OC Register editorial gives kudos to own reporters attacking peace officers?

Editorial: Imbalance of power disservice to public

2009-12-29 16:24:55

The Orange County Register's OC Watchdog reporters Brian Joseph and Tony Saavedra ought to be commended for their story Sunday, "Protections taint a thin blue line," which examines the increasingly disturbing power of California's public safety community and the lack of accountability officers have to the public they are sworn to serve.

Our Editorial Board has been concerned for some time about the lack of accountability and the veil of secrecy cloaking the state's law enforcement agencies. Arcane policies, hefty pension benefits and robust lobbies are contributing to state and local budget deficits and an increasing "police state" mentality throughout California.

Sunday's story details how laws passed some 30 years ago are at odds with the public's right to know and have essentially insulated officers from outside scrutiny. Former San Fernando Valley state Assemblyman Jim Keysor introduced the "Peace Officers Bill of Rights" in the Legislature in 1976. The intention of the bill, according to Mr. Keysor and his colleagues, was to protect officers from being scapegoated and taken advantage of by local supervisors and to prevent criminal defendants from using an officer's past to bring up frivolous charges against him or her in court. But the results have veered far from the intent of protecting good officers.

The legislation instead has built a virtual fence around bad officers, making it difficult oust them from the force or even provide information about them to the public. In Orange County, an assistant sheriff was sent to jail on corruption charges but sued the state for not following Peace Officers Bill of Rights protocols. A judge awarded more than $350,000 to the assistant sheriff. Fortunately a federal judge ordered the money returned as restitution in the corruption case. Sunday's article cites several similar troubling occurrences where officers are unable to be properly investigated or punished because information pertinent to investigations is protected or prohibited through the Peace Officer Bill of Rights.

The state Legislature has put up a front to correct some of the legal protections but their efforts are merely political theatre. In 2007 state Sen. Gloria Romero introduced legislation that would have overridden aCalifornia Supreme Court decision that barred civilian police commissions from releasing findings from an investigation and, in some cases, blocked commissions from accessing personnel files. Ms. Romero's legislation died in an Assembly committee that year in the face of fierce opposition from police associations, public safety unions and lobbying groups. It was reintroduced the following year and suffered the same fate. Members of the committee received $227,990 in political monies from public-safety groups during the period the two votes came up before the committee.

Public-safety advocacy groups have tremendous political war chests. Over the past nine years, they have spent $33.5 million on campaigns. They have given $5.5 million in contributions to the state Democratic Party and nearly $2 million to the state Republican Party – keeping both parties accessible.

In 2010, the Legislature needs to take back the reins of power. Public safety unions, no to mention other unions, have a stronghold on Sacramento, entrenching their interests more year after year. The state is at a breaking point and it is time that the governor and Legislature shows some political courage.

MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE MEMBERS4CHANGE

This will be my last post on this issue, because I believe we have bigger problems out there to deal with then messing with a bunch of "haters" that just want to cause chaos among the troops.  And most don't care what this is all about or don't  understand fully.

I posted last week my own thoughts on the Don Novey putting his one sided e-mails to the Sac. Bee.  I knew I would ruffle the hornets nest doing so, because like I have stated before, there are people out there that think this man is a saint.  That was my opinion only, not as a chapter president.

Since that posting they (unit6members4change) or whatever they are calling themselves now have been attacking me like wolves with a downed elk.  They post many allegations on their site, but I have not see any proof of it to back it.  I ask them show me the proof, ie; lap dance pics or receipts, documentation to back every allegation.  They don't.  They did in fact, take a partial copy of this posting on this blog and an e-mail letter and tweaked it to sound good for their forum.  I am quite actually impressed that they took time to even think about me in their blog, I went from a silly no name guard to someone in an unknown blog.  

The point I'm trying to make here is, we are in a major battle with GAS now.  Things are not looking good at all.  There is no money. We have people loosing their homes, cars, ect.  And it is not just the Department, it's everybody out there. We are not the only victims in this.    And we have folks out there that can't or won't see that and just want to bash everyone in their way.  We need to focus on getting back on our feet as Californian's and move forward.  This is not going to happen over night.  You don't have to like the partner standing next to you in that code 3 line, but by damn you will protect them if needed to be.

