ACLU SoCal Files Lawsuit Challenging Efforts to Shutter Transitional Housing in Hesperia

RIVERSIDE, CA – A charitable organization dedicated to reducing homelessness and several of its clients filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the city of Hesperia’s attempts to unlawfully restrict housing and support services for individuals with criminal records.

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Victor Valley Family Resource Center (VVFRC), a nonprofit in Hesperia that connects individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to transitional supportive housing. The suit argues that efforts by Hesperia to shut down three transitional homes are intended to banish residents released on probation.

“The city’s efforts to shutter these homes is little more than an attempt to banish individuals with criminal records from their community,” said Adrienna Wong, a staff attorney with ACLU SoCal. “That’s unacceptable and violates the California Constitution and the 1st & 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

Currently, the San Bernardino County Probation Department refers individuals released from incarceration who have no place else to go to VVFRC, which provides transitional housing for up to one year, as well as meals, case management services and permanent housing placement.

The lawsuit, filed against the city of Hesperia, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon and other city and sheriff’s officials, argues that several Hesperia municipal codes which were used to target VVFRC violate both the California and U.S. Constitutions. In some cases, Hesperia enforced a code prohibiting residential structures that house more than one individual on probation who are not related by blood or marriage, violating the individual plaintiffs’ right to association. One of VVFRC’s transitional homes was forced to close as a result, and the remaining homes may face the same fate.

The city also violated privacy rights by enacting an ordinance requiring landlords to provide their tenants’ personal information to police in Hesperia for purposes of a background check and registration of tenants in a database administered by the police. Under the same ordinance, the city requires landlords to evict tenants if the chief of police sends a “notice of criminal activity” – even if the tenants are never convicted, charged, or even arrested for any crime.

Hesperia’s efforts to shut down or severely limit the operations of VVFRC are a direct challenge to the state Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109), the sweeping reform package enacted to ease severe overcrowding in California’s jails and prisons. AB 109 redirects state resources from building more prisons to investing in community-based programs that provide services such as transitional housing, addiction treatment, mental health counseling, job placement and more.

Also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are six VVFRC clients who are on probation and have benefitted from these and other services. Without VVFRC, these and other clients would be vulnerable to homelessness, which increases the risk of re-incarceration.

“The city’s stance is not only unlawful but it also undermines public safety by eliminating the kind of re-entry and sober living group homes that provide crucial services to individuals who have no other recourse,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU SoCal general counsel and director of its Dignity for All Project. “Without a safe and supportive environment, they are at great risk of falling into homelessness and returning to criminal activity. Efforts by the city of Hesperia to eliminate this critical resource are ill-considered, unconstitutional and detrimental to public safety.”

Read the complaint

Contact:
Sandra Hernandez 213.977.5247, shernandez@aclusocal.org
Tony Marcano 213.977.5242, tmarcano@aclusocal.org

Via: https://www.aclusocal.org/pr-vvfrc-v-hesperia/ 

FREE Help with Felony Removal

#CHAMP47 Removes Barriers

Is a felony preventing you from moving forward in your life? Increasingly, a proportion of people in the United States, especially from lower income communities and people of color, has been increasingly marginalized in civic and political life. For most people with felony convictions, civil rights and privileges are unimaginably obtainable. Studies have shown that gaining employment and promotions continue to become more challenging. In addition, to limited resources, access to benefits, the right to vote and adequate housing are only a few socio-economical and disenfranchised consequences you may be faced with.  CHAMP 47 (Creating Healthy Alternatives Mobilizing Prop. 47), an initiative of Time For Change Foundation created to implement Proposition 47 gives hope to our community that you can live a sustaining and prosperous life after incarceration. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which was approved by voters in November 2014 and CHAMP 47 campaign will help to improve our communities’ quality of life and restore our families. U.S. Sen. and 2016 Presidential Candidate Rand Paul (R) praised "PROP 47 does have the potential to help tens of thousands of Californians gain their freedom and work towards rebuilding their lives. The sooner individuals with qualifying convictions take action to reduce their sentences, the greater the impact of this law will be." Reduce low-level crimes ($950 or less) shoplifting, simple drug possession, forgery/fraud, petty theft/grand theft, writing a bad check, receiving stolen property For more info:  Contact Porscha   (909) 886-2994  info@TimeForChangeFoundation.org  JOIN US! DATE: Saturday May 7, 2016 TIME: 10:00 am-2:00 pm LOCATION: Cal State Reentry In/Parole Bldg  14040 Park Ave. Victorville, CA 92392 Items to bring with you Rap Sheet, CA ID or Drivers License Court documents, Case Numbers, Live Scan result

Extend Prop 47 Bill!

