Federal Court Signals End for CDCR Receivership

The federal judge overseeing the federal receivership of California's state prison system announced today "the end of the Receivership appears to be in sight" after six years of federal intervention in California's prison system.  The federal court took control over parts of the state prison system after finding constitutional violations and appointed a receiver to oversee significant structural changes.  The state challenged the court's order, ultimately resulting in the United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Plata, which upheld the receivership.

Court of Appeal Recognizes Corrections Professionals' Special Expertise

In Ochoa v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1274, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled superior courts must consider inmates' rights to view confidential information to challenge parole denials on a case-by-case basis and directed the court to consult corrections professionals to help it decide what the inmate's attorney could receive. The case went on appeal after a superior court judge ordered a warden to choose between producing unredacted copies of confidential information to a prisoner or opposing prisoner's petition without relying on confidential information. The Court rejected such a blanket rule and acknowledged corrections professionals have a special role to play in determining why records should be confidential.

In reaching its decision, the Court observed:

[Q]uestions of confidentiality are complex and can only be made by trained, experienced correctional authorities knowledgeable about the inmate in question, the entire content of his file (not just the contested documents the court reviews), prison life in general, morality and ethics of the prison setting, prison relationships, and the rehabilitative process.  In many cases the reasons for confidentiality may not spring from the face of the document but may be based on other factors in the inmate's file or other conditions in the institution, or a psychological factor that would require expert analysis to appreciate.’ ... ‘Such a hearing would allow the custodian of records ... to explain the significance of the documents and the reasons for their being withheld.  Anything less would have the court acting in a vacuum, unable to obtain or use the factual tools which are essential to an informed judgment.’

As a result, the Court of Appeal ordered the superior court to set an in camera hearing with corrections professionals to determine how much, if any, of the confidential files could be turned over to the inmate's attorney.

Court of Appeal Upholds Furloughs for Correctional Officers

In Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda (1st DCA, Oct. 3, 2011, A127292) 2011 WL 4537946, the Court of Appeal overturned CCPOA's trial court victory, holding self-directed furloughs under two executive orders did not violate California Labor Codes prohibiting “kickbacks” by employers or minimum wage laws.

CCPOA attempted to nullify self-directed three-day/month furloughs. Under the orders, employees were permitted to take the furloughs whenever they preferred. If the employees did not use the three furlough days by the end of the month, the days were to be used at a future date, prior to the employee using any form of paid leave. The furlough days needed to be used prior to June 2012 or they would be eliminated. CCPOA claimed the State was essentially asking its members to work for free.

The Court found the Governor had a right to impose the furloughs as the agencies which members of CCPOA worked for were included in the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, which were approved by the Legislature, and were part of the extended furlough program. The Court also found the manner in which the furloughs were implemented did not violate applicable California Labor Codes as employers were not taking “kickbacks” from employees or secretly paying them less. The court also found the furlough program did not violate minimum wage laws. The Court also overturned the trial court’s order for back pay for union members.

Legislative Analyst's Office, CDCR Address Realignment

In March and again in June, the Legislature passed a series of bills to shift responsibility for some services from the state to local and municipal governments. This process of realignment has far-reaching implications in local law enforcement, probation and corrections.   As part of this process, the state will begin diverting criminal offenders and parole violators to county supervision starting October 1st.

With the implementation date approaching, the Legislative Analyst's Office released a report today on the construction and mechanics of realignment as well its recommendations to improve the process.  Likewise, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation launched a website yesterday to outline how realignment will impact state and local corrections, juvenile justice administration and supervision of parolees.

Supreme Court Upholds California Prison Inmate Cap

The United States Supreme Court upheld a three-judge court's prison population cap, "gambling with the safety of the people of California." In Brown v. Plata (May 23, 2011), ---S.Ct. ---, the Court upheld a special three-judge court's order California reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years. As a result, the State must reduce the prison population by approximately 37,000 inmates.

Justice Kennedy wrote for the five member majority, arguing the State failed to provide prisoners with basic sustenance, including medical care, violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.  The Court affirmed the three-judge court's conclusion clear and convincing evidence showed only a population cap addressed the violations. Justices Scalia and Alito wrote separate dissents, arguing the three-judge court exceeded its authority under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and gave too little weight to the risks to public safety.

Justice Scalia described the cap as “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.”  He questioned why releasing “fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym” would help “prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness.”  Scalia further criticized the three-judge court for "relying largely on their own beliefs about penology and recidivism" and characterizing their opinions as factual findings subject to deference on review.  In Scalia's view, the Court's decision permits "the policy preferences of three District Judges [to] govern the operation of California’s penal system."

Justice Alito echoed Scalia's concerns, noting the "Constitution does not give federal judges the authority to run state penal systems."  Alito cautioned releasing "the equivalent of three Army divisions" from California prisons may "lead to a grim roster of victims." He noted in an 18-month period following similar inmate release in the 1990s, "the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands [] for committing 9,732 new crimes [including] 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries, and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses."