Three R’s and the CCP: Recidivism; Retirement; and Replacement

There was a time when the retirement of a police chief affected, primarily, the department losing the chief and the one from which the replacement came.  I imagine management and staff experience mixed emotions: sadness watching their leader step down; anticipation of who the new leader will be; excitement over the upward potential of their own careers.  Like a game of Tetris – the blocks line up differently, pushing some towards the top. 

One of the effects of California’s prison realignment is the creation of the executive committee of the Community Corrections Partnership.   This is the body that manages realignment money and decides the policies for the county’s criminal justice system.   The meetings are public and I participate, usually, by quietly taking notes, often times in agreement, other times not.  The environment is collegial, and, I, as well as others, am afforded the opportunity to comment or express an opinion.   

AB 109 was very specific about who can make up the executive committee of the CCP.  Of the CCP’s seven members, only one represents the interests of the cities.  By statute, the Board of Supervisors must pick a police chief from one of the cities in their county to sit on the CCP.   Sonoma County’s first and only municipal representative is Santa Rosa’s Chief of Police, Tom Schwedhelm.  On December 20, 2013, he is retiring. 

There seems to be some disadvantage for a municipal representative in the governing of county-wide funds and policies.  The ratio of county-to-city representatives is 6-to-1 in favor of the county.  Cities don’t generally receive funding from a county, though policies implemented by the CCP have a tremendous impact on the cities.  County department heads speak a budget language foreign to most. Considerations and procedures follow a different law or custom from a city police department. Normally, a city police chief would not be dialed into county politics. A municipal representative might feel like baseball player thrust into a cricket match. 

Not so, with Chief Schwedhelm, his has been the loudest voice demanding a definition of “recidivism.”  The Chief knows that the only way to accurately measure Realignment’s effects is to have a clear, concise and stable meaning of the word.  A criminal justice consultant under contract with the county has been tasked with helping the CCP reach a consensus definition.  But such consensus remains elusive.

The leading approach is to loosely define the term while tracking all of the variables.  The variables are many and include: offender status – whether the offender is a felon or misdemeanant; offense type triggering the recidivist label – whether the new offense is a felony, a misdemeanor, or a violation of probation; if the new offense is a violation of probation – was it is a technical violation (meaning missing an appointment, or testing dirty); time frame of the new offense from the initial offense – 1 year, 2 years, 3 years; should new offenses only be considered if they occurred during the probation period; or should they be counted if they happened at all - any time after the initial offense?

Tracking all of the variables seems to be prudent.  But, just as the home-plate umpire should not be the pitcher’s mom , a government body, which receives state money based on how low their reported recidivism rate is, should not be free to massage the numbers into the shape most favorable.   

The chief deserves to enjoy his retirement.  He has done an exemplary job for his city. He was hired from within; a rarity in police departments that I hope is repeated.  He enjoys the respect and appreciation of his officers, as well as the community he’s served.   Chief Schwedhelm has also done a great job on the CCP.  

Thank you, Chief for your service to Santa Rosa and your leadership on Sonoma County’s CCP.   May your replacement as chief serve us half as well, and may your replacement on the CCP continue the push for accountability.

 

Drivers Licenses for Undocumented Aliens

The law bobs and weaves like an aging boxer.  Currently, if a citizen of Mexico bails out of a California jail on criminal charges then absconds to Mexico, there is a legal protocol for the bail agent to return the defendant to local custody.  It’s not an easy process, but the process exists.  That was not the case several years ago, so a bail agent had to factor the additional risk posed by bailing out a citizen of Mexico.

Over the years I have bailed hundreds of people whose only charge was driving without a license.  The bails were relatively small, usually between $1,000 and $2,500, which would cost the client $100 to $250.

There’s not much of a defense to mount for driving without a license – either you were issued a license or you weren’t. If you were not issued a license, you pay a fine.  If you’re a multiple offender, you go to jail – for 6 months.  Additionally, from the mid ‘90’s into the early 2010’s, the defendant’s vehicle was usually confiscated. 

Some clients I bail choose not to go to court - even for a relatively minor offense as driving without a license. In many of those cases, my investigation would turn up reports from the defendant’s “people” that he went to Mexico.  No doubt some of those reports were true.  But, I suspect, then and now, that many simply moved on to other areas within the state, found work and bought another car.

It’s frustrating to be “gun shy” about posting a small bond on an offense that should be low risk only because the defendant is from another country.  But the arrests continued to be made and the calls kept coming.  In some, I could hear fear in their voice; my jaundiced ear figured those to be the virgins.  In others, I could hear resignation, they were the experienced ones.

The method I used to limit losses occurring from a defendant absconding to Mexico, or elsewhere, worked exceedingly well, was simple, and cost nothing.  I discovered it one night when I was driving a client home from the jail.  I learned that this was the defendant’s fourth arrest for driving without a license.  The three prior times were in Napa County.  He was already sentenced and had a turn-in date to serve six months in the Napa County jail. 

All my bondsman’s instincts were telling me this guy was going to skip.  But I liked him.  He was a young, hard-working man, and he was honest.  Though it was within my right to return the premium he’d paid and take him back to jail, instead, I turned to him and said, “This is an expensive inconvenience for you.  You knew what the risks were when you bought your car. You probably knew what the risks were when you decided to come here for work.  I’ve put up money to get you out of jail.  I’ve bet on you.  I stake my money and my honor on you.  I do so because I believe you are an honorable man that will live up to the promise I’ve made on your behalf.  As a man of honor, tell me now if I was wrong.”  

He looked into my eyes and told me that I was right to trust him and that he appreciated what I had done.  He made every one of his court appearances and served his 6 months.  Not every person I bail is a “man of honor”.  But, every Mexican national that I’ve bailed for driving without a license, when I’ve posed the issue in that way, have proven that they are men and women of honor.

Today, Governor Brown signed AB60 into law that allows undocumented aliens to obtain a California driver’s license.  It has been a long time coming, like the bell for that aged boxer trying to avoid his opponent's glove. As long as a person is of appropriate age, passes the driver’s test, acquires liability insurance, and shows competency in understanding traffic signs and laws, what possible reason could there be to deny that person a license? 

It delights me that these men and women of honor will now be able to drive to work and their children’s schools, safely, fully insured, and without fear of being arrested on the road because of their status.