Are you aware that Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) has a time limitation? Also, are you aware that there are at least 1 million Californians that may be eligible under Proposition 47 to change their felony convictions? 

Well, just in case the awareness is not there, Proposition 47 can do a numerous amount of good for non-violent criminals, only if it is allowed to do so. 

Furthermore, Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) will be coming to a complete halt in November 2017, if AB 2765 (Weber) does not get amended to extend the bill, or eliminate the Proposition 47 deadline to petition for a sentence reduction. 

Most important, AB 2765 (Weber) was introduced on February 19, 2016, to extend the Proposition 47 bill time limitation for petitioning, and is required to have 2/3 votes of the Legislature to amend the act. 

In fact, since then, the bill has passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a vote of 5 to 2, on April 19, 2016, and will now proceed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

Congratulations, AB 2765 (Weber)!!!!! 

Altogether, let's make sure that we support this bill, and provide the pertinent information to the population of people that this bill can truly have an impact on. 

We have to band together for this!

By: 

Porscha N. Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

Shame the Prosecuting Attorneys!

Do prosecuting attorneys really withhold evidence? Some actually do! This thought is not too far-fetched for it not to be a reality; especially if the prosecuting attorney is in dire need of a conviction.

As stated by Lopez, "Prosecutorial misconduct is an epidemic in our nation. Bad-acting prosecutors tarnish the image of otherwise hard-working, justice seeking, and law-abiding prosecutors. However, this small group of bad-acting prosecutors have a destructive impact on our criminal justice system. Not only do these bad-acting prosecutors put their conviction rate ahead of seeking justice, these bad actors often send innocent people to prison for a very long time. These bad actions forces the public to lose confidence in the system while costing the systems millions of dollars in costly appeals."

Thankfully, AB 1909 (Lopez) wants to make it a felony for a prosecuting attorney who intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence with a 16 month, 2, or 3-year county jail imprisonment term. What a way to teach those prosecutors! 

But, will it really change their ideology and approach to convictions? Will the corrupt prosecuting attorneys be held accountable for their actions? Really?!? Those are the burning questions for us all. 

To summarize, criminal charges are the best recipe and remedy for the destructive, thoughtless prosecuting attorneys; because something has to occur for the prosecuting attorneys to be held liable for their devastating and despicable behavior. The "withholding evidence chain" has to eventually be broken, specifically for criminal justice reform to occur. 

By: Porscha Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

                                                                   References:

AB 1909 (Lopez) – As Amended March 28, 2016. As Proposed to be Amended in Committee. 

SECRETS of misconduct to become PUBLIC!

Were you aware that California has the most "secretive" laws when it pertains to law enforcement and police records in the nation? Well, SB 1286 (Leno) wants to expose the shadiness of peace officers to end their sneaky ways of destroying, tampering, and deleting evidence, and make it a felony conviction for the particular peace officer who practices this detrimental approach to getting convictions. 

Given these points, it will be a great feat if police misconduct is publicized for the public to view, because peace officers have their own bill of rights to hide this admissible information. In any event, the public should be allotted the right to review the necessary records that provide insight about the misconduct, and be shown documentation of the process and elimination of a deceitful, monstrous peace officer.

In conclusion, fraud, deception, and trickery from peace officers has to come to a complete halt, AND peace officers have to be held responsible for their heinous acts of misconduct with an arrest and a felony conviction. 

Porscha N. Dillard
Special Project Coordinator
Time For Change Foundation

A Bill on the RISE!

Have you heard!?! Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) introduced SB 966, the Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancement Act (The RISE Act) for prior drug convictions. The RISE Act will abolish expensive and fruitless sentencing improvement, emulating the Legislature’s and voters’ unity to essentially dismantle from mass incarceration; in order to invest back into the vast need of public services for the communities.