Sitting there bitching about everything does nothing.  Actually taking action is something.  As I have said many times, WE (that means all of you) are CCPOA.  If you sit back and complain but can't lift a finger and write something down or make a phone call to stop the problem, then you are just part of the problem instead of a solution. Everyone needs to get involved in this.  Our lively hoods depends on it.  Our Governor from the beginning made it very clear that he was coming after us.  So we cannot blame one guy for no contract.  

As for those guys that call themselves members for change.  They are worthless in my book.  They are part of the problem.  If they don't agree with what your thoughts are, they will hang you.  They don't care if you have a mind of your own, you can only think what they want you to think.  And they claim MJ as Stalin?  Wow, talk about throwing stones at a glass house.......

Yes, I am pissed off.  There is one person out there that has an awesome perception of things, we all don't have to agree with it, but he makes you think.  The haters club attacked him and he removed his post so it would not cause anymore conflict.  That's what pisses me off.  When a person cannot express themselves.  These haters are so concerned about how CCPOA is running, maybe they should go downtown themselves and get to work to help out the problem.  But I guess that would take all the fun out of it then.  They wouldn't have anybody to HATE on.  And throw stones at.

I am tired of people harassing others for "fun" because they can, tired of the "haters" that can't get a clue that they are the ones in fact destroying our union, and the ones that can't get off their butts to do the right thing, instead they sit there in their chairs and bitch all day long on how things are fucked up and nobody is doing anything about it.

As I say, this is only my thought process.  I hope you take it for what it is worth.  We have some good people out there, that spend most of their own time working their asses off to make things right, because it's the right thing to do.

So the only thing I have to say is, do the right thing and fight for the right reasons.  And for the members for change................go drink your kool-aid and get a life.

This is my final thoughts and post on these people.  We have more important issues to deal with.  For you that don't know what this is about, just ignore it.  I am sorry that I have to do this in a public forum.  But that is how these folks do business.

Lori

OIG says inmate lawsuits cost Calif. (much more than) $108 million?

Report: Inmate lawsuits cost Calif. $108 million

Associated Press Writer

Published Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A state watchdog finds California has paid $108 million to inmates' lawyers and experts in 12 major lawsuits in a 12-year period, on top of the state's own legal costs.

That does not include the cost of fixing the problems that led to the class-action lawsuits alleging poor medical, dental and mental health care, and other violations of inmates' rights.

The report by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's inspector general Thursday comes as California struggles with a multibillion dollar budget deficit.

It says the state attorney general also spent nearly $24 million defending the department in the lawsuits since 1997. That does not include the cost of the corrections department's own staff attorneys or private attorneys hired to help defend the state.

The full report from OIG can be found below at:

http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BAI/reviews/CDCRs%20Payment%20to%20Special%20Masters%20and%20Plaintiffs%20Attorneys.pdf

 

Another Chapter in our lives

This of course is just my thought process.  Last night was mixed feelings for me.  To see all the good people that are or have retired.  The actual years of experience in one room is overwhelming. They will be missed and another important chapter of our lives will be closed.  If you spent any time with any one of them and actually listened to them talk about "back in the day" you would understand what I am talking about.  That is how the young learn from the elder.  Just like sitting on grandpa's lap listening to the stories.  They all have some kind of meaning to them. If you paid attention to any of those experiences they told you, then you are wiser then you realize.  

Roxy, will be dearly missed.  He has no idea how many staff he has touched and have effected over the years of his service to this department.   He is one of a kind.  And there is no other like him.  He helped all of us in some sort of way.  He spent countless hours helping, getting CTB, donations, you name it, he did it.  It didn't matter who you were, he helped you. I hope we all can learn from this man.  Make ourselves better people in the Department of Corrections.  If we cared for everyone around us as he did.  If you made your partner smile when they were having a rough time, as he did.  If you took that overtime or came in your day off, so your partner could spend a day with his little boy on his birthday, as he did.  If you stood up for something that is totally right instead of standing down, as he did.  This man strived to help people, not kick them down, never talked crap about anyone, and always taught instead of reprimand.  This man has more respect then all of us will ever have put together.  May we all learn from him and pass it on.

