Lawmaker’s push to reform state parole and probation rules must wait

Democrats will do anything to keep criminals on the streets.  Even those that violate the terms of their release could get a Democrat reprieve—and stay among us.

“The measure — introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney, who represents part of San Francisco — would have limited the jail time convicted people face for violating the terms of their release. It was held in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee on Friday along with hundreds of other measures, a procedural move that makes it unlikely the bill will advance any further this year.

Haney called the outcome “frustrating” but pledged to bring the measure back next year.

“We’re not giving up,” he said.

The bill’s failure to advance marks a setback for criminal-justice reform advocates, who argue that California’s system is unnecessarily punitive and is also increasingly out of step with a number of other states that have already passed similar reforms.”

This bill will come back, probably in the dead of night.

Lawmaker’s push to reform state parole and probation rules must wait

By Keith Menconi, SF Examiner,  5/28/25   https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/crime/lawmaker-s-push-to-reform-state-parole-and-probation-rules-must-wait/article_700fb3f0-cf10-4d2c-baf6-fc9720dc085c.html

Assemblymember Matt Haney’s proposal to reform California’s parole and probation system would have limited the jail time convicted people face for violating the terms of their release.

A state lawmaker’s proposal to reform California’s system of parole and probation is on hold for now after the measure died in committee.

The measure — introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney, who represents part of San Francisco — would have limited the jail time convicted people face for violating the terms of their release. It was held in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee on Friday along with hundreds of other measures, a procedural move that makes it unlikely the bill will advance any further this year.

Haney called the outcome “frustrating” but pledged to bring the measure back next year.

“We’re not giving up,” he said.

The bill’s failure to advance marks a setback for criminal-justice reform advocates, who argue that California’s system is unnecessarily punitive and is also increasingly out of step with a number of other states that have already passed similar reforms.

Haney’s proposal takes aim at the penalties that stem from so-called “technical” violations. Such violations are not criminal acts, but instead represent infractions of the rules that a convicted person agrees to follow as the terms of their probation or parole.

Common infractions include acts such as missing a meeting with a parole officer, forgetting to charge a GPS monitor, visiting a prohibited location, or failing a drug or alcohol test.

Critics of California’s current system argue that such acts often represent minor violations, and that responding with jail time only makes it more difficult for people under court supervision to stabilize their lives by finding work and housing.

“When people come out of prison on parole or are released, we should support their reentry and reintegration into society,” Haney said in an interview with The Examiner. “Right now, our laws are leading folks who are doing the right things to be locked back up for small, ticky-tack, silly stuff.”

Had Haney’s reform measure moved forward, California would have joined the ranks of several other states — including New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia — that have passed similar laws in recent years to limit jail time resulting from technical violations.

While the proposal drew broad-based support — with endorsements from dozens of criminal-justice reform groups along with San Francisco’s Public Defender’s Office — it did meet opposition from the Chief Probation Officers of California.

The state-backed association argued that Haney’s proposal would have taken away too much discretion from probation officers, who use the threat of jail time as a means of deterring more serious infractions as well as certain risky behaviors.

Under the current rules that govern probation and parole in California, someone accused of a technical violation can be sent to jail for as many as 10 days under so-called “flash incarcerations.” Such penalties can be imposed without a court hearing, typically at the discretion of a probation officer.

Longer periods of jail time — up to 180 days — can be imposed following a formal hearing to consider the alleged violations.

Haney’s proposal would have banned flash incarcerations, meaning that sending someone to jail for a technical violation would always require a sign-off from a judge.

The legislation would have also set graduated limits for jail-time penalties, with a maximum of 7 days in jail for the first technical violation, 15 days for the second and 30 days for violations thereafter.

Haney said that he took inspiration for the measure after hearing the stories of some of the thousands of people who are jailed each year in California for technical violations.

In 2023, more than 27,000 people were incarcerated as a result of such violations in the state, a sum that represents 72% of the overall parole population, according to figures cited by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office during an April Assembly hearing.

More than 10 years ago, Salinas resident George Villa was sent to jail for several months for technical violations of his parole terms, even though he had committed no new crimes.

Among the people that Haney cited is Salinas resident George Villa, who was locked up twice for technical violations — once in 2011 and again in 2012 — while out on parole from a 3-year prison term stemming from assault charges.

In a recent interview, Villa recounted the three violations that led to one of those returns to jail, a stay that lasted two months. Villa said he earned one violation when he accidentally submerged his GPS ankle monitor in water while running in a competitive trail race. He got another because the monitor’s battery died while he was sleeping, and another because he attended a rodeo in Salinas.

Villa insists that he did not know that his parole terms prohibited him from visiting the rodeo grounds.

“It’s across the street from my house, so I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong,” he said.

By the time Villa was released from jail again, he said, he had lost both his job and his girlfriend.

“No one’s gonna wait for you for two months,” said Villa, who, according to arrest records, has committed no new crimes since his original 2007 assault convictions. “And besides that, I was just feeling like a failure again and again and again.”

Chief Kirk Haynes, the legislative chair for the Chief Probation Officers of California, declined to comment on the specifics of Villa’s case, but argued that while some violations might seem trivial taken on their own, court-ordered rules are put in place to prevent very specific potential harm.

As one example, Haynes noted that some parolees convicted of domestic violence are given stay-away orders that prevent them from getting near their victims.

“Just think about what are the ramifications if we don’t respond to that accordingly,” said Haynes, who leads the Fresno County Probation Department.

Haynes said that it is uncommon for parole officers to seek jail time as a punishment after only one technical violation. Nevertheless, he argued that parole officers need flexibility to respond to violations with well-calibrated penalties — including flash incarcerations at times — in order to address risky behavior. The proposed legislation, in Haynes’ view, would have been overly restrictive, creating an unnecessary stumbling block hindering this work.

“We want to give [convicted people] every opportunity to succeed,” Haynes said. “But if they can’t — or if they won’t — then we do have a duty to make sure that we can get people back on track.”

After leaving jail for good, Villa went on to earn a master’s degree and now works as a manager at a Salinas nonprofit. However, he said that the added months he spent in jail only made his path towards reintegration and career success more difficult.

“The public does not benefit when you incarcerate someone for a technical violation,” he said. “It benefits when you are giving them opportunities and rehabilitative measures.”