Don’t Let Misleading Arguments Influence Bail Reform

By Eric Siddall

On Feb. 5, San Francisco’s public defender, Jeffrey Adachi, wrote an op-ed for the L.A. Times criticizing judges’ and prosecutors’ bail use in California. His main piece of evidence was the case of People v. Humphrey. Mr. Adachi summarized the Humphrey case facts as follows: Humphrey, a senior citizen, stole $5 and a bottle of cologne from his neighbor. As a result of this crime, Humphrey’s bail was set at $350,000 and he languished in jail for 250 days.

If these were truly the facts then Mr. Adachi would have a very persuasive argument about the injustices of the current bail system. Here is the reality of the case: In the criminal complaint, Humphrey was charged with four counts, including robbery and residential burglary. All of the counts were held to answer after the judge heard the evidence. Humphrey had four prior strike offenses: one for a robbery committed on Oct. 3, 1980, a second and third strike for a robbery and an attempted robbery committed on Jan. 21, 1986, and a fourth strike for a robbery committed on July 31, 1992. Due to California’s three strikes law, Humphrey was facing about 40 years to life – a pretty strong incentive to flee the state.

In the case in question, the victim was particularly vulnerable – a 79-year-old, frail, elderly man required to use a walker. En route to his apartment, the victim was pursued by the defendant who demanded money. The defendant followed the victim into the victim’s apartment and entered his bedroom. There he ordered the victim onto the bed and threatened to put a pillowcase over the victim’s head. The threat prompted the victim to open his wallet and show Humphrey that he only had two dollars. The victim told Humphrey that he had some additional money on the dresser that he saved for his grandchildren’s Christmas presents, which amounted to about five dollars. Humphrey proceeded to demand the victim’s cellphone, but when the victim told him it was password protected, he threw it on the floor. The defendant took the money from both the wallet and dresser and the victim’s cologne. As he was leaving the apartment, the defendant kicked the victim’s walker to another room, leaving the victim disabled.

Were Humphrey’s actions the crime of the century? Of course not. But these facts are a far cry from the narrative that a “senior citizen” spent 250 days for merely stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne.

We need a robust non-ideological public debate on the future of bail. Yet Adachi’s revisionist history of his client’s conduct and his disregard of salient facts – like Humphrey’s conduct and extensive criminal record – undermines the integrity of this discourse.

When setting bail, our judges are supposed to consider various constitutionally mandated factors, including “protection of the public, the safety of the victim, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing in the case.” (Article I, Section 29(f)(3)). This is, of course, why Mr. Adachi conveniently neglected to provide the facts he should have known, since his office represented Humphrey. Failing to mention that his client threatened the 79 year-old victim with violence or that these threats were made while the victim was isolated and vulnerable or that the defendant was facing a life sentence constitute critical omissions.

Mr. Adachi went so far as to write, “even the district attorney concedes he poses no threat to society.” This was a puzzling statement since the appellate opinion in this case, which I am certain Adachi has read, stated that “the prosecutor added that [Humphrey] should be considered a ‘great public safety risk.'”

Mr. Adachi’s attack on public safety is brazen not for the position he takes, but for its glaring lack of candor. The fictitious persona he crafts of Mr. Humphrey, the person caught merely stealing some cologne and some cash, is clearly not the person that we want in custody pending trial. The real Mr. Humphrey, the defendant with the extensive criminal record, the criminal who targets and exploits vulnerable victims – that is the defendant who should be in custody.

Eric Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Board of Parole Doesn’t Like the Spotlight of Truth

By Michele Hanisee

“If you’re not catching flak you know you are not over the target” is a saying which apparently originated from WWII pilots, who could tell they were over the target if they could see and feel the antiaircraft fire.

The ADDA appears to be right over the target on Prop 57 releases judging by the response by the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) to comments by ADDA President Michele Hanisee in a recent KNBC investigative story by Eric Leonard, Inmates with Violent Pasts Paroled Under Prop. 57. The comment that stoked their ire: “The law was written in a very vague manner. And it was very clear they intended to release violent offenders by re-describing them.”

CDCR responded with an overwrought broadside that this comment was “a cynical attempt to scare and mislead the public by an interest group more focused on flouting the will of the voters — who passed Proposition 57 by a nearly 2-1 margin in 2016 — than improving our criminal justice system.”