I would also like to say thank you to Sgt. Dixon.  Another awesome person to ever have worked for.  Aaron helped so many people out also on his own time.  Aaron helped families at other institutions that he didn't even know.  He always cared to make sure families were taken care of.

As I said, this is just my thought process.  I had to get this off my chest and if there is one person out there that can change and be that better person, then this was all worth it.

Maybe Roxy will write a survival book for Corrections while he is retired :)

Lori Olah

CCC Chapter President

COLLEGE KIDS AND "OLD SCHOOL" OFFICERS

College kids and "old school" officers

The old, old, school: This is a photo from the 19th century of a correctional officer in Florida. (AP/Florida DOC photo) Related Article: How to recruit tomorrow’s leaders Over the past few years, as many departments alter their requirements, corrections is seeing a whole new breed of officer pass through the gates: The college kid. The college kid is different from the officers who came before him, and there are good and bad aspects to this difference between the personality types of experienced officers and rookies. On the positive side, many of the new officers are eager and ready to learn. On the other hand, many of us don’t even know how to approach them. In a social setting, these two types of personalities would likely never speak, but they’ve been thrown in together to work side by side on the toughest beat in the world. As someone who is right the middle between old and young, I’ve spent time speaking to both generations of officers about this. In the hopes that it will help all of us learn, I’m going to define the two stereotypical characters of this relationship: the “old school” officer and the rookie. My goal here is to discuss ways they can better work together. The “old school” officer  You, the “old school” officer, are the foundation of this system, but like it or not, you’ve been around for a while, and nearly everyone knows your tour is near its end. Over the years, you’ve watched corrections change dramatically, and, frankly, you’re not impressed (especially with all these new ideas about inmate treatment). You’ve spent your whole life fighting the very inmates that are now getting better medical care than most free citizens can afford! It just doesn’t seem fair. The funny thing is that back when you were a rookie, there was another generation of officers that felt the same way about you. Those boys were roughnecks, but they also made sure that you knew what you were doing, even if their training methods were a little… unconventional. There was that one officer who was like a mentor to you, who taught you so much. Sure, you had to tweak some of his teachings — his stubborn old ways — but that doesn’t change the profound impact he had on your career. With this in mind old friend, before your final shift approaches, isn’t it time for you to be a mentor for someone else? You may not think they are listening, you make shake your head at the way they act, but when you first started, the old generation probably felt the same way about you. The Rookie Officer  If I get one more e-mail telling me that you do not like being called a rookie, I’m going to scream. You are a rookie, an FNG, and no, you do not know how to run a unit, let alone a prison. A Lieutenant once told me: “You don’t even know enough, to know that you don’t know enough.” Let that sink in for a minute. Does this sound like the way you have been talked to by other experienced officers? I have some news for you: they are trying to help. First of all, welcome to your new career. I promise you that if you are willing to listen, you’ll leave with a nice pension, all of your internal organs and your extremities. The first thing you need to understand is that you have entered a world that you didn’t even know existed. The normal rules of society often do not apply inside the walls that contain our nation‘s criminals. You will form bonds with your fellow officers that cannot be rivaled by any friendship in the outside world. You will see things that they can’t even show on HBO horror movies and you will hear stories that are so horrifying they will never make it outside of the walls of prison. It is your job to learn from them. This learning process starts the first time you put on your uniform. In most jobs, the way you dress will not get you hurt, but there are right and wrong ways to wear your boots and equipment. Inside of a prison those things can mean the difference between being able to reach the tools you need or being stabbed or punched. There is usually more than one right way to do something, but there are always many more wrong ways to do something. It is your job, rookie, to learn and listen. Finding common ground  One of the most effective ways I have seen an officer trained is to reenact a situation with them, showing them what could have gone wrong. For example, I remember watching a rookie officer feed the inmates. He was standing directly in front of the food port and had not checked the small window to the side of the door for obstructions. My partner at the time, an older officer, took the new officer on the tier and walked him to an empty cell. The older officer walked inside of the cell, and closed the door. He told the newer officer to pretend he was feeding him through the food port. The new officer fed the old officer as he had fed the inmate earlier in the day. The older officer then grabbed him, pulled him to the door by his belt and simulated stabbing him about five times before the newer officer even knew what had happened. The older officer then instructed him to try again. This time turning on his light, standing a little to the side of the food port, and having the inmate remove his window covering. Becoming the teacher  For your part, “old school” officer, recognize that “show me” training will stay in the minds of the new officers for the rest of their career. There are pitfalls, of course, and you need to make sure it is conducted safely, but I got my training this way and there are still times when I am performing certain tasks that I can picture my mentors showing me what could go wrong. Having said this, there may be officers that do not respond well to “show me” training. You will have to take the time to turn your normal office conversation into small training sessions. If there is something that every officer enjoys, it’s war stories. Stories from your career, especially one where you learned a valuable lesson, are fun for all officers to listen to, and can also add to their arsenal of knowledge. Another fun way to train is to “what if” a situation. When you have some down time, come up with a realistic situation and ask the officer how he would respond. The critical part of this training is that the officer leaves a winner. Any response short of “I don’t know” is a good one. His approach to the situation may not be the way you would do it, but find some positives in the way he reacted before you shut him down. Leave your legacy. Leave that little piece of you behind for others to learn from. As much as you have to hear people talk about how terrible of a place they think corrections was in the past, do not think that you do not have the gratitude of us all. It was your dedication, vigilance, and willingness to adapt that kept us all safe from the worst of the worst as we grew up unaware of the subculture inside out nation’s prisons. Becoming the student  For your part rookies, realize that the guy you think is just a grumpy old officer is actually the guy who can teach you. Here are a couple things to keep in mind as he does: 1. Don’t be defensive: If an officer points out a mistake, ask them how they would do it. Do not argue right away. Listen to what they have to say. Nobody expects you to know it all. 2. Don’t try to change things you don’t fully understand. You may not like the way prisons are run, but guess what, you are not the only one. There are hundreds of officers that agree with you, but using this as an excuse to ignore the veterans isn’t going to help anyone. Learn how to do the job before you try to change the workplace. Yes, you may have a college degree, but you are lacking something that no college can teach: experience. You will learn more in your first two years as an officer than any college or academy could teach you in ten years. It is critical that you approach everyday as a learning experience. The day you quit learning is the day you retire How long people will call you a rookie will depend on your willingness to learn. You need to recognize your lack of experience and feed off the knowledge of the outgoing generation of officers. If you are able to do this, you will have a great, safe career. Having said this, there are also going to be some very disgruntled officers. If you run into one of these, try to pick out the good information from a lot of bad information. There are going to be times you will have to trust that little voice in your head and dismiss advice you get. If you are not sure, take it to an officer you trust and ask them. Chances are they will help you sort it out. At the end of the day  The goal is that every officer leaves the institution at the end of the day in the same condition they entered it in. We walk in as a team, and we leave the same. Anytime anyone’s blood is shed, we all lose. Be safe out there and watch your six. As always, if I have left something out, or you have something to add, use the comment section below, or e-mail me.

