Existing law requires the county agency supervising the release of a person on postrelease community supervision to petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision if the agency determines, following application of its assessment processes, that intermediate sanctions are not appropriate.

This bill would require the county agency supervising the release of a person on postrelease community supervision to also petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision if the person has violated the terms of their release for a 3rd time and the person has committed a new felony or misdemeanor. The bill would allow a peace officer to arrest a person without warrant who fails to appear at a hearing to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision. By imposing additional duties on county agencies administering postrelease community supervision, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide specified information to local law enforcement agencies regarding an inmate released by the department to the agencys jurisdiction on parole or postrelease community supervision, including a record of the offense for which the inmate was convicted that resulted in parole or postrelease community supervision.

This bill would require the department to also provide the local law enforcement agency with copies of the record of supervision during any prior period of parole.

(2)Existing law requires the department to be the agency primarily responsible for the Law Enforcement Automated Data System and requires county agencies supervising inmates released from prison on postrelease community supervision to provide any information requested by the department to ensure the availability of accurate information regarding inmates released from state prison. Under existing law, this information may include the issuance of warrants, revocations, or the termination of postrelease community supervision.

This bill would require the county to provide the department, upon request, with all records of supervision. By imposing additional duties on county agencies administering postrelease community supervision, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law requires the county agency supervising the release of a person on postrelease community supervision to petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision if the agency determines, following application of its assessment processes, that intermediate sanctions are not appropriate.

This bill would require the county agency supervising the release of a person on postrelease community supervision to also petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision if the person has violated the terms of their release for a 3rd time and the person has committed a new felony or misdemeanor. The bill would allow a peace officer to arrest a person without warrant who fails to appear at a hearing to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision. By imposing additional duties on county agencies administering postrelease community supervision, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)Existing law allows each county agency responsible for postrelease supervision to determine appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can include a one to 10 consecutive day period of one to 10 consecutive days of flash incarceration.

This bill would require the probation department to notify the court, public defender, district attorney, and sheriff of each imposition of flash incarceration. By imposing additional duties on county agencies administering postrelease community supervision, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: July 9, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 759

Author:(Archuleta) – As Amended Ver:May 23, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a supervising agency to petition the court to modify, revoke, or terminate post-release community supervision (PRCS) if a person on PRCS has violated the terms of their release for a third time and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (local funds, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county agencies to file additional petitions seeking revocation, modification, or termination of PRCS. Although these duties are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable but are subject to Proposition 30 (2012). Under Proposition 30, legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate county petitions filed as a result of this bill. Actual costs will depend on the number of petitions filed and the amount of court time needed for each petition. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The fiscal year 2025-26 state budget provides $82 million ongoing General Fund to the Trial Court Trust Fund for court operations.
3. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties to incarcerate people returned to county jail due to county petitions. Actual costs will depend on the number of petitions and the amount of time each person must remain in county jail. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000, though costs are higher in larger counties. County incarceration costs are not subject to reimbursement by the state. However, overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from public safety realignment.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. 2011 Public Safety Realignment shifted many public safety duties from the state to the counties, including moving some post-release supervision responsibilities from California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (CDCR) parole agents to county probation departments. Under this system, called PRCS, county probation departments are in charge of supervising certain people released from CDCR custody. If a person subject to PRCS violates the terms of their supervision or commits a new offense, county probation officers evaluate the circumstances and may apply intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, to deter further violations.

Existing law generally gives county probation departments discretion over how to handle PRCS violations. The law permits a county probation department to file a petition asking the court to modify, revoke, or terminate a person’s PRCS if the department determines that intermediate sanctions are not appropriate. This bill instead requires a county probation department to file such a petition if a person subject to PRCS has violated the terms of their supervision a third time and has committed a new misdemeanor or felony. According to the author, the bill is to “help address the crimes being committed by repeat offenders and prevent future tragedies by holding these individuals accountable for their actions when they violate the terms of PRCS.” However, as noted above and in more detail in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, existing law already empowers county probation departments and prosecutors to take action on repeat PRCS violations and new crimes committed by people under PRCS supervision.

