BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Senator Milton Marks, Chair A
1995-96 Regular Session B
3
3
AB 3369 (Bordonaro) 6
As amended April 23, 1996 9
Hearing date: June 18, 1996
Welfare and Institutions Code
ALA:js
JUVENILE JUSTICE: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF MINORS ON
PROBATION, PAROLE; oMo CASES IN THE YOUTH AUTHORITY
HISTORY
Source: Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Attorney Generalos Office; California District
Attorneys Association; California Peace Officerso
Association; California Police Chiefs Association;
California PTA; California State Sheriffso
Association; Department of the Youth Authority; Doris
Tate Crime Victims Bureau; Women Prosecutors of
California
Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Public
Defenders Association; Californians for Juvenile
Justice Reform; Juvenile Court Judges of California;
Youth Law Center
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 54 - Noes 19
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 2
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD ALL JUVENILES ON PROBATION BE SUBJECT TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES?
(Continued)
SHOULD A NEW STATUTE BE ADDED REQUIRING THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PAROLE BOARD TO
IMPOSE A WARRANTLESS SEARCH REQUIREMENT ON ALL YOPB PAROLEES?
SHOULD THE AGE AT WHICH the youth authority can house department of
CORRECTIONSo INMATES BE LOWERED FROM AGE 21 TO AGE 18, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
Under current law, juvenile courts have broad authority to
impose conditions of probation as long as they are tailored
to specifically meet the needs of the minor. ( In re Tyrell
J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, 81-82.)
This bill would require that, if oa minor is found to be a
person described in section 602, the court, as a condition of
probation, shall require that the minor be subject to
warrantless searches of his or her person, residence, or any
property under his or her control, upon the request of a
probation officer or peace officer.o
Under current law, the Youthful Offender Parole Board
imposes, as a condition of parole upon every Youth Authority
parolee, the following requirement:
You and your residence any property under your
control may be searched without a warrant by a
parole agent of the Department of the Youth
Authority, parole agent of the Youthful Offender
Parole Board, or any peace officer.
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 3
This bill would create a new statute that would require the
Youthful Offender Parole Board to orequire as a standard
condition of parole that any person who has been committed to
the control of the Department of the Youth Authority shall be
subject to warrantless searches of his or her person,
residence, or any property under his or her control, upon the
request of a parole officer or peace officer.o
Current law permits certain persons under the age of 21 to be
transferred to the Department of the Youth Authority by the
Director of Corrections with the approval of the Director of
the Youth Authority, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions
Code ? 1731.5)
This bill would lower the age in this provision from 21 to 18
years old.
Current law provides that the duration of transfers of
persons under the age of 21 years old from Corrections to the
Youth Authority extends until 1) Youth Authority orders the
inmate returned to Corrections; 2) the inmate is ordered
discharged by the Board of Prison Terms; or 3) the inmate
reaches the age of 25 years, whichever first occurs.
(Welfare and Institutions Code ? 1731.5(c))
This bill would revise the above criteria by lowering the age
maximum from 25 to 18 years old, provided, however, that if
the inmate's period of incarceration would be completed on or
before the inmate's 19th birthday, the Director of the Youth
Authority may continue to house the inmate until the period
of incarceration is completed.
This bill also contains legislative findings and
declarations.
This is an urgency measure.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for warrantless
searches of juvenile probationers and parolees, and to lower
the age at which persons convicted in criminal court can be
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 4
housed in the Youth Authority.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill.
The author states:
Because of the increase in the number of violent
juvenile offenders, minors sent to juvenile
facilities have usually committed extremely
serious crimes. Many are recidivists, who when out
on probation or parole, are great risks for
further criminal activity. Law enforcement
authorities must be provided with greater
flexibility to lessen the threat that these
individuals pose to the community once they are
released. This bill will give local law
enforcement the ability to conduct random searches
of those juveniles most likely to be engaging in
criminal activity, thereby improving law
enforcement's ability to deter criminal conduct.
This bill will also address California Youth
Authority (CYA) issues surrounding the confinement
of juveniles commonly referred to as 'M-Cases.'