Sgt. Evert started his career in 1999 at Pelican Bay Super Max in Crescent City, Calif., then transferred in late 2000 to High Desert Calif. state prison where he worked until returning to Pelican Bay as a Sergeant in 2006, where he is currently. Sgt. Evert has 10 years experience in dealing with both street and prison gangs. His book, "Scars and Bars" is due out anytime, and is dedicated to helping new Officers efficiently survive their first two years on the job, both on the job and at home. To Sgt. Evert, correctional officer safety is paramount, and is the core of what he writes and teaches.

Riskier inmates may serve in fire camps

OAK GLEN - A quick look at Pomona native Adam Salas reveals a quirky smile peering out from under a helmet as he and the rest of a firefighting crew inspect their chainsaws at the Oak Glen Conservation Camp.

But a second glance stumbles upon the words "CDCR Prisoner" stamped on his orange uniform and gang insignia tattooed on his eyelids, hands and neck.

Salas, 23, had never been outside Pomona until he made a terrorist threat during an argument about two years ago. That threat landed him in Tehachapi State Prison, and later Oak Glen. From there, he was dispatched to fight fires in Santa Barbara, Madera and Mariposa counties.

Low-risk offenders like Salas comprise the majority of the manpower for CalFire, the state's firefighting agency. But efforts to reduce the state prison population may redirect them to alternate custody, such as home confinement.

Some people worry that the void on the fire lines will be filled with more dangerous inmates classified as Level 3 offenders.