1. Prior Legislation. This bill’s provisions were included, among several other provisions related to post-release supervision, in AB 1408 (Calderon), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session. Governor Brown vetoed AB 1408, writing:

I do not agree that a three-strikes and you’re out approach is the correct solution. This measure would undermine the sound discretion of local probation authorities who, by training and sworn responsibility, are in the best position to make determinations on what type of sanctions or punishment should be imposed.

SB 759 is also substantially similar to SB 1262 (Archuleta), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session. SB 1262 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 759

Author: Archuleta (D)

Amended: 5/23/25

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/22/25

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Gonzalez, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, Wahab

SUBJECT: Crimes: supervised release

SOURCE: City of Whittier

DIGEST:

This bill limits the number of intermediate sanctions that the probation department may impose against a person on post-release community supervision (PRCS) when the supervised person has violated the terms of release and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the CDCR:
2. A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
3. A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
4. A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
5. A high risk sex offender;
6. A mentally disordered offender;
7. A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which the person was sentenced to state prison; and,
8. A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense that resulted in a state prison sentence. (Penal Code (PEN), § 3000.08, subds. (a) and (i).)
9. Requires all other individuals released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) provided by the probation department of the county to which the person is being released. (PEN §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), & 3451, subd. (a).)
10. Requires the supervising county agency to petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS if it has determined, following application of its assessment processes, that intermediate sanctions are not appropriate. Provides that upon a finding that the person has violated the conditions of PRCS, the revocation hearing officer has authority to do all of the following:
11. Return the person to PRCS with modifications of conditions, if appropriate, including a period of incarceration in a county jail.
12. Revoke and terminate PRCS and order the person to confinement in a county jail.
13. Refer the person to a reentry court or other evidence-based program in the court’s discretion. (PEN Code, § 3455, subd. (a).)
14. Specifies that if PRCS is revoked or modified and confinement is ordered, the person may be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days for each custodial sanction. (PEN Code, § 3455, subd. (d).)

This bill requires the supervising county agency to petition the court to modify, revoke, or terminate PRCS if a person on PRCS has violated the terms of their release for a third time and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor.

Background

Prior to Realignment in 2011, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents working for CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO). If it was alleged that a person on parole supervision had violated a condition of parole, a revocation hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) would be held. If parole was revoked, the person would be returned to state prison for violating parole.

Realignment shifted the supervision of some individuals released from prison from CDCR parole agents to county probation departments. Parole for individuals released from the state’s prisons on or after October 1, 2011, is limited to those individuals whose commitment offense is a serious or violent felony; who are serving a Three-Strikes sentence; who are classified as high-risk sex offenders; or who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders. All other individuals released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under local supervision.

Additionally, Realignment changed the process for revocation hearings. Until July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state agents continued to have revocation hearings before the BPH. After July 1, 2013, trial courts assumed responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those individuals who remain under CDCR’s jurisdiction. In contrast, since the inception of Realignment, individuals placed on PRCS appear before the trial court for revocation hearings.

Flash Incarceration. Changes to the supervision of individuals released from prison included establishing a new sanction for a violation of supervised release known as flash incarceration. Flash incarceration is defined as “a period of detention in a city or county jail due to a violation of an offender’s conditions of postrelease supervision” that “can range between one and 10 consecutive days.” (PEN Code, § 3455, subd. (c).)

With the creation of PRCS, the supervising agency was authorized to employ “flash incarceration” as an “intermediate sanction” for responding to PRCS violations. (PEN Code, § 3454, subd. (c).) The purpose of intermediate sanctions, like flash incarceration, is to balance holding offenders accountable for violating the conditions of supervision while creating shorter disruptions—to the person’s employment, home life, or programming—which often result from longer-term revocations. Because flash incarceration has been used successfully by probation officers on individuals supervised under PRCS, the Chief Probation Officers sponsored SB 266 (Block), Chapter 706, Statutes of 2016, to extend the use of flash incarceration to individuals granted probation or placed on mandatory supervision. The statute authorizing the use of flash incarceration contains a sunset provision which has been extended several times, most recently to January 1, 2028.

