The SCPD in a recent Facebook post ("The Recap") complimented themselves for leading a multi agency parole/ probation compliance sweep in/ around known drug slums in the city of Santa Cruz on August 1st, 2021. I repeat: "known drug slums."

The SCPD opined that these slums go unchecked by local law enforcement due to the passage of AB109 (Prison Realignment) and the passage of Props 47 & 57 (reducing non violent felonies to misdemeanors). I repeat: "reducing," not decriminalizing. 

AB109 was a Bill passed in the CA Legislature and took effect in 2012. Its purpose was to relieve overcrowding in the state prison system by having low level offenders (non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders) serve time behind bars at the county level. The cost differential would be passed down to the respective counties as compensation for needed jail capacity upgrades. Santa Cruz County spent their share on ankle monitors.

AB109, through CA Penal Code sec 1170h, also established a "Community Corrections Partnership." These CCP's are designed to allow for local control of AB 109ers in terms of sentencing, confinement, and connection to services upon release to Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS).

I'd also note that the passage/ implementation of AB109 had zero effect on how many convicted felons Santa Cruz sent to state prison, as referenced by the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Two years later, voters approved overwhelmingly the passage of Proposition's 47 & 57 with the intent to strengthen the influence of county supervision of offenders locally, not to abandon them. But, that's exactly what happened.

Current law in California allows for sitting Superior Court judges to impose up to 1 year in jail for a simple possession of a controlled substance. Unlawful paraphernalia (meth pipes) up to 6 months, and burglary tools another 6 months. Double all that for prior convictions. This too is not being allowed to occur by Santa Cruz County's CCP.

What the voters demanded (by reaffirming their stance in the November 2020 election) was local intervention for offenders: rehab or a jail cell. What they have ended up with so far is neither. Police officers cite & release criminal misdemeanant offenders at an alarming rate for the purpose of saving time during the booking process, only to cite & release those same offenders for the same violations the next day (if not the same day).

The District Attorneys throughout California enjoyed years of avoiding prosecuting offenders (prior to AB109) by having the state violate those who were on parole. AB1209 killed that, and as yet those DA's and their teams of prosecutors haven't learned how to take a case to trial, or use the leverage of existing law to allow sitting judges the opportunity for persons convicted in their court the choice of incarceration or completion of rehab programs.

In Santa Cruz County, more often than not, these offenders (drug addicts for sure) are contacted by police several times each week, issued citations for unlawful behavior, and released. These cases are eventually filed as criminal court cases by the DA and a few months later a plea deal is arranged by where the defendant pleads "no contest" to the most minor charge and the dozens of other charges are dismissed.  The judge at this point can't use jail as part of the sentencing phase because the time (from arrest to conviction) has already expired. A sentence of probation (12-36 months) is the normal outcome.

So- a convicted drug addict/ AB109 offender with a high likelihood of reoffending, is given a probationary sentence and, according to the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury, is not only NOT being supervised, but (according to a 2017 independent evaluation) not being connected to services either. Probationers who reoffend and are stopped on the streets (or taken to jail) are not having holds placed on them. The result is usually immediate release, no contact by probation officers, and therefore no adjustments made to rehab the offender. When this occurs too many times for an individual, probation terminates the imposed term, effectively wiping its failures off the map.

Lastly, the pandemic presented challenges to detention facilities and prisons where "close contact" is a way of life. Santa Cruz County Jasils were no exception. To be able to operate within legal guidelines, the State Justice Council on April 6th issued a mandates to all counties to allow for $0.01 cent bail for all non violent/ non-serious/ non- sex offense. With the easing of impacted hospitals, available testing, and the presence of vaccines, that mandate was lifted. Counties were able to continue "penny bail" on a needs basis.

To date- there has not been a single case of covid19 in the jails (Grand Jury report), and vaccines have been widely available... yet Santa Cruz County continues with "penny bail" involving arrests from drug possession to Narcotics Trafficking. Jails in the county have been and remain at 60% capacity for the past 12 months, and that trend is continuing.

The voters demanded intervention from the criminal justice system. They did not approve local law enforcement agencies to become whiny "Not Our Fault" punks. The current set of laws on the books are sufficient for intervention opportunities among the criminal addict population. So SCPD, end the lying, roll up your sleeves, and get to work. Your Break is OVER.

 

Big Joe 77