"We are concerned about the safety," said Mike Hampton, vice president of California Correctional Peace Officers Association's fire camp chapter. "We don't have staff to handle Level 3."

Officially, the proposal to speed up transfers of Level 3 inmates is "not at the table at this time," said Ray Harrington, correctional administrator with CDCR.

No alternatives have been proposed at this time either, Harrington said.

"We can't use them (low-risk offenders) as pawns to save state money," he said.

In conjunction with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CalFire operates 39 conservation camps, which house more than 4,000 prisoners.

Each year, inmate crews put in more than 2.5 million hours responding to emergencies such as wildfires, floods or earthquakes, according to CalFire.

When there are no fires burning, crews conduct labor-intensive projects on public lands, such as repair and maintenance of levies for flood prevention, maintenance of state and federal parks, clearing debris from streams or removing roadside litter.

Participating prisoners are screened through a "stringent classification process" that determines their suitability for the fire camp program, said Sgt. John Lanthripp of Oak Glen.

Sex offenders, arsonists and inmates with a history of escapes are automatically disqualified.

The screening process starts as soon as inmates arrive at a state prison. They are assigned a certain number of points, based on their offense or their criminal history.

Inmates charged with nonviolent offenses - such as DUI, burglary, car theft, receiving stolen property and various drug charges - are usually classified as Level 1 or 2 and are most commonly picked to serve their sentence at a fire camp.

An array of robbery and burglary offenses fit into Level 3 category, including carjacking and armed robbery. According to a UCLA study, all offenders sentenced to life without parole are automatically assigned level 3.

Level 4 prisoners, such as murderers, are assigned the most points. If they stay out of trouble during the incarceration, their points can be reduced and their security level eventually downgraded.

When Mark Planavsky of Newport Beach entered Folsom State Prison 16 years ago he was classified as the worst of the worst - Level 4.

Although his offense was a string of nonviolent residential burglaries, Planavsky already had two strikes on his record and was facing a life sentence. That gave prison authorities a reason to dole out as many points as they could.

"I was serving time with lifers, people who have nothing to look forward to," he said.

Ten years later, his impeccable behavior has earned him a transfer to Oak Glen fire camp as a Level 1 offender.

"Here you have freedom, there are no lockdowns," Planavsky said. "You can turn a doorknob on your own."

Because of success cases such as Planavsky's, CDCR is considering speeding up the process of bringing Level 3 inmates to the fire camps - a proposal made during a meeting with CDCR administration, Hampton said.

CDCR plans to "do a Level 3 override" and transfer Level 3 offenders to fire camps without waiting for their points to drop - a gamble in which public safety can be impacted, he said.

Hampton works as a correctional officer at Delta Fire Camp in Solano County. He remembers a "camper" who was involved in a shoot-out with Los Angeles police. The inmate was not classified as violent because he did not strike the officers.

"He was a bad shooter, so he can go to camp," Hampton said.

Incidence of riots or escapes may increase if fire camps house riskier inmates, Hampton said.

"To be in a camp you have to meet certain criteria, like have less than five years to serve," Hampton said. "They will change that and those who have 10 to do will be eligible to come. Officers have pepper spray only, (so) if a riot happens, what then?"

At Oak Glen, a staff of 16 take turns watching over 165 inmates.

"There can be no less than two officers in charge at any time," Lanthripp said. "That's usually at night."

In July 2008, two inmates walked away from Oak Glen. One was captured within 20 minutes of escaping while the other broke into the house of a sheriff's deputy and was later captured at his girlfriend's house in Rancho Cucamonga.

"It's very easy to escape," inmate Milton White said. "But then you'll get caught and do some more time."

White's attitude is widespread among inmates at Oak Glen, Lanthripp said.

Should demographics change at his fire camp, he is confident it will be done responsibly.

"I have to trust the classification process," he said.

Either way, Lanthripp said he hopes the fire camp program is preserved, as it benefits both the state and the inmates.

Amidst tall pine trees and beautiful vistas at the conservation camp, Salas, the slender young man, is paying back his dues to society.

"I break my back for this job and it feels good," Salas said. "When I'm done, I look back and it looks a lot better than when I came in."

