Dear Supervisor Antonovich:
On October 1,2011, the state's Public Safety Realignment (Realignment) program will begin
implementation. This transfer of responsibilities from the state to the counties poses a grave
threat to public safety. It will proceed without adequate infrastructure, funding and legal
protections for all involved agencies. Realignment is a deeply flawed program and its
consequences will take both a financial and human toll.
In January, the Governor introduced his proposed Realignment program. My analysis and
response was swift. I characterized the proposal as a "public safety nightmare." I issued a
white paper in February outlining the issues. Although some changes were made to the final
Realignment program, the overall threat to public safety remains.
Incarceration appropriate to the crime provides punishment, deterrence and protects the public.
Although over 60 felonies and special allegations were excluded from mandatory local housing
in the final version of Realignment, many serious criminals sentenced to lengthy state prison
sentences will still be required to be housed locally. Such sentenced prisoners will take up beds
for longer periods of time and, cumulatively, will substantially decrease available bed space .
In my white paper I provided examples of six cases involving serious felony criminal conduct,
the incarceration for which would be local housing under the original Realignment Proposal.
The current version of Realignment excludes over 60 additional felonies and special allegations
from local housing. However, even with these changes, four of the six case examples I
provided would still not receive state prison sentences (see below). These charges are
considered non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenses (the so called N3 offenses) and are not
on the list of approximately 60 additional excluded felonies and special allegations.
Assault Weapons
In People v. Powell, BA338304, the defendant was a heavy methamphetamine user living in an
upscale neighborhood. The police were called when the defendant suffered from severe
methamphetamine-induced psychosis and his behavior was of great concern to the neighbors.
Inside the defendant's home police found, among other firearms and destructive devices, a .
rocket launcher, tracer rounds , a flame thrower and methamphetamine. The defendant's
psychosis and access to an arsenal of weapons made him incredibly dangerous. The defendant
was sentenced to eight years in state prison. Under Realignment, Powell would be housed
locally.
Major Narcotics
Defendants Jose Gomez and Maria Torres delivered over 1,040 kilograms (kilos) of cocaine to
undercover officers. Officers subsequently recovered an additional 150 kilos of cocaine, 200
pounds of methamphetamine and $100,000 in drug proceeds. Gomez had prior drug offenses
but no strikes. He received a state prison sentence of 29 years (BA349699). Under
Realignment, Gomez would be housed locally.
Consumer Protection
Bertha Bugarin was an office manager for six medical clinics serving an immigrant, Spanish
speaking community. She had no medical training whatsoever. Ms. Bugarin personally
performed abortions for cash. She was charged with seven felony counts of unlicensed practice
of medicine and was sentenced to over three years in State Prison (BA328497). Under
Realignment, Bugarin would be housed locally.
High Technology Crimes
In People v. Oluwatosin, BA255327, the defendant and his co-conspirators compromised the
data network owned and operated by ChoicePoint, a data aggregation company. They would
thereafter open a ChoicePoint account and use the system to run searches on unsuspecting
victims. They opened over 40 separate business accounts using stolen identities and fraudulent
Los Angeles City tax licenses. Using these fraudulent accounts , Oluwatosin ran the credit
histories of over 189,000 individuals. In an extremely complicated criminal operation, the ring
created mailbox drops and cell phone service using victim information. That information was
then used to take over existing credit card accounts and open new accounts which were then
used to obtain cash advances. At the time of filing, the estimated victim losses exceeded
$6,500,000. Oluwatosin was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in state prison. Under
Realignment, Oluwatosin would be housed locally.
THE DANGERS OF EARLY RELEASE
It has been readily conceded by Sheriffs Department employees that, post Realignment, there
will be no available bed space for sentenced misdemeanants or convicted felons who receive a
county jail sentence as a term of probation. At the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP)
meeting on August 11, 2011, a representative from the Sheriff's Department told the CCP that
even though additional bed space would be secured, they are estimating to be at full capacity 11
weeks after Realignment's October 1 start date.
In 2006, the Los Angeles Times documented how "the shortage of jail beds puts career
criminals back on the streets, where they often commit new offenses. " The article, entitled
"Releasing Inmates Early Has Costly Human Toll," documents an early release program the
Sheriff s Department previously implemented. According to the investigation, during this time
of early release, nearly 16,000 inmates were rearrested and charged with new crimes while they
were supposed to be incarcerated. Sixteen people were charged with murders committed
during a time they were supposed to be incarcerated for their previous crime. More than 25%
of those rearrested when they were supposed to be in jail were charged with violent or life endangering
crimes. Jack Leonard , Megan Garvey and Doug Smith. "Releasing Inmates Early
Has Costly Human Toll" Los Angeles Times May 14, 2006.