This bill limits the use of all intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, on individuals on PRCS. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of any intermediate sanction if the person on PRCS has violated the terms of release for a third time and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor. In that instance, the supervising agency must petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Incarceration: Significant costs to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people who will have their supervision revoked and will be charged with a crime that otherwise would have been handled locally by probation. Potential costs pressures (General Fund) to the DSH, in order to adequately house, treat, and care for persons committed to DSH that otherwise would not. Cost pressures to DSH are connected with an increase in state prison sentences. Potential non-reimbursable annual costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars to counties (local funds, General Fund) for increased incarceration of individuals whose PRCS would be revoked by the court that otherwise would not have been revoked absent this bill.

Probation: County probation will likely incur potentially significant costs (local funds) to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS when a person has violated the terms of their release or committed a new crime. By imposing additional duties on county agencies, this bill may impose a state-mandated local program.

Trial Courts: Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund) to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate PRCS revocation hearings that otherwise would not have been filed as a result of this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

City of Whittier (source)

California Contract Cities Association

California Police Chiefs Association

City of Norwalk

League of California Cities

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

ACLU California Action

California Public Defenders Association

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Initiate Justice

Initiate Justice Action

San Francisco Public Defender

Universidad Popular

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT:

The California Police Chiefs Association writes:

Ensuring that law enforcement agencies have access to essential information and resources is vital to maintaining public safety. The provisions outlined in this bill emphasize accountability, transparency, and oversight, aligning with our commitment to protecting residents and ensuring effective governance.

SB 759’s comprehensive approach to enhancing the supervision process and holding repeat offenders accountable is a testament to lessons learned from tragedies such as the death of Officer Keith Boyer with the Whitter Police Department in 2017.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:

According to the California Public Defenders Association:

Currently, supervising county agencies, tasked with supervising those on postrelease community supervision, have discretion to use intermediate sanctions to handle potential postrelease community supervision violations. SB 759 would remove this discretion and require supervising county agencies to bypass potential intermediate sanctions, and instead, require them to petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision. This formal process would cause court calendars to grow across the state, siphoning off resources that could be better used in other areas. Supervising county agencies should not be required to proceed with harsher penalties when application of their assessment processes have determined that lesser intermediate sanctions are more appropriate. SB 759 would not address or solve any pressing issues.

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

5/27/25 14:28:39

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 759 (Archuleta) - Crimes: supervised release

Bill Summary:

SB 759 requires the county agency supervising the release of a person on postrelease community supervision (PRCS) to petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision if the person has violated the terms of their release for a 3rd time and the person has committed a new felony or misdemeanor.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 23, 2025

Fiscal Impact:

• Incarceration: Significant costs to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people who will have their supervision revoked and will be charged with a crime that otherwise would have been handled locally by probation. Potential costs pressures (General Fund) to the DSH, in order to adequately house, treat, and care for persons committed to DSH that otherwise would not. Cost pressures to DSH are connected with an increase in state prison sentences. Potential non-reimbursable annual costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars to counties (local funds, General Fund) for increased incarceration of individuals whose PRCS would be revoked by the court that otherwise would not have been revoked absent this bill.
  
• Probation: County probation will likely incur potentially significant costs (local funds) to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS when a person has violated the terms of their release or committed a new crime. By imposing additional duties on county agencies, this bill may impose a state-mandated local program.
  
• Trial Courts: Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund) to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate PRCS revocation hearings that otherwise would not have been filed as a result of this bill.