Acceptance of M-Cases who are 18 years of age or
over at the time of sentencing and who have
sentences in excess of age 25, is inconsistent
with adult sentencing statutes and requires the
CYA to provide services to offenders who are age
appropriate for prison population. This bill
would lower the age to under 18 for individuals
sentenced to state prison and referred to CYA for
housing (M-Cases). Individuals accepted for
housing must be transferred to state prison by the
inmate's 18th birthday. However, . . . if the
inmate's period of incarceration is completed by
the inmate's 19th birthday, the Director of CYA
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 5
may continue to house an inmate until that time. .
. .
2. Warrantless Searches of Juvenile Probationers.
This bill proposes to require courts to impose, as a
condition of probation, a requirement that minors on
probation be subject to warrantless searches of his or her
person, residence, or any property under his or her control,
upon the request of a probation officer or peace officer.
Juvenile courts currently can impose search conditions on
probationed minors. One lead deputy district attorney,
speaking on behalf of Women Prosecutors in support of this
bill, states, however, that ooftentimes youthful offenders
will not be given a search and seizure condition when one is
deserved because the parents object or there is a technical
oversight in the probation report.o The Juvenile Court
Judges argue that the bill may be unconstitutional, would
impose on judicial discretion, and would create oa rigid
requirement which may not be indicated or necessary in many
cases.o
Current law gives juvenile courts obroad discretion to
fashion conditions of probation for the purpose of
rehabilitation and may even impose a condition of probation
which would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper so long
as it is tailored to specifically met the needs of the
juvenile.o ( In re Tanya B. (2nd App. Dist., Feb. 1996) (96
Daily Journal D.A.R. 2619) (emphasis added)) Although
juvenile probationary conditions can be broader than criminal
probation conditions ( see In re Lavia K. (1991) 229
Cal.App.3d 1496 and In re Todd L. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 14),
they nevertheless must reasonably relate to the minoros
conduct or the crime charged. ( People v. Lent (1975) 15
Cal.3d 481) Unlike parolees, juvenile probationers cannot
refuse probation and therefore cannot refuse a probationary
search condition.
This bill proposes to require courts to impose a broad search
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 6
condition on every minor found to be a delinquent ward of the
court. The broadness of this provision -- to impose a search
condition on every probationed delinquent ward of the court
-- may be unconstitutional to the extent it would apply to
instances where the condition does not reasonably relate to
the minoros conduct or the crime charged. The Committee
and/or the author may wish to consider amending this bill to
focus on the types of juvenile offenders for whom a search
condition would be reasonably related to their offense. Drug
and weapons offenses may be the types of offenses that might
be considered.
SHOULD COURTS BE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE SEARCH CONDITIONS ON
EVERY DELINQUENT WARD OF THE COURT, REGARDLESS OF THE MINORoS
CONDUCT OR THE OFFENSE CHARGED?
WOULD THIS BILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL?
ARE COURTS FAILING TO IMPOSE SEARCH CONDITIONS ON JUVENILE
PROBATIONERS WHEN THEY SHOULD?
SHOULD COURTS BE STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO IMPOSE SEARCH
CONDITIONS ON ALL JUVENILE PROBATIONERS?
SHOULD THIS BILL BE NARROWED TO APPLY TO DRUG AND WEAPONS
OFFENSES?
3. Youthful Offender Parole Board.
The Youthful Offender Parole Board already does what this
bill would require. Specifically, all YOPB conditions of
parole include a search condition (see Purpose section,
above). Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations
provides:
A parole agent, or any peace officer designated by
a Youth Authority parole agent for a specific
purpose, may search the person, property or
residence of a ward as a necessary adjunct to
parole supervision and surveillance. The purpose
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 7
of such searches are to:
(a) Discover evidence of a law or parole
violation.
(b) Assure that evidence indicating a law
or parole violation is not destroyed.
(c) Assure that no dangerous weapon is
possessed by a ward arrested by the
agent. (15 CCR ?4846)
IS THIS BILL NECESSARY?