 

David R Lopez December 7 at 5:38pm 

Monday, December 7, 2009
Maybe now they will feel our Pain/ Paycuts 
December 7, 2009
Pay cut takes effect for state's top elected officials 
California's lawmakers and top elected officials saw their pay slashed Monday for the first time since creation of a full-time Legislature more than four decades ago.

The 18 percent salary cut for state officeholders ranging from governor to legislator to Board of Equalization members was ordered in May by the state's independent compensation commission.

The reductions will appear on officeholders' next paychecks, scheduled for late December.

Separately, statewide elected officials also saw an 18 percent reduction in health and other benefits - including, for legislators, cuts in their car allowances and in the $173 per Diem to defray living expenses in Sacramento.

Controller John Chiang does not intend to challenge the pay panel's decisions and will implement the cuts, spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said. Chiang's own pay fell from $169,743 to $139,189.

I know it's wishful thinking on my part but just maybe now the folks in Sacramento will feel our Pain. Now lets see if they do something about the States Budget. For the record we "State Employees" have seen our pay cut by 14.4% for 11 months now. Wont it be amazing now if our elected officials now see a urgency in getting their jobs done right! 
Just as a reminder as the time of this writing "NO DECISIONS" have been made regarding our Furlough decisions. We patiently wait on the side lines for any kind of answer. And trust me I have received numerous emails and phone calls from staff asking for answers. Think positive, I'm thinking when the ref. goes under the hood in an NFL game and it takes long, it's because he is trying to get the call right. He will reverse the call and get the spot of the foul corrected. Hopefully, the judge is looking at how he will reverse the "CALL". (my wishful thinking!)

Editorial: Paycheck protection is back

An Orange County Register editorial

California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office was expected today to authorize signature collection for a 2010 ballot measure that would make it illegal for public employee unions to automatically deduct money from members' paychecks and use that money for political campaigns. A similar "paycheck protection" initiative was placed on the ballot in 2005 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger but failed along with the governor's other reform measures. This time around, the political climate is much different, and paycheck protection could pass. We hope it does.

Backers of the initiative, including the Lincoln Club of Orange County, Tea Party activists and a number of private citizens, filed the request to qualify the initiative for the 2010 ballot. It would amend the California constitution to (a) outlaw automatic deductions from public employees for political activities and (b) disallowlabor unions and other entities that receive such monies from using them to influence politics.

Simply, the initiative would prevent public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without members' consent. Unions would have to collect voluntary political contributions instead of involuntary, automatic deductions. To qualify for the ballot, the coalition will need to collect 694,354 valid voters' signatures.

Unlike the 2005 campaign, Gov. Schwarzenegger is not leading the charge, rather a coalition of citizens, business leaders and politicians are fighting to, as they term it, "unplug the political machine." They are doing so at a time when the California economy is in disarray, and many people place some of the blame on special interests and their demands for government spending, like the public employee unions.

The message, too, is different from the 2005 campaign. Then the focus was on employee permission to make donations to union-supported political causes. This time the focus will be on the structural issue of taking money directly from government payrolls and putting it into what amounts to political kickbacks to various causes.

The coalition's internal polling shows support for the initiative among 63 percent of voters. Also, one of those failed 2005 initiatives eventually did pass – redistricting.

Our chief objection with the status quo is how union leadership takes money from members for advocacy that some members do not support. And the sums collected and spent are considerable, buying these unions outsized influence in Sacramento's public policy debates. For example, the California Teachers Union spent more than $54 million in the 2005 campaign, mortgaging their building in San Francisco and raising union dues, just to oppose reforms like paycheck protection and redistricting.

In a small point of irony, Attorney General Brown, responsible for authorizing the title and summary for the initiative, as governor in 1977 first authorized public employee unions for California. So, 33 years later, Mr. Brown's name could be on the November 2010 ballot as a gubernatorial candidate – just a few spaces away from an initiative to sharply curb the power of the public employee unions he first enabled.

Let's hope the new paycheck protection act gets the signatures it needs to move it forward in 2010.

Limiting the power of special interests in Sacramento, especially those that directly feed off tax dollars, is one important way to return the state to legislative and fiscal sanity.

 

 

PROBLEMS WITH JESICA LAW

OVERVIEW

Background: One of the aspects of Jessica’s Law, which California voters passed in 2006, limits where registered sex offenders can live.