The objective of SB 966 is to:

• Save California taxpayers money to reinvest back into the needed community-based programs
• Reduce the racial disproportion within the criminal justice complex
• Address the severe sentencing
• Re-establish balance back in the judicial proceedings
• Abstain the ruthless punishment towards individuals that endure substance abuse disorder

Not to mention, SB 966 wants to show that the deteriorated pursuit has demonstrated and become immensely expensive; by defrauding state and local appropriations that should be disbursed to social and health providers, schools, and channels that veritably diminishes drug use.

Altogether, incarceration can progress to a higher amount of crime by damaging family and community dynamics. For the many individuals who re-enter back into society from incarceration, are challenged with overwhelming barriers in seeking employment, housing, and education.

In the long run, elongated sentences do not reduce recidivism, nor does it impede on the distribution, use, and recovery of drugs.

By:

Porscha Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

A Great Act - Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016

Great news! An incredible act called the Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (PSRA) is trying to improve public safety, and save California taxpayers money by reducing frivolous spending on our correctional system. One pivotal point of this act, is to transfer the power back to the judge and away from the District Attorney, to decide whether a minor of 14 years of age or older should be tried as an adult. Key factors have to be considered when making this decision such as: the minor's family and school life. It has to be a clear process to decide the outcome of the minor’s life.

Next, for those who are incarcerated with non-violent offenses, Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 will add funds for rehabilitation, and will give credit for completion of educational programs with an early release. Ultimately, it is the next step to improve Prop 47.

Altogether, 1 million signatures need to be collected in order for this act to make it on the ballot in November. Governor Brown supports and is willing to sign this act, but requested 100,000 signatures by the end of April 2016 be gathered.  

Equally important, collaborative help is needed for the collection of the mandatory signatures from all that are in support of this act. Let’s be overt, prison reform is needed in the state of California, and this is a productive step towards obtaining that goal. 

For more information or to support the (PSRA) contact Vanessa Rhodes at vanessarhodes@gmail.com or visit SafetyandRehabilitation.com.

By: 

Porscha N. Dillard

Special Project Coordinator 

Time For Change Foundation

Analyst estimates $100 million more in Prop. 47 savings than Brown

The Legislature’s non-partisan fiscal analyst believes Gov. Jerry Brown is underestimating the amount of savings from Proposition 47, the controversial ballot initiative that reduced some nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

The initiative required the savings be used for mental health, drug treatment, truancy and victim services. In a report issued Friday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that the first deposit should be about $100 million more than what the state Department of Finance has accounted for.

In his January budget proposal, Brown set aside $29.3 million for the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund – $62.7 million in savings from inmate and caseload reduction, minus $33.4 million for resentencing and increased parole capacity.

The vast gap is mainly due to different methods for calculating prison costs. Thousands of inmates have been resentenced and released from state facilities under Proposition 47, pushing California’s overcrowded corrections system just under a court-mandated capacity.

Brown’s budget estimates that the average daily inmate population is about 4,700 fewer this year because of the law. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that, to stay below capacity levels, most of those potential prisoners would have had to be contracted out to beds in other states, which would have set the state back an additional $83 million.

The LAO also said the governor is likely underestimate the savings from fewer felony cases being filed and overestimating the cost of reclassifying the records of former offenders who already served out their felony terms.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article60119951.html 

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article60119951.html#storylink=cpy

Old Brown tries to fix a young Brown's mistake

— Hang around long enough and you might see things turn full circle. People included.

Like a comet, they come back around.

Gov. Jerry Brown is a comet. He dominated the Capitol cosmos two generations ago, floated off and circled back.

Now one of the major public policy issues of 40 years ago also has returned, meteor-like. It concerns criminal sentencing.

Like too many things involving government, however, the jargon is wonky: "determinate" and "indeterminate."

Put simply, it's about whether a judge determines how long a felon will be locked up, or left undetermined, with parole boards having the flexibility to retain or release an inmate based on behavior and perceived rehabilitation.