4. Legislative Findings.
This bill contains the following legislative findings and
declarations:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares
that due to the significant increase in
the scope and severity of criminal
conduct on the part of minors recently,
law enforcement officers require greater
authority to conduct warrantless
searches of juvenile offenders.
(b) The Legislature further finds and
declares that this increased authority
is necessary because the increase in the
severity of the crimes committed by
minors has reduced the level of public
safety in many communities. At the same
time, minors who have committed crimes
and who might otherwise be detained in,
or committed to, juvenile detention
facilities are often placed on
probation, instead, due to financial
constraints. Consequently, many
juvenile offenders who have committed
serious criminal offenses are not being
detained in, or committed to, juvenile
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 8
facilities.
(c) For that reason, the Legislature
hereby declares that law enforcement
officers must have greater authority to
conduct warrantless searches of
juveniles who have been found to have
committed criminal offenses and who are
not detained in, or committed to
juvenile detention facilities, in order
to protect the public.
IS THIS NECESSARY?
SHOULD THESE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS BE MADE?
5. o Mo Cases.
As explained above, current law generally permits CDC to
transfer persons under 21 to CYA up until the age 25. This
bill proposes to lower the permissible age from 21 to 18.
oMo cases are state prisoners who are serving their sentences
in CYA. For some time, the Legislative Analystos Office has
recommended transferring custody of oMo cases who are 18 or
older back to CDC because oincarceration of these inmates in
the Youth Authority is inconsistent with the departmentos
mission of rehabilitating juvenile offenders.<1> LAO states
that the transfer of oMo cases back to CDC would olead to a
significant reduction in overcrowding in the Youth Authority
facilities -- from a projected 189 percent in 2000-2001 to
158 percent.o<2>
(More)
-------------------------------
<1> Legislative Analystos Office, Analysis of the 1996-97
Budget Bill (February 1996)(emphasis in original).
<2> Id.
Opponents argue that, in the long-term, it is unwise to apply
a blanket rule that transfers every young person housed in
CYA to CDC. Californians for Juvenile Justice Reform state:
We understand the administrationos desire to send
a message to juveniles and young adults who commit
serious crimes -- that they can expect the
toughest possible response from the criminal
justice system.
However, we believe it is unwise to force every
youth housed by agreement in CYA to move to state
prison at age 18. Most of these young people will
eventually be released back into society. We want
them to succeed when they are released. Custody
in CYA, where there is vocational and educational
programming, is a far better guarantee of success
upon release than forcing an 18 year old into the
punitive and unprogrammed culture of state prison.
WOULD IMPOSING A MANDATORY RETURN OF 18 YEAR-OLDS HOUSED IN
THE YOUTH AUTHORITY oBACKFIREo AND RESULT IN LESSENED CRIME
CONTROL UPON THEIR RETURN TO SOCIETY?
6. Related Legislation.
This Committee passed SB 1378 (Peace) (5-0), which like this
bill addresses the oM Caseo issue by lowering the transfer
age from 25 to 18. SB 1378 and this bill differ, however,
with respect to the transfer of M Cases according to their
age.
Specifically, SB 1378 provides on the age limit issue that
the CYA housing extends until othe inmate reaches the age of
25 years, if he or she was ordered transferred to the custody
of the Department of the Youth Authority prior to August 1,
1995, (or) the inmate reaches the age of 18 years, if he or
she was ordered transferred to the Department of the Youth
Authority on or after August 1, 1995, or (5) the inmate
(More)
AB 3369 (Bordonaro)
Page 10
reaches the age of 18 years, if he or she was ordered
transferred to the custody of the Department of the Youth
Authority on or after August 1, 1995, and is eligible for
release on parole on or before the date the person attains
the age of 18 years, whichever first occurs.o
This bill simply provides for an age limit of 18, but would
add a proviso that if othe inmate's period of incarceration
would be completed on or before the inmate's 19th birthday,
the Director of the Youth Authority may continue to house the
inmate until the period of incarceration is completed.o
SHOULD THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL BE CONFORMED TO SB 1378?
***************