What’s happening: The law is rarely enforced because of a legal challenge, funding shortages and its vague provisions. Meanwhile, at least 70 percent of offenders in San Diego County live in restricted areas.

What’s next: The California Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case challenging residency limits in February.

BEHIND THE STORY

For its analysis, the Watchdog Institute downloaded information on registered sex offenders in San Diego County from an online registry maintained by the California Attorney General’s Office. The registry displays full addresses only for the most serious offenders. An institute analysis of that information formed the basis of this report. While the registry is subject to change daily, the institute used the information on the Web site Nov. 17. The site is available at meganslaw.ca.gov/

Using geographic data provided by the San Diego city and county geographic information system, or SanGIS, and the San Diego Association of Governments, the institute mapped the addresses of registered offenders and drew 2,000-foot buffer zones around parks and schools to determine how many are violating the state’s residence restrictions.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The Watchdog Institute is a nonprofit reporting unit based at San Diego State University. The institute was founded this fall to produce in-depth investigative reports based on government databases. These reports will be done in collaboration with media partners in San Diego and Imperial counties, including The San Diego Union-Tribune, which has made a substantial financial commitment to support the institute. The institute’s mission includes mentoring future professional journalists in the School of Journalism and Media Studies at SDSU.

PARTNERSHIP

The San Diego Union-Tribune and KGTV/Channel 10 began a partnership this month to cooperate on breaking-news coverage and information gathering, including sharing news content, photos and video, and periodically collaborating on projects.

More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks.

Jessica’s Law, which was approved by California voters in November 2006, toughened sanctions against sex offenders and bars them from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In San Diego County, 1,266 of 1,731 offenders whose addresses are made public by the state live in those restricted zones, according to an analysis by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative journalism unit based at San Diego State University.

That finding surprises virtually no one in law enforcement. They say the law is vague and has holes, making it nearly impossible to enforce.

For example, the law doesn’t specify whether residence restrictions apply to all convicted sex offenders or only to those who were convicted or paroled after it passed. There are no penalties for violating the restrictions.

“The initiative itself was so badly written, no one knows how retroactive it is,” said Tom Tobin, a clinical psychologist and member of the state Sex Offender Management Board, an advisory group that includes law enforcement and other professionals who deal with sex crimes.

Four registered sex offenders, two of whom live in San Diego County, have challenged the residency restrictions, and their case is before the California Supreme Court.

The four men were paroled after Jessica’s Law passed, but their most recent crimes were not sex offenses. Parole officers told them they had to move from restricted areas near schools or parks or be sent back to prison.

Ernest Galvan, who represents the men, said the law is retroactive punishment. Laws that restrict a person’s rights must be based on a “compelling state interest,” he said.

Attorneys for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation say voters intended to create “predator-free zones,” so the law applies to all registered sex offenders.

The court’s ruling is expected in February.

Dozens of municipalities across the state that have approved their own ordinances are awaiting the court’s decision before moving to enforce them. In San Diego County, six cities have enacted ordinances that restrict where convicted offenders can live or loiter: San Diego, Chula Vista, National City, La Mesa, Santee and San Marcos. The county of San Diego and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District — which oversees Santee Lakes — also have ordinances. Each makes a violation a misdemeanor.

Nearly all of those cities increased the number of restricted areas, barring convicted offenders from living or loitering near playgrounds, arcades, amusement parks and other places where children congregate. The Chula Vista City Council, however, eased the state restrictions, barring offenders convicted of crimes against children from living within 500 feet of a city park or a school that serves students in kindergarten through eighth grade.

Leonard Miranda, a Chula Vista Police Department captain who helped craft the city ordinance, said a 2,000-foot restriction leaves only small pockets in the city where offenders could live.

“It was impractical,” he said.

More than 90 percent of convicted sex offenders listing addresses in Chula Vista are in violation of the state residence restriction, while none violate the municipal ordinance.

Glenn Isaaks, an agent in the department’s sex-offender-registration unit, said few police or sheriff’s departments have the resources to enforce a 2,000-foot restriction.

“We’re budget-strapped as it is,” he said. “It would be a burden to have to do that.”