The felon highlighted in the KNBC story was convicted murderer, Alfredo “Freddy” Casillas. Casillas was sentenced in 1988, to 16 years to life for murder with the use of a weapon. In September of 1992, while still serving his murder sentence, Casillas slashed another inmate three times with a prison-made weapon. Then, in May of 1994, Casillas attacked another inmate with a spear/arrow type weapon, hitting the other inmate in the head. Casillas was sentenced to eight years for these assaults, to run consecutive to his murder sentence. The Parole Board granted Casillas parole on his murder in January of 2015, but Casillas was not released as he still had to serve the consecutive eight years for the assaults. In January of 2018, although Casillas had only served three years of this eight year term, the Parole Board released Casillas early, after determining that he “did not pose an unreasonable risk of violence to the community if released.”

CDCR can call names all they want. It is they who are “flouting the will of the voters” by approving early release for inmates who are serving time for violent assaults. We will cynically disagree that Casillas was the “non-violent” felon the public had in mind when they voted for Prop 57.

Trials and sentencing hearings are held in open court. Victims and the accused have a right to be heard before the judge imposes a sentence. Any member of the public or media may attend and watch. Thanks to Prop 57, unaccountable Parole Board members convene outside the public view and make unreviewable decisions, undercutting the sentences imposed by a judge in open court.

In the coming weeks, we will spotlight a few more “non-violent” offenders who are being released as a result of Prop. 57. We have highlighted these decisions in several blogs.

Based upon their comments, it is clear that the Board of Parole and CDCR are frightened by any critique of their release decisions. Nevertheless, we will continue to inform the public about any inmates released early under Prop 57 who do not appear to meet the public’s concept of “nonviolent.”

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Meet the Violent Inmates Getting Released from Prison

By Michele Hanisee

Politically shrewd politicians convince voters to support a plan to relieve prison overcrowding by promising only “non-violent felons” will be granted early release. Voters pass the plan, making it state law. But when it comes time to heave open the prison doors, they’re stunned to learn that those being freed include brutal criminals convicted of murder, attempted murder, assault, battery and a host of other heinous offenses.

Sadly, for all Californians, this is not the plot of a fictional horror film. It’s our Kafkaesque nightmare, imposed on us courtesy of Prop. 57. Prop 57 was designed to give the Board of Parole unreviewable authority to make early releases. The Parole Board has also interpreted Prop 57 as allowing them to preclude both District Attorneys and victims from personally appearing to oppose parole. To hear Governor Brown tell it, these procedures were designed so a “quiet parole board” could engage in deliberative thought on who should be released from prison. In reality, the Parole Board is acting quietly – they are quietly approving release of both non-violent and violent offenders.

We highlight, below, four decisions of early release under Prop 57 which prove that the Parole Board is releasing inmates convicted of violent crimes. In each instance the board acknowledged the violence of the men’s crimes, and that all but one committed additional offenses while in prison. Nonetheless, they concluded that there is no reason these men shouldn’t be released early. These cases, and other parole releases highlighted recently by the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office, refute the claim that only “non-violent” inmates are being released in the race to empty state prisons.

Luis Steven Flores
Luis Steven Flores‘ criminal record began in 1995, and he has been incarcerated since 2002. He was originally sentenced to 16 years and four months in prison for two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm/use of firearm and one count of transporting/selling a controlled substance. In 2002, while behind bars, he was convicted of two separate in-prison crimes: aggravated battery on a prison officer for throwing a liquid believed to be urine on a prison nurse; and for kicking a correctional officer. The inmate was re-sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. “His actions were violent,” says the release letter. Then, in 2005, Flores was given a “Rules Violation” for attempted murder. The release letter goes on to say that in September of 2017, (shortly before Prop 57 was approved by the voters) the inmate was again re-sentenced, this time to 10 years for a total term of 26 years and 4 months. No explanation is given in the release letter as to why the inmate’s life-sentence was converted to a non-life sentence.

The Parole Board acknowledged there was unspecified “negative information” in Flores’ confidential file, and that he was not eligible for release on his original convictions. Further, the Board stated “It is clear … that the inmate has an extensive history of violence,” and his attempted murder rules violation was “extremely serious.” However, rather incredibly in January 2018, the Board found Flores suitable for early release. “[T]he incident (the attempted murder), while extremely serious, occurred 12 years ago…” said the letter, therefore, Flores did not pose “an unreasonable risk for violence at this time.”

Jose Robles Lara
Jose Robles Lara‘s criminal history began in 1993, with convictions for burglary in the first degree and grand theft person. He was subsequently sentenced to 33 years behind bars for 10 more burglaries he committed in 1998 and 1999. While in prison, he lunged at and repeatedly punched a female correctional counselor, requiring her to be transported to the hospital. Later, two years were added onto his sentence after a search turned up an altered razor in his cell. In the last few years, he committed a series of violations including obstructing a peace officer and two incidents of controlled substance use – most recently in 2016.

