs Association is pending.
Opposition: None at this time.
Staff Recommendation: Support. This measure will assist in achieving improved management
of sex offenders by allowing state and local governments to more effectively target resources
where they are most needed.
11