While the legality of Jessica’s Law is debated, law enforcement experts are examining the larger question of whether residence restrictions reduce crime. About 7 percent of sex offenses against children are committed by someone already convicted of a child-sex crime, according to a 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Justice. That means that in most cases, child-sex offenses are being committed by someone who isn’t on a registry.

And while residence restrictions are aimed at keeping strangers away from children, strangers commit a small percentage of child-sex offenses. The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office doesn’t track how many child molestations are committed by strangers, but the Justice Department study found that 93 percent of offenders are related to or know their victims.

“Often, we’re horrified when we hear about children snatched off the street,” said Phyllis Shess, director of sex-offender management in the District Attorney’s Office. “That is statistically very rare.”

In one aspect, Jessica’s Law has increased concerns about public safety. Since it took effect, more registered sex offenders have identified themselves as transient and are harder to track.

Among California parolees — the only population of sex offenders for whom the residence restrictions have been consistently enforced — the number listed as transient has gone from 88 in November 2006 to 1,056 in June 2008, an increase of 1,100 percent, according to a Sex Offender Management Board report in December 2008.

Tobin said sex offenders in an unstable environment, such as homelessness, are more likely to commit another crime.

“Why would we want to, with no apparent good reason, increase the risk of re-offending?” he asked. “The reality is we’re pushing people to the brink.”

In January, the Sex Offender Management Board issued recommendations, including one to “rethink residency restrictions.” It stated, “The vast majority of evidence and research conducted to date does not demonstrate a connection between where an offender lives and recidivism.”

Some officials in other states agree. Iowa legislators this year revised the state law banning convicted sex offenders from living near schools or day-care centers after law enforcement officials complained that it was difficult to enforce and increased the number of transient offenders. Now, only violent sex offenders can’t live in those areas.

State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who sponsored California’s initiative, said the law improves monitoring because it requires all registered felony sex offenders to wear a GPS device. However, only sex offenders on parole — about 15 percent of registered offenders statewide — are wearing the devices.

Local law enforcement agencies are supposed to take over GPS monitoring after sex offenders are off parole, but none has done that, said Lindon Lewis, a San Diego County GPS unit supervisor with the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Local officials are waiting for the state Supreme Court ruling, and they say they need funding before they can start monitoring, he said.

The law requires sex offenders to pay for GPS monitoring, but if they can’t, the state pays. For the 6,782 sex offenders on parole statewide, it cost $10.2 million to activate the devices, plus $14.9 million a year for monitoring.

Runner said the law shouldn’t be scaled back because of cost.

“How much does it cost when a child gets raped?” he asked.

Most officials who handle aspects of sex offenses say changing the law is a politically charged proposition.

“Who is going to stand up and say something that can be construed as, ‘Let’s go easier on sex offenders’?” Tobin said.

It’s not clear what may happen after the court issues its ruling, but if law enforcement agencies begin enforcing residence restrictions, that could launch another logistical challenge: where to put convicted sex offenders, especially in urban areas. A San Diego County District Attorney’s Office study in 2007 concluded that residence restrictions eliminated 72 percent of the residential parcels in the county.

The Watchdog Institute found that in San Diego, where more than one-third of the county’s convicted sex offenders list addresses, 85 percent are in violation of the state’s residence restrictions. The city ordinance adds further restrictions, barring registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of day-care centers, arcades, playgrounds, libraries and attractions that include the San Diego Zoo and SeaWorld. It also bars them from loitering within 300 feet of those places.

The city hasn’t enforced its ordinance, passed in 2008, because of the pending case. Officials in the City Attorney’s Office also wouldn’t discuss enforcement plans because the case isn’t resolved, said city attorney spokeswoman Gina Coburn.

Moving the registered sex offenders who violate residence restrictions isn’t a simple solution. Finding housing for convicted sex offenders still on parole is difficult, state corrections officials say.

Residence restrictions have a “kind of intuitive appeal,” said Tobin, of the Sex Offender Management Board. “But if ‘not in my backyard,’ then where?”

Denise Zapata: (619) 594-5326; denisezapata@watchdoginstitute.org

Kevin Crowe: (619) 594-5321; kevincrowe@watchdoginstitute.org

For more on this story, watch the news at 6 and 11 p.m. on KGTV/Channel 10.