Committee Amendments:

• Strike provisions requiring CDCR to provide the local law enforcement agency with copies of the record of supervision during any prior period of parole.
• Strike provisions requiring the county to provide CDCR with all records of supervision.
• Strike provisions allowing a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant, as specified.
• Strike provisions requiring county probation to notify the court, public defendant, district attorney and sheriff of each imposition of flash incarceration.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 759 (Archuleta) - Crimes: supervised release

Bill Summary:

SB 759 requires the county agency supervising the release of a person on postrelease community supervision to petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision if the person has violated the terms of their release as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR): Significant costs to CDCR (General Funds), likely millions of dollars annually for adequate staffing components. Additionally, CDCR would anticipate one-time costs in the hundreds of thousands to implement necessary technology solutions. Over the past three calendar years, an average of approximately 13,600 individuals were released annually from CDCR onto PRCS. This bill requires CDCR to provide copies of the record of supervision during any prior period of parole for releasing individuals to local law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction. While existing information required to be provided by CDCR in PC 3003 is generated through automated systems, the record of supervision will need to be reviewed prior to release to ensure CDCR is appropriately redacting any protected information. Records of supervision can be lengthy and potentially compounded by multiple prior parole periods. To appropriately review and redact would likely drive significant workload for the department.

In addition, CDCR will incur significant costs to incarcerate people who will have their supervision revoked and will be charged with a crime that otherwise would have been handled locally by probation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Even if just one person is sentenced to state prison for one year under this bill, it will add significant costs pressures to CDCR. The Governor’s budget estimates that Proposition 36 (2024), which increased punishment for various theft and drug crimes, will cause the average daily prison population to be about 1% higher in 2024‑25 and 4% higher in 2025‑26. Given the prevalence of mental health needs among incarcerated people, legislation that sends more people to state prison adds significant costs to CDCR for the delivery of mental health care. About one‑third of the prison population has a diagnosed mental health need. The annual cost of operating a mental health crisis bed at CDCR is around $400,000. As part of the ongoing Coleman court case, CDCR has been incurring fines monthly since April 2023 for failing to reduce vacancy rates for five mental health classifications. The state has paid over $200 million in fines to date, and is still accruing fines.

• Local Incarceration and Supervision: Potential non-reimbursable annual costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars to counties (local funds, General Fund) for increased incarceration of individuals whose PRCS would be revoked by the court that otherwise would not have been revoked absent this bill and for individuals who can be arrested without a warrant for violations of their supervision conditions. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $77,252 per year. Actual incarceration costs to counties will depend on the number of arrests, convictions and the length of each sentence. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment. (See Staff Comments)

In addition, county probation will likely incur potentially significant costs (local funds) to notify specified entities that a person on PRCS has been placed on flash incarceration and to petition a court to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS a the person has violated the terms of their release.

• Department of State Hospitals (DSH): Potential costs pressures (General Fund) to the DSH, in order to adequately house, treat, and care for persons committed to DSH that otherwise would not. Cost pressures to DSH are connected with an increase in state prison sentences. Revoking supervision and instead arresting an requiring individuals to be charged with a new crime will increase the number of defendants declared incompetent to stand trial (IST), or committed to DSH due to their being not guilty by reason of insanity. DSH’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2025-26 totals $3.4 billion – an increase of $3.4 million from the 2024 Budget Act. An increase the DSH population would result in the need for additional funding.
  
• Trial Courts: Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund) to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate PRCS revocation hearings that otherwise would not have been filed as a result of this bill. The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknown factors, including the numbers of revocation hearings and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2023–24, over 4.8 million cases were filed statewide in the superior courts. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations. The Governor’s 2025-26 budget proposes a $40 million ongoing increase in discretionary funding from the General Fund to help pay for increased trial court operation costs beginning in 2025-26.

Background:

Prior to the implementation of the 2011 Realignment Legislation, individuals released from prison were paroled and supervised in the community by CDCR parole agents. If a parolee had violated a condition of parole, they would have a revocation proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state prison.

Realignment, among other things, shifted the supervision of certain individuals released from prison from CDCR parole agents to local supervision—Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS). Starting October 1, 2011, parole (under CDCR supervision) is for individuals whose present term is for a serious or violent felony; who are serving a Three-Strikes sentence; who are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. All other individuals released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under local supervision.

Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for violating parole or PRCS. Now, most individuals are not returned to state prison for violating PRCS. Rather, they will serve the revocation term in county jail. Additionally, Realignment changed the process for revocation hearings. Generally, revocation hearings are handled by the trial courts, not BPH.

Realignment also established a new type of sanction for a violation of supervised release known as flash incarceration. Flash incarceration is defined as “a period of detention in county jail due to a violation of a parolee’s conditions of parole” that “can range between one and 10 consecutive days.” With the creation of PRCS, the supervising agency is authorized to employ “flash incarceration” as an “intermediate sanction” for responding to both parole and PRCS violations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the context and reasoning behind “flash incarceration” as part of realignment: “[T]he realignment legislation provided counties with some additional options for how to manage the realigned offenders. . . . [T]he legislation allows county probation officers to return offenders who violate the terms of their community supervision to jail for up to ten days, which is commonly referred to as “flash incarceration.” The rationale for using flash incarceration is that short terms of incarceration when applied soon after the offense is identified can be more effective at deterring subsequent violations than the threat of longer terms following what can be lengthy criminal proceedings.”^[1]

The intent of intermediate sanctions, like flash incarceration, is to balance holding individuals accountable for violating the conditions of supervision while creating shorter disruptions from work, home, or programming. Because flash incarceration has been used successfully by probation officers on persons supervised under PRCS, the Chief Probation Officers sponsored SB 266 (Block), Chapter 706, Statutes of 2016, to extend the use of flash incarceration to individuals granted probation or placed on mandatory supervision. The statute authorizing the use of flash incarceration contains a sunset provision which has been extended several times, most recently to January 1, 2028.

Common terms of PRCS include informing the probation department of your home and work addresses, not possessing any blank checks, write any portion of any checks, have any checking account, or possess any credit cards or open credit accounts, unless approved in advance by probation, submitting to drug tests, and agreeing to be searched at any place and time without a warrant or cause.^[2]

Proposed Law:

This bill does all of the following:

• Requires the supervising county agency to petition the court to modify, revoke, or terminate PRCS if a person on PRCS has violated the terms of their release for a third time and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor.
• Permits a peace officer, including a probation officer, to arrest a person on PRCS if the person has failed to appear at a hearing to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS.
• Requires the probation department to notify the court, public defender, district attorney, and sheriff of each imposition of flash incarceration.
• Requires CDCR to provide a local law enforcement agency with copies of a person’s record of supervision during any period of parole.
  

Related Legislation:

This bill is substantially similar to SB 1262 (Archuleta), 2024, which died in Assembly Appropriations Committee. This bill and SB 1262 are narrower versions of a prior bill, AB 1408 (Calderon), which was vetoed in 2017. In his veto message, Governor Brown wrote:

This bill—among other requirements placed on both the local and state correctional systems—would limit local probation departments’ ability to use intermediate sanctions for individuals under post release community supervision.

This bill was introduced as a response to the senseless and horrifying murder of a Whittier police officer, an event that shocked and saddened our entire state. Unfortunately—as history has taught us repeatedly—legislative responses to specific individual crimes often do not produce the intended results, and more often than not are found to be counterproductive once they are implemented.

I believe this is such a bill, and while I appreciate the author’s sincere attempt to respond to a truly terrible crime, I do not agree that a three-strikes and you’re out approach is the correct solution. This measure would undermine the sound discretion of local probation authorities who, by training and sworn responsibility, are in the best position to make determinations on what type of sanctions or punishment should be imposed.

Staff Comments:

Currently, county agencies supervising individuals on postrelease community supervision have discretion to use intermediate sanctions for violations. SB 759 would eliminate that discretion, requiring agencies to petition the court for revocation, modification, or termination instead. This shift would increase court caseloads and strain judicial resources, without clear justification. It also undermines local agencies’ ability to apply tailored, evidence-based responses when less severe sanctions are more appropriate. Notably, whenever a person commit a new crime while on PRCS, prosecutors have the discretion to charge the person with a crime, regardless of their supervision status.

Mass incarceration in California did not occur in a vacuum; it was the result of decades of cumulative policy decisions—often well-intentioned on their own—that collectively expanded the scope and severity of the criminal justice system. Although individual pieces of legislation like this bill, and many others introduced this legislative session, may appear narrow or incremental, their combined effect will significantly increase incarceration rates. California has a well-documented history of prison overcrowding, which culminated in federal court intervention and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Plata (2011) that found the state’s prison conditions unconstitutional due to severe overcrowding. Returning to such conditions would undermine fiscal sustainability, public safety, and rehabilitation goals.

-- END --

1. Legislative Analyst’s Office, The 2012–13 Budget: The 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders—An Update (Feb. 22, 2012), pp. 8-9, available at <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis/2021/crim_justice/2011-realignment-of-adult-offenders-022212.pdf>. ↑

2. https://www.occourts.org/system/files/forms-and-filings/l394.pdf ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 759 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025

Subject: Crimes: supervised release

HISTORY

Source: City of Whittier

Prior Legislation: SB 1262 (Archuleta), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2024

AB 1744 (Levine), Ch. 756, Stats. of 2022

Proposition 20, rejected by the voters on November 3, 2020

AB 597 (Levine), Ch. 44, Stats. of 2019

AB 1408 (Calderon), vetoed, 2017

SB 266 (Block), Ch. 706, Stats. of 2016

SB 1023 (Com. on Budget & Fiscal Rev.), Ch. 43, Stats. of 2012

AB 109 (Com. on Budget), Ch. 15, Stats. of 2011

Support: California Contract Cities Association; California Police Chiefs Association; City of Norwalk; League of California Cities

Opposition: ACLU California Action; California Public Defenders Association; Californians United for A Responsible Budget; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Initiate Justice; Initiate Justice Action; San Francisco Public Defender; Universidad Popular

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to: (1) limit the number of intermediate sanctions that the probation department may impose against a person on post-release community supervision (PRCS) when the supervised person has violated the terms of release and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor; (2) require probation to notify the court and specified government agencies when it employs flash incarceration; and (3) require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to share information with local law enforcement agencies regarding a person’s prior parole record.

Existing law provides that the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the CDCR:

• A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
• A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
• A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
• A high risk sex offender;
• A mentally disordered offender;
• A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which the person was sentenced to state prison; and,
• A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense that resulted in a state prison sentence. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) and (i).)

Existing law requires all other individuals released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) provided by the probation department of the county to which the person is being released. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), & 3451, subd. (a).)

Existing law delineates conditions of PRCS, including obeying all laws, following the directives and instructions of the supervising county agency, reporting to the supervising county agency as directed by that agency, immediately informing the supervising county agency if the person is arrested or receives a citation, obtaining the permission of the supervising county agency to travel more than 50 miles from the person’s place of residence, and participating in rehabilitation programming as recommended by the supervising county agency, among others. (Pen. Code, § 3453.)

Existing law authorizes intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, for violating the terms of PRCS. (Pen. Code, § 3454, subd. (b).)

Existing law defines “flash incarceration” as a period of detention in a city or county jail due to a violation of a person’s conditions of PRCS. Specifies the length of the detention period can range between one and 10 consecutive days in a county jail. (Pen. Code, § 3454, subd. (c).)

Existing law provides that intermediate sanctions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Short-term “flash” incarceration in jail for a period of not more than 10 days.
• Intensive community supervision.
• Home detention with electronic monitoring or GPS monitoring.
• Mandatory community service.
• Restorative justice programs, such as mandatory victim restitution and victim-offender reconciliation.
• Work, training, or education in a furlough program.
• Work, in lieu of confinement, in a work release program.
• Day reporting.
• Mandatory residential or nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs.
• Mandatory random drug testing.
• Mother-infant care programs.
• Community-based residential programs offering structure, supervision, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, literacy programming, employment counseling, psychological counseling, mental health treatment, or any combination of these and other interventions.

(Pen. Code, § 3450, subd. (b)(8).)

