BILL NUMBER: AB 775 INTRODUCED
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Romero
FEBRUARY 22, 2001
An act to add Sections 6032, 6032.1, and 6032.2 to the Penal Code,
relating to private prisons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 775, as introduced, Romero. Private prisons.
Existing law requires that the plans and specifications of every
jail, prison, or other place of detention, as specified, be submitted
to the Board of Corrections for its recommendations. Existing law
requires that any privately operated local detention facility operate
pursuant to a contract with the city, county, or city and county, as
appropriate, in which the private agency or entity agrees to operate
in compliance with all appropriate state and local building, zoning,
health, safety, and fire statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and
with the minimum jail standards established by regulations adopted by
the Board of Corrections, as specified.
This bill would require an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, or other private organization or entity to receive
authorization from the Board of Corrections before constructing or
operating a private correctional facility. This bill would prohibit
the Board of Corrections from authorizing the construction or
operation of a private correctional facility unless that facility
meets all regulations pertaining to the construction and operation of
publicly operated state prisons. This bill would also prohibit a
person who is charged and convicted in another state, or in federal
court in another state, from being confined in a private correctional
facility in this state.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 6032 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
6032. An individual corporation, partnership, association or
other private organization or entity shall neither construct, nor
operate a private correctional facility in this state unless
authorized by the Board of Corrections.
SEC. 2. Section 6032.1 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
6032.1. The Board of Corrections shall not authorize an
individual, corporation, partnership, association or other private
organization or entity to construct or operate a private correctional
facility in this state unless the facility meets all regulations
pertaining to the construction and operation of publicly operated
SEC. 3. Section 6032.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
6032.2. A person charged or convicted in another state, or
charged or convicted in federal court in another state, may not be
confined in a private correctional facility in this state.
Keep ignoring wene 5". If you believe all that is printed by the newspapers more power to you!
Mcprison would be okay if he would post the negatives and the positives. He chooses what he post to spread his agenda. You all tickle me to think he runs around these boards just to help out all of us investors. Come on man, wake up. These companies are doing alot right, I quess I should start posting every news article that pops up on news wire about the big three everyday. Alot of people on this board know very little about the prison business. All I ask that Mcprison post the positives along with the negatives. This gives the board something to compare. But if the ignore button is what you want Mr. Wene 5" push it hard. Have a nice day.
Funny four of the six are currently in the process of looking to the private industry for help. You were correct, they have restictions, not prohibitions. It is all about saving the taxpayers money. I was not aware of any laws in Utah, nor Montana. I quess that leaves 44 states wide open. Thanks for your help.
mc, a lot of people put the "ignore" on aw a long time ago.
Keep providing the news, it would take us forever to find all those items.
I read some, delete some and aw can do the same or he can "ignore."
Why do you belittle the answer to your request for information? You asked for "one state" that has passed legislation prohibiting out-of-state inmates.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
However, other states have passed legislation restricting private prison operations.
Here is a sampling:
California, Utah, Montana, Arkansas, Illinios and Alabama all have laws preventing private companies from incarcerating/importing inmates.
Lastly, the CA law (1999) from what I learned from the newspaper stories was designed at preventing only the importation of out-of-state inmates, not federal inmates. I believe that other bill introduced this year may address some restrictions for companies planning to house out-of-state fed inmates in CA.
By the way, I accept your apology for being wrong.
Mcprison, this one will fail just like the one in Georgia will. I do agree that any private company must meet the standards which are set forth by the state. The federal prisoners can be housed in any state. That battle has already been fought. The federal government can deem the private company a law enforcement agency. Same old story, just another state.
I don't believe the Federal Bureau of Prisons can give law enforcement powers to contractors at prisons it doesn't own. States can pass legislation barring private contractors from housing federal inmates unless a contract already exists. What law are you citing that gives the federal government the power to usurp state sovernity in these issues? It is not an issue of interstate commerce.