HOUSE BILL REPORT
ESHB 1402
As Amended by the Senate
Title: An act relating to supervision of offenders who travel or transfer to or from another state.
Brief Description: Regulating supervision of offenders who travel or transfer to or from another state.
Sponsors: By House Committee on Criminal Justice & Corrections (originally sponsored by Representative O'Brien; by request of Sentencing Guidelines Commission).
Brief History:
Criminal Justice & Corrections: 2/3/05, 2/15/05 [DPS];
Appropriations: 2/24/05, 2/28/05 [DPS(CJC)].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 3/14/05, 97-0.
Senate Amended.
Passed Senate: 4/12/05, 45-0.
Brief Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill |
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE & CORRECTIONS
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives O'Brien, Chair; Darneille, Vice Chair; Pearson, Ranking Minority Member; Ahern, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Kagi, Kirby and Strow.
Staff: Yvonne Walker (786-7841).
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Majority Report: The substitute bill by Committee on Criminal Justice & Corrections be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 28 members: Representatives Sommers, Chair; Fromhold, Vice Chair; Alexander, Ranking Minority Member; Anderson, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; McDonald, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Bailey, Buri, Clements, Cody, Conway, Darneille, Dunshee, Grant, Haigh, Hinkle, Hunter, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Linville, McDermott, McIntire, Miloscia, Pearson, Priest, Schual-Berke, Talcott and Walsh.
Staff: Bernard Dean (786-7130).
Background:
Under Washington and other states' laws, criminal sentences commonly require a period of
supervision after release from jail or prison. In Washington, the supervision of all adult
felony and some nonfelony offenders is the responsibility of the Department of Corrections
(DOC).
Offenders under supervision sometimes request to move from one state to another. For
example, an offender may have family ties, job opportunities, or may have a residence in
another state. For many years, states have recognized the desirability of permitting this
movement while continuing to supervise these offenders.
In 1937, the Legislature enacted the original Interstate Compact for the Supervision of
Parolees and Probationers (Compact) and joined with 49 other states including the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands to create a system of reciprocity in supervising
offenders who move from one state to another. After years of working with the national
Compact, it was found that there were many problems and that it needed to be amended. As
a result, nearly 60 years later, a new national Compact was adopted. The Washington
Legislature amended its statutory language in 2001, and consequently joined 35 other states
in the new Compact. As of the end of 2004, all 50 states had joined the new Compact in
order to take on the responsibility for the supervision of adult offenders in the community
who are authorized to travel across state lines both to and from compacting states.
The authority for Compact monitoring in Washington is under the Sentencing Guidelines
Commission (SGC). The SGC's duties include reviewing the DOC's policies, recommending
policies for the Compact administer, and reporting annually to the Legislature about the
Compact operations. In addition, each state has a Compact administrator (Washington's
Compact administrator is located within the DOC), who maintains contact with counterparts
in other states and handles requests for supervision, violation reports, and other business
related to the Compact.
The Compact requires compacting states to supervise all (felony and nonfelony) offenders
transferred to their state. The Compact permits each state (as a "sending state") to authorize
offenders under supervision to move to other states when appropriate, after notifying the
other state and securing its approval. It also requires each state (as a "receiving state") to
approve such moves for appropriate reasons, and to supervise the offenders on behalf of the
states where they were sentenced. A receiving compacting state must accept an offender if
the offender meets the criteria under the Compact. However, there are some very rare
occasions when a "receiving" state can deny an application for supervision of an adult
offender.
The Compact requires receiving states to notify sending states when offenders violate
conditions of supervision, and permits the sending states to bring them back for sanctions
authorized under the sending state's law, subject to the receiving state's right to prosecute any
new crimes they may have committed.
Compacting states are authorized to charge an application processing fee to offenders wishing
to transfer his or her residence and supervision requirements to another state. In Washington,
the DOC also charges offenders under the Compact a supervision fee to help recoup a portion
of the cost of supervision. The supervision fee that is normally charged to offenders ranges
from $3 per month for risk level D (low-level felony) offenders to $40 per month for
misdemeanants offenders.