Realignment will result in early release on steroids. The cases described earlier are just a few
examples of convicted felons sentenced to state prison who will be housed locally under
Realignment. There will be thousands more. In 2009, approximately 8,000 Los Angeles
County defendants sentenced to state prison would now be required to be housed locally in
county jail. In 2010, approximately 7,400 Los Angeles County defendants sentenced to state
prison would now be required to be housed locally. Los Angeles County jails are under a long
standing federal court ordered population cap and are already at or near federally mandated
capacity.1. Realignment will result in thousands upon thousands of convicted felons released to
our communities with minimal supervision.
PAROLE REVOCATION
Realignment transfers the responsibility of parole revocation hearings to the Superior Court,
District Attorneys and Public Defenders Offices for N3 offenders released from state prison on
or after October 1,2011. In 2013, that responsibility will expand to serious, violent and sex'
offenses. CDCR estimates that the County will be responsible for monitoring 5,800 in FY
2011-2012,13,400 in FY 2012-2013 and 11,800 in 2013-2014. All parolees or post release
supervised persons found in violation of parole or community supervision will serve their time in county jail.
1 June 10,2010 letter from Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca to then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposing shifting felony offenders to local county jails . See Block v. Rutherford 468 US 576 (1984), Rutherford v.Block (now Rutherford v. Baca) Case No. Civ. 75-04111-DDP.
Only those on parole for life sentences can be returned to prison on a parole
revocation.
According to the CDCR, in calendar year 2009, more than 18,000 parole violators returned to
prison with a new term for violating parole. Of this number, nearly 6,500 inmates were from
Los Angeles County, slightly more then one-third of the total parole violators.2 Under
Realignment, parole violators can only serve a maximum of 180 days in the county jail.
Conservatively estimating that half of the 6,500 violators would qualify for local revocation
hearings, the Superior Court, District Attorney's Office and Public Defender would conduct
3,400 such hearings each year. If each violator served 30 days spaced evenly throughout the
year, the county would need more than 250 additional beds per month, bed space that is not
currently available. This number only reflects those returned to custody on parole violations
not the number of actual revocation hearings which would be higher.
UNCERTAIN FUNDING
The State had previously promised a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a continuing
revenue source for Realignment. Realignment is currently funded only for FY 11-12 with
adjustments made for the October 1, 2011 start date. Funding will continue to be in question
and will require legislation, a constitutional amendment or voter approval.
Even the payment of "guaranteed" funding is in doubt. In his testimony before the State
Assembly Budget Committee earlier this year, Sheriff Lee Baca told the committee that the
state still owed the Sheriffs Department $54 million for its housing of inmates waiting to go
back to prison after parole revocation.
INCREASE IN COUNTY LIABILITY
There will be an increase in liability for the County as immunities enjoyed by State employees
were not transferred to County employees. Pursuant to the County's Realignment
Implementation plan, both the Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer assume varying degrees of
responsibility for post-release community supervision parolees. According to a recent analysis
by County Counsel, the Sheriff himself would be considered a State Officer and immune from
liability in state and possibly federal court. However, Sheriffs Department employees would
not possess such immunity and would be subject to individual 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability for
which the County is required to defend and indemnify. The analysis goes on to say that the
Chief Probation officer and his employees lack immunity as well. In the absence of a
Constitutional amendment, legislation would be needed to give the Chief Probation officer and
both Probation and Sheriff employees immunity from § 1983 suits.
2 California Prisoners & Parolees 2009, page 26; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations,
Offender Information Services Branch, Estimates and Statistical Analysis Section, Data Analysis Unit.
CONCLUSION
Public safety should be government's highest priority. Realignment jeopardizes the
fundamental right of the people to a safe and just society. This program predictably will result
in a tremendous spike in crime in Los Angeles County and statewide. It will add expensive
new burdens to a criminal justice system which, prior to Realignment, had registered a
remarkable 60-year low in crime rates. Realignment casts too wide a net in defining "low level
offenses". Criminals will escape adequate punishment. Those who view Realignment as a
positive development are not just overly optimistic, they are flat wrong. We are in the awful
position of having to wait for further crime and substantial victimization to be proven right.
Very truly yours,
STEVE COOLEY
District Attorney
