Monday, March 2, 2015

Solitary Confinement Video by Molly Crabapple

Residence Requirements for Sex Offenders Struck Down

This morning, in re William Taylor et al., the California Supreme Court struck down the provisions of Jessica's Law that restricted registered sex offenders from residing within 2000 feet of a school or park.

The bottom line is as follows:

[W]e agree that section 3003.5(b)‟s residency restrictions are unconstitutional as applied across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County. Blanket enforcement of the residency restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing in compliance with the statute, greatly increased the incidence of homelessness
among them, and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees, while further hampering the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety. It thus has infringed their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state‟s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators, and has violated their basic constitutional right to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.

Nonetheless, as the lower courts made clear, CDCR retains the statutory authority, under provisions in the Penal Code separate from those found in section 3003.5(b), to impose special restrictions on registered sex offenders in the form of discretionary parole conditions, including residency restrictions that may be more or less restrictive than those found in section 3003.5(b), as long as they are based on, and supported by, the particularized circumstances of each individual parolee.

While the Orange County Register believes that it is unclear whether the ruling has effect outside San Diego County, it seems that a legal provision that is unconstitutional in one area of California is just as unconstitutional in another. Of particular interest is the impact of San Francisco, which, because of the layout of schools and parks in it, is essentially inhabitable to sex offenders under Jessica's Law. This meant a large proportion of homeless and transient sex offenders, which, as one of them said to ABC news, "are actually walking time bombs out here because we are suffering from sleep deprivation". 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Wed, Feb 25, 6pm: SF Release Party for Cheap on Crime

Cheap on Crime is out in print and you're all invited to celebrate!

What: Book reading, signing, Q&A, conversations, great food and drinks

Where: Book Passage, the bookstore at the Ferry Building, San Francisco 

When: Wednesday, Feb. 25, 6pm

See you there!

Event page

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Upcoming Events

This is a big week!

On Wednesday 2/11 you're invited to attend the UC Hastings release party for Cheap on Crime, held at the Alumni Reception Center at 3:30pm.

And on Friday 2/13 you're invited to attend the Hastings Law Journal symposium on federal sentencing reform, which, among other topics, will include a panel on the economics of sentencing inspired by Cheap on Crime.

If you can't catch any of these, do not despair: there will be a community release party for Cheap on Crime on 2/25 at Book Passage, the bookstore at the Ferry Building, at 6pm.

Not Long Sentences or War on Drugs: Problem Is Prosecutorial Discretion

My colleague John Pfaff from Fordham (who is quoted extensively in Chapter 1 of Cheap on Crime) is an economist, and has tested the various explanations given for mass incarceration. His conclusion: the main cause for prison growth was not an increase in sentencing or the war on drugs. The problem is prosecutorial discretion.

"I understand where they come from. It’s true that legislators have passed a lot of new, tougher sentencing laws over the past 30 or 40 years. And it’s true that we have increased the attention paid to drugs. But in the end, there are other things that play a much, much bigger role in explaining prison growth. The fact of the matter is in today’s state prisons, which hold about 90 percent of all of our prisoners, only 17 percent of the inmates are there primarily for drug charges. And about two-thirds are there for either property or violent crimes."

. . . 

"What appears to happen during this time—the years I look at are 1994 to 2008, just based on the data that’s available—is that the probability that a district attorneys file a felony charge against an arrestee goes from about 1 in 3, to 2 in 3. So over the course of the ’90s and 2000s, district attorneys just got much more aggressive in how they filed charges. Defendants who they would not have filed felony charges against before, they now are charging with felonies. I can’t tell you why they’re doing that. No one’s really got an answer to that yet. But it does seem that the number of felony cases filed shoots up very strongly, even as the number of arrests goes down."

Reentry to Nothing

My terrific colleague Alessandro de Giorgi has an excellent series of posts on the Social Justice blog, titled Reentry to Nothing. They are based on ethnographic work he is doing and expose the difficulties of making life work on the outside.

#1 - Get a Job, Any Job

At 1:30 p.m. I get a message from Melisha, who tells me that her job application at the Walmart in East Oakland had been turned down after they performed a background check on her: 

Hi bra happy Memorial day. It all bad for me sad … about the Walmart job … that Walmart did a nationwide check everthing came back from fines old address criminal record from Arkansas. Cant nobody say I didn’t try … sad … my life is fuck up. Is there any kind of away you can get that removed for me … don’t u study criminal justice. I need u on this bra I’m stress now I try to tell Ray 

#2 - The Working Poor


Ray tells me they are desperate for money. He has only been able to work for a few hours a week at KFC since being released from jail last month. He still works on call for $8.00 an hour and makes less than $200 each week. Meanwhile, Melisha has been unable to find any job—despite filling out applications at McDonald’s, Pack n’Save, Ghirardelli, and several other places—and her SSI payments were suspended while she was in jail.
Alex: Right now … The two of you, how much cash do you have?
Ray: Nothin’.
Alex: Nothing?
Ray: Zero. Pennies. Oh, here you go [searches into his pockets, then opens his hand to show me a few dimes]. That’s our savings right here. Oh yeah … And our free cookie [hands me a greasy paper bag from KFC with a half-melted chocolate chip cookie inside].Alex: A free cookie?
Ray: Yeah! Free cookie, from KFC. Free cookie, that’s all we got right here.
I follow Rico to the last room on the left, which is occupied by one of his old friends. Peering through the open doors, I see only decrepit rooms with littered floors. In some, people are sitting on their beds eating, smoking, watching TV, and arguing loudly. All residents of the premises share two bathrooms and showers.  Like the rest of the building, they are filthy. Hip-hop music blasts from the surrounding rooms, including the one we enter. There, two middle-aged white men, whose teeth are mostly missing, are smoking crystal meth. They become nervous at the sight of me, but when Rico reassures them that I’m not a cop, they intently inhale the vaporizing crystals again. After a few minutes of silence, Rico explains that the building was formerly the site of a transitional housing program for recovering drug addicts. Now it is just a ghetto building with cheap rooms for rent. Since Rico is no longer on parole, he cannot go back to the halfway house; moving here may be his only option, because the landlord does not require a deposit or credit report. 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Public Defender Arrested in Court!

So, this happened today: Two guys were arraigned for petty theft charges. Cops showed up and started asking them questions about an unrelated robbery and taking their pictures. The defense attorney intervened, and this is what transpired:


A short version of what happened, including my commentary, is already on the Chronicle. Since people already know about this, and I therefore can't use it for the perfect exam question that it is, here's my analysis:

A. Did the cops violate the clients' constitutional rights?


A. 1. Sixth Amendment. 


In "criminal prosecutions", that is, after a person is formally charged, he or she is entitled to legal representation. This means, under Massiah v. U.S., that once the person has retained a lawyer, the police is not allowed to elicit information from him/her. But: The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, which means the cops *can* approach the person regarding an unrelated offense. So far, what the cops did was kosher.

A. 2. Fifth Amendment


But people also have a privilege against self-incrimination, and when under custodial interrogation, they should be Mirandized so that they know they may remain silent and consult with an attorney. Was this "custodial interrogation"? sticky. On one hand, these guys are not under arrest; they are merely standing in the court hallway. On the other hand, the cop says, "you'll be free to leave when we're done", which presumably means they are not free to leave at the moment. And, does asking for names and taking pictures count as "interrogation"? does it produce "testimonial evidence"? If so, they should have been Mirandized. My instinct, lamentably, is that it doesn't. No custody, questionable interrogation.

B. Was the lawyer allowed to intervene?


Even assuming that there was a violation of the clients' privilege against self-incrimination, under Moran v. Burbine the privilege belongs to the client, not to the lawyer. The clients should have stopped the interrogation and asked for the lawyer, not vice versa. Of course, this is ridiculously unrealistic--who better than the lawyer to help people with their rights? But there you have it.

C. Should the cops have arrested the lawyer?


Even if the lawyer did not, constitutionally, have a right to intervene, the arrest is ridiculous. There's an argument there, but the lawyer is not being violent or disruptive in any way. The cops clearly got carried away.

All the other stuff that is going on in the political chatter--racial profiling, zealous representation, yada yada--strikes me as nothing more than political flourish. The bare bones of the legal situation are, I think, as I stated above. Thoughts?