At the end of 2004, the DOC was supervising 2,500 felony offenders on behalf of other states
under the Compact, while other states were supervising approximately 1,000 offenders on
Washington's behalf. The DOC does not have the statutory authority to supervise nonfelony
misdemeanant offenders on behalf of other states.
Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill:
The provisions relating to supervising offenders under the Compact are expanded. The DOC
is authorized to supervise nonfelony as well as felony offenders transferring to Washington
under the Compact.
The DOC must process applications for any felony or nonfelony misdemeanant offender
wishing to transfer to or from Washington and may charge that offender a reasonable fee for
processing the application. If a misdemeanant probationer or defendant whose sentence has
been deferred, requests permission to transfer to another state, the probation department must
determine whether the transfer request falls under the realm of the Compact. If the request is
subject to the Interstate Compact for Adult Supervision, the probation department designated
to supervise the offender must:
notify the DOC of the probationer's request;
Any probationer or defendant that transfers to another state under the Compact must receive
credit for any time served while being supervised by the other state.
If a probationer or defendant is returned to Washington at the request of the receiving state
under the rules of the Compact, the DOC must be responsible for the cost of returning the
person.
EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S):
The amendment restores all the immunity language that states that whenever a Washington
misdemeanant offender is transferred to another state and such offender is under that other
state's supervision, that the state of Washington, the DOC and its employees, and any city or
county located in Washington and their employees, are not liable for civil damages resulting
from any act unless their act constitutes gross negligence.
A provision is added to limit the bill to those offenders who the county correctional officer
must determine whether to refer to DOC for transfer proceedings to those with terms of
supervision of one year or more.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect on July 1, 2005.
Testimony For: (Criminal Justice & Corrections) The purpose of the Compact is to promote
public safety throughout the states. Under the new national Compact, the SGC has the
responsibility of the administration of the Compact. Washington was one of the original 35
signers of the Compact when it went into effect in 2001. As a member of the Compact, it is
required to adhere to all the rules of the Compact. Currently, Washington is in compliance
with the Compact with the exception of supervising nonfelony offenders transferring to
Washington from other states.
When the original rules were developed for the Compact there were disputes among some
states regarding the supervision of misdemeanants. Over the last year, the states' Compact
administrators tried to bring about a compromise over the types of offenders they would
supervise. This bill is a result of that compromise. It would permit the DOC to supervise
only misdemeanants convicted of serious offenses which include sex offenses, or a second
driving under the influence offense, offenses committed with the use or possession of a
firearm, or those convicted of causing serious physical or psychological harm to another.
These are the only nonfelony offenders that the DOC would have to supervise.
Although this is an added expense to the DOC, it has the added benefit of providing notice to
Washington of the offenders entering and leaving the state. Washington can also impose its
own rules of supervision on those individuals entering the state.
This bill is absolutely necessary. If Washington's laws are not changed then the state can be
subject to sanctions from the national body and subject to the possibility of lawsuits from
other states for noncompliance with the Compact.
Testimony For: (Appropriations) Washington was one of the first of the original 35 states to sign onto the interstate compact. With the exception of Massachusetts, all states have now signed onto the new compact. All but Washington and Tennessee are now in compliance. Substitute House Bill 1402 is intended to correct that situation. The Depart of Corrections (DOC) does not supervise misdemeanants from other states. Under the compact, the DOC will not have to supervise all misdemeanants. Rather only those misdemeanants that have committed serious crimes would be subject to supervision. Additionally, the compact will require notice of who is coming into our state. The DOC does not have to accept all of these offenders. The DOC retains the right to screen those offenders coming in and can refuse to take those offenders who do not have sufficient ties to this state, such as family ties or a job. The Sentencing Guidelines Commission believes it is absolutely imperative to pass this law.
Testimony Against: (Criminal Justice & Corrections) None.
Testimony Against: (Appropriations) None.
Persons Testifying: (Criminal Justice & Corrections) Ida Leggett, Executive Director, Sentencing Guidelines Commission; and Doreen Geiger, Department of Corrections.
Persons Testifying: (Appropriations) Ida Leggett, Sentencing Guidelines Commission.