Existing law requires the supervising county agency to petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS if it has determined, following application of its assessment processes, that intermediate sanctions are not appropriate. Provides that upon a finding that the person has violated the conditions of PRCS, the revocation hearing officer has authority to do all of the following:

• Return the person to PRCS with modifications of conditions, if appropriate, including a period of incarceration in a county jail.
• Revoke and terminate PRCS and order the person to confinement in a county jail.
• Refer the person to a reentry court or other evidence-based program in the court’s discretion. (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (a).)

Existing law specifies that if PRCS is revoked or modified and confinement is ordered, the person may be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (d).)

Existing law requires CDCR to provide local law enforcement agencies with specified information about a person released on PRCS. (Pen. Code, § 3003, subd. (e)(1).)

This bill requires the supervising county agency to petition the court to modify, revoke, or terminate PRCS if a person on PRCS has violated the terms of their release for a third time and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor.

This bill permits a peace officer, including a probation officer, to arrest a person on PRCS if the person has failed to appear at a hearing to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS.

This bill requires the probation department to notify the court, public defender, district attorney, and sheriff of each imposition of flash incarceration.

This bill requires CDCR to provide a local law enforcement agency with copies of a person’s record of supervision during any period of parole.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

One of the primary responsibilities of government is to ensure people feel safe in their communities – safe in their home, at the park, or walking to school. There is no question that monitoring repeat offenders will help make our community safer for residents and law enforcement. SB 759 will help address the crimes being committed by repeat offenders and prevent future tragedies by holding these individuals accountable for their actions when they violate the terms of PRCS.

1. Changes to Parole Due to Realignment

Prior to Realignment in 2011, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents working for CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO). If it was alleged that a person on parole supervision had violated a condition of parole, a revocation hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) would be held. If parole was revoked, the person would be returned to state prison for violating parole.

Realignment shifted the supervision of some individuals released from prison from CDCR parole agents to county probation departments. Parole for individuals released from the state’s prisons on or after October 1, 2011, is limited to those individuals whose commitment offense is a serious or violent felony; who are serving a Three-Strikes sentence; who are classified as high-risk sex offenders; or who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders. All other individuals released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under local supervision.

Additionally, Realignment changed the process for revocation hearings. Until July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state agents continued to have revocation hearings before the BPH. After July 1, 2013, trial courts assumed responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those individuals who remain under CDCR’s jurisdiction. In contrast, since the inception of Realignment, individuals placed on PRCS appear before the trial court for revocation hearings.

1. Flash Incarceration

Changes to the supervision of individuals released from prison included establishing a new sanction for a violation of supervised release known as flash incarceration. Flash incarceration is defined as “a period of detention in a city or county jail due to a violation of an offender’s conditions of postrelease supervision” that “can range between one and 10 consecutive days.” (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (c).)

With the creation of PRCS, the supervising agency was authorized to employ “flash incarceration” as an “intermediate sanction” for responding to PRCS violations. (Pen. Code, § 3454, subd. (c).) The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the context and reasoning behind “flash incarceration” as part of realignment:

[T]he realignment legislation provided counties with some additional options for how to manage the realigned offenders. . . . [T]he legislation allows county probation officers to return offenders who violate the terms of their community supervision to jail for up to ten days, which is commonly referred to as “flash incarceration.” The rationale for using flash incarceration is that short terms of incarceration when applied soon after the offense is identified can be more effective at deterring subsequent violations than the threat of longer terms following what can be lengthy criminal proceedings. (Legislative Analyst’s Office, The 2012–13 Budget: The 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders—An Update (Feb. 22, 2012), pp. 8-9, available at <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/2011-realignment-of-adult-offenders-022212.pdf>.)

The purpose of intermediate sanctions, like flash incarceration, is to balance holding offenders accountable for violating the conditions of supervision while creating shorter disruptions—to the person’s employment, home life, or programming—which often result from longer-term revocations. Because flash incarceration has been used successfully by probation officers on individuals supervised under PRCS, the Chief Probation Officers sponsored SB 266 (Block), Chapter 706, Statutes of 2016, to extend the use of flash incarceration to individuals granted probation or placed on mandatory supervision. The statute authorizing the use of flash incarceration contains a sunset provision which has been extended several times, most recently to January 1, 2028.

