Predator law fuels financial concerns

By E.J. Schultz / Bee Capitol Bureau

12/11/06 04:53:23

SACRAMENTO — More than a month after voters approved sweeping new restrictions for sex offenders, serious questions remain on how key provisions — including residency requirements and lifetime electronic monitoring — will be implemented and enforced.

And Valley law enforcement agencies, which could take on broad new responsibilities and costs, are waiting for answers from the courts and the state Legislature.

"Now what?" asks incoming Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims. "Now that we have this law, it's a mandate. How are we going to handle it in Fresno County, especially in tough budget times?"

Proposition 83, approved by 71% of voters, requires felony registered sex offenders to be tracked for the rest of their lives with Global Positioning System devices. It also prohibits all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. Prison terms and parole periods also are lengthened.

Among the many questions: Who will pay for the GPS devices, estimated to cost up to $10 a day per device, plus staffing and computer costs?

"It seems like [the cost] will fall in the county, which is an astronomical economic burden," said Sara Bratsch, a supervising attorney with the Tulare County District Attorney's Office. Prop. 83, she said, "had fantastic intentions," but "it was too hastily put together because there was really no long-term thought as to the implementation."

Another major question: Do the laws apply retroactively? If so, every one of the state's 90,000 registered sex offenders — including 3,453 in the central San Joaquin Valley — would be banned from living near schools or parks, even if their crime was committed years ago.

All eyes are on several court cases. In federal court in San Francisco, for instance, a plaintiff has argued that it is unconstitutional to apply the residency restrictions retroactively.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office has argued that Prop. 83 should not force offenders living in restricted zones to move. However, if an offender living in a prohibited area decides to move on his own, he cannot move into a restricted zone, the office recently argued.

The next hearing is scheduled for late February, at which time Attorney General-elect Jerry Brown will be in office. Brown, a Prop. 83 supporter, declined to comment on the case. "We're looking at it," he said.

Though the case only applies to several Northern California counties, the outcome is being watched by all.

"Until we get some direction, nobody's doing anything," Bratsch said.

Assembly Member Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, who helped draft Prop. 83, said the intent of the measure is to make the restrictions prospective, not retroactive. If courts decide otherwise, she said she will push clarifying legislation.

As for cost, she says she will lobby for the state to pay for GPS tracking, even for offenders under local authority. It will be expensive. The state's legislative analyst has estimated that Prop. 83-related GPS costs will run "several tens of millions of dollars annually" and will grow in 10 years to about $100 million a year.

The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for GPS tracking for offenders coming out of state prison, which amounts to about 300 offenders a month.

Left unanswered is who is responsible for tracking felony offenders coming out of local jails or on local probation, a population estimated to represent 59% of the 8,000 felony sex offenders convicted each year, according to the Legislative Analyst.

Prop. 83 also did not address who is responsible for enforcing GPS provisions once offenders are off parole — a costly responsibility that could also fall to local agencies. Prices vary, but it can cost up to $49 million over four years to track 2,500 offenders, including manpower and computer costs, said corrections spokesman Bill Sessa.

Runner said it's worth the investment: "How much is too much when it comes to protecting our children from these child molesters who tend to

re-offend and re-offend?"

But some in the law enforcement community have questioned Prop. 83's effectiveness — especially the residency requirement, which could force offenders away from big cities.

"The further you push offenders out into more rural areas, the fewer resources there are to keep tabs on them," said Steve Krull, president of the California Police Chiefs Association. "The more a person is observed, the less likely they are to re-offend."

That is a concern echoed by leaders in the San Joaquin Valley who fear the measure will hurt rural areas by forcing offenders from large cities to move to less populated regions.

"Urban folks have to carry their share and we have to carry our share, but quite frankly, their share should not be dumped on our side of the fence," state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, said.

He plans to introduce legislation making it easier for rural areas to designate more than just parks and schools as off limits.

"It's to make sure a rural kid has the same protections as an urban kid, and right now we can't say that because we don't have as many schools and parks as our urban neighbors," Florez said.

Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth Egan isn't so sure offenders will move into rural areas. Parolees must be released into their county of residency, which could lessen the chances of an offender moving from Los Angeles County to Fresno County, for instance.

"At this point it's all conjecture," Egan said. "I don't want to hit a panic button and we're not going to ignore it, but we have to see how it's going to play out."

Iowa passed a residency restriction law in 2002 that has come under fire from local prosecutors. The restrictions caused some offenders to become homeless and others to register false addresses and disappear, the association has said.

"The whole point is we need them to register," said Tulare County's Bratsch. "We need to know where they are, and they're not going to [register]" under Prop 83.

Supporters of the residency restrictions — such as the California District Attorney's Association — say that GPS monitoring can be used to make sure offenders are registering. But once offenders are off parole, there isn't a lot that can be done to make sure they wear the GPS devices, said Sgt. Jay Stuart of the Fresno County Sheriff's Department.

"There's no teeth" in the law, he said