In 1976, young Gov. Brown was a reformer who signed legislation changing sentencing from indeterminate to determinate.

Last week, he proposed a new reform: Scrap that 1970s reform and return to basically the way things had been for six decades before.

Times change. Situations change. Ideas? Not so much.

I asked Brown why he and the Legislature had changed the system in the first place four decades ago.

Back then, he'd been thinking about it for a long time, he recalled, even when his father, Pat Brown, was governor in the 1960s.

"People were lingering in prisons and didn't know when they were going to get out," he said. "Racial minorities might be in longer."

Prisoners, the governor continued, were compelled "to mouth certain words" to demonstrate their readiness for freedom. White parole boards seemed to be "trying to get the prisoners to have a certain mentality, messing with their heads. It didn't seem right to me.

"It came to me that if they did the crime, they should do the time. And then get out."

That became many legislators' attitude: The whole system was arbitrary and unfair — sometimes political and racial.

What else could you expect from sentences so broad? For example, one to 14 years or five to life.

Republican Sen. John Negedly, a former Contra Costa County district attorney, had sponsored the bill that switched sentences from flexible to more fixed.

"Punishment should be swift, certain and definite," Brown said after signing the measure. But soon he began having second thoughts, mentioning "ambiguities" in the new law.

There was bipartisan criticism.

Then-LAPD Chief Ed Davis, a conservative Republican, planning to run against Brown, complained that prisoners no longer would "have to pay much attention" to guards. Brown "is going to blow these prisons up before I can take over as governor."

State Sen. Alan Sieroty, a liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, feared that fixed sentencing would lead to longer terms. That would only "further brutalize the individual and make his reentry into society less possible."

Both were right.

"Liberals thought the Legislature would jack up the sentences, which it did," Brown told me. "And it never stopped. I never imagined there'd be thousands of [increased sentencing] laws and enhancements."

State government embarked on a prison-building, lock-em-up binge. There was a political stampede in the 1990s after the L.A. riots and the gripping kidnap-murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Voters and the Legislature passed "three strikes and you're out" — meaning you're "in" for life.

When Brown was governor the first time, there were 21,000 inmates in state custody. By the time he returned in 2011, the number had ballooned to 170,000 — packed like sardines into bunks and sleeping on cots in gymnasiums. At one point, taxpayers were spending more on prisoners than on college kids.

Prisoners-rights groups sued. A federal judicial panel ordered the state to knock it off. Voters and the governor got the message.

The California electorate softened three-strikes and other sentencing laws. Brown, through what he calls "realignment," began shifting control of low-level felons to the counties.

The state prison population is now down to 127,000.

Brown has wanted to eliminate determinate sentencing for years — calling it an "abysmal failure" in 2003 — but said he first needed to achieve realignment and form a political coalition.

"If I'd done it right out of the box, I might have made mistakes," he told me.

Brown added that he'd also been pretty busy.

"No one has done more than I have," he said, listing such things as pension reform, water programs and fighting climate change. "I haven't been sitting on my ass."

The governor's sentencing proposal is targeted for the November ballot as an initiative. It would affect only inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. Murderers and rapists, forget it.

A nonviolent felon would need to complete his time for the basic crime. But he could earn credits for good behavior and rehab. And before serving added time for an enhancement — such as gang activity — he could seek parole for being a model prisoner

An "unintended consequence" of the law he signed 40 years ago, Brown told reporters, "was the removal of incentives for inmates to improve themselves, refrain from gang activity, using narcotics, otherwise misbehaving. Because they had a certain [release] date and there was nothing in their control that would give them a reward for turning their lives around."

Why the ballot and not the Legislature? It would require a two-thirds legislative vote, and that's a hassle. And he has $24 million in leftover campaign money begging to be spent.

This reform seems to make sense. The old one did, too — at the time. But this is another time.

The lingo also should change. Junk "determinate" and call it "fixed" or "flexible."

Via: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-cap-20160201-column.html 

CA Rally and Press Conference

Join Us

Friday, January 8. 2016

11:00 AM

3737 Main Street

Riverside, CA 92501

Stand with us as we call on the governor and the Legislature to produce a state budget that lifts Californians out of poverty and invests in the future of our communities.