This bill limits the use of all intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, on individuals on PRCS. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of any intermediate sanction if the person on PRCS has violated the terms of release for a third time and has committed a new felony or misdemeanor. In that instance, the supervising agency must petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS.

1. Supervision Conditions

People who are subject to community supervision such as PRCS are generally required to comply with a set of conditions. Common supervision conditions include requirements to submit to regular drug testing, to attend certain types of classes, to refrain from consuming alcohol, to receive outpatient mental health treatment, to maintain employment, obtain permission from the supervising agent or officer to travel outside of a specified area, and to refrain from associating with specified individuals. Violations of supervision conditions can lead to a variety of sanctions, including, but not limited to, flash incarceration, revocation of that particular type of supervision, and re-incarceration.

Penal Code section 3453 enumerates a list of conditions that apply to individuals on PRCS. Each county probation department is also authorized to impose additional conditions, but any additional PRCS conditions must be reasonably related to the underlying offense for which the person spent time in prison, or to the person’s risk of recidivism and the person’s criminal history, and be otherwise consistent with law. (Pen. Code, § 3454, subd. (a).)

1. Prior Legislation

This bill is substantially similar to SB 1262 (Archuleta), a bill that this Committee passed in 2024. This bill and SB 1262 are narrower versions of a prior bill, AB 1408 (Calderon), which was vetoed in 2017. In his veto message, Governor Brown wrote:

This bill—among other requirements placed on both the local and state correctional systems—would limit local probation departments’ ability to use intermediate sanctions for individuals under post release community supervision.

This bill was introduced as a response to the senseless and horrifying murder of a Whittier police officer, an event that shocked and saddened our entire state. Unfortunately—as history has taught us repeatedly—legislative responses to specific individual crimes often do not produce the intended results, and more often than not are found to be counterproductive once they are implemented.

I believe this is such a bill, and while I appreciate the author’s sincere attempt to respond to a truly terrible crime, I do not agree that a three-strikes and you’re out approach is the correct solution. This measure would undermine the sound discretion of local probation authorities who, by training and sworn responsibility, are in the best position to make determinations on what type of sanctions or punishment should be imposed.

This bill includes a provision that limits the use of intermediate sanctions if the person on PRCS has violated the terms of release for a third time, but additionally requires the person on PRCS to have committed a new felony or misdemeanor. Although this bill limits a probation department’s discretion, it does require more than just violations of the terms of release, which as described above often entails non-criminal conduct with no obvious nexus to risk of future recidivism or threat to public safety. It should be noted that when a person has committed a new crime, as required by this bill, the prosecutor may file new charges instead of treating that act as a violation of a condition of supervision.

1. Argument in Support

The California Police Chiefs Association writes:

Ensuring that law enforcement agencies have access to essential information and resources is vital to maintaining public safety. The provisions outlined in this bill emphasize accountability, transparency, and oversight, aligning with our commitment to protecting residents and ensuring effective governance.

SB 759’s comprehensive approach to enhancing the supervision process and holding repeat offenders accountable is a testament to lessons learned from tragedies such as the death of Officer Keith Boyer with the Whitter Police Department in 2017.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the California Public Defenders Association:

Currently, supervising county agencies, tasked with supervising those on postrelease community supervision, have discretion to use intermediate sanctions to handle potential postrelease community supervision violations. SB 759 would remove this discretion and require supervising county agencies to bypass potential intermediate sanctions, and instead, require them to petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate postrelease community supervision. This formal process would cause court calendars to grow across the state, siphoning off resources that could be better used in other areas. Supervising county agencies should not be required to proceed with harsher penalties when application of their assessment processes have determined that lesser intermediate sanctions are more appropriate. SB 759 would not address or solve any pressing issues.

-- END --