Both the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office and Imperial County District Attorney’s Office opposed Lara’s early release, as he had served only 20 years of his 35-year prison sentence. However, the Board of Parole stated that since Lara had not committed any crimes of violence in prison since 2000, and his other multiple rules violations did not involve violence, this serial residential burglar was approved for release 15 years early. Lara was granted release in January 2018.

Bennie Locke
Next up is Bennie T. Locke. Just over two years ago, Locke and a co-defendant used a knife to slash the knee and face of a woman with whom they were drinking. This vicious assault earned Locke a mere four years behind bars. But that was far from his first crime. His criminal history began in 1980, with a conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon and has continued almost unabated since then. He has racked up an array of convictions for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, multiple counts of possession of a narcotic controlled substance, possession of a narcotic controlled substance for sale, receiving stolen property, vehicle theft, evading while driving recklessly, false identity and possession of a controlled substance in jail/prison.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office opposed his release. Yet, despite the fact that his last violent crime occurred just before Christmas 2015, the board determined he does not pose an unreasonable risk of violence to the community. They justified their conclusion with the pretzel-logic that because Locke was 57 years old with educational limitations and had not incurred any violent rules violations in the two years of his most recent prison commitment, this career criminal deserved an early release from prison.

Nicholas Davanzo
Finally, let us meet Nicholas Joseph Davanzo who was sent to prison in 2014, after being convicted of Assault with Force Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury. He had two felony convictions in the three years prior; Burglary and Manufacture/Sale of a Leaded Cane. His criminal history began in 2010, with convictions for burglary and manufacturing what are commonly called a blackjack, sap, or slungshot. In 2014, he was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury for attacking his girlfriend during an argument, causing her to hit her head on a metal pole. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for this crime. “The circumstances of the inmate’s current commitment offense aggravate the inmate’s current risk of violence,” the parole review decision report states. Yet, even with this factual background and his victim asking the board to deny his early release, the board granted an early release with the excuse that “the inmate did not personally use a deadly weapon in the commitment offense.”

The inmates featured above committed attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and battery. Some of these are violent offenses as previously defined by law. Others, while not legally defined as violent, would certainly be considered violent by the voters who were promised that only non-violent offenders would get early release. These and other examples prove that Prop. 57 was a sham, with the Parole Board determined to look for any loophole or excuse to grant early release to inmates, regardless of how violent their criminal history is.

A concerted effort is now underway to reduce the damage caused by Prop 57 and its cousin, Prop 47. The Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act would, among other things, reclassify crimes that Prop. 57 considers “non-violent” – including rape of an unconscious person, sex trafficking of a child under age 14 and domestic violence – to prevent the early release of inmates convicted of these crimes. It also would hold serial thieves accountable, reinstate DNA collection for a number of misdemeanors and create judicial oversight of the broken state release system. For more information about the Act, including how you can help get it on the November 2018 statewide ballot, please visit www.keepcalsafe.org, and follow our progress on Facebook and Twitter (@KeepCalSafe).

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

We Told You So…And Now So Has A Court

By Michele Hanisee

We repeatedly warned prior to the election that the ambiguities of language in Prop 57 would allow sex offenders to be released early from prison. The proponents realized the public wouldn’t support that, so led by Governor Jerry Brown they responded by promising that CDCR would write regulations to make sure sex-offenders weren’t released early. And so they did. CDCR wrote into their regulations that registered sex offenders were excluded from the early release provisions of Prop 57.

We knew that approach would fail, because a regulation cannot expand the scope of the law that it purports to implement. Now, the completely foreseeable result of this poor drafting has occurred. This Friday, a Superior Court struck down CDCR’s after-the-fact attempt to write into the regulations what was not in the underlying law. “The Court cannot insert words into an initiative to achieve what the court presumes to be the voters’ unexpressed intent; neither can CDCR,” said the court.

Governor Brown drafted Prop 57 “himself” and clearly didn’t understand his own initiative as it related to sex offenders and other violent inmates. Witness his bullying phone call during the campaign to Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims after she highlighted a sex offender Prop 57 made eligible for release; in a voicemail among other things the Governor said, “This guy was sentenced to 100 years, and he’s a registered sex offender, and on both accounts would not be getting out.”

Governor Brown was not going to take “no” for an answer in his effort to force early releases of prison inmates, forcing Prop 57 onto the ballot with the false claim that only “non-violent offenders” would be released early. When we and others pointed out the Prop 57 failed to define who qualified as a “non-violent” inmate, Governor Brown refused to give any ground.

Here is what the Superior Court had to say about the definition of “nonviolent offenders” in Prop 57. “Proposition 57 did not define what is a ‘non-violent’ felony offense.” “Indeed this very ambiguity was identified by the California Supreme Court before Proposition 57 went to the voters.”

Months ago we wrote that “the question remaining is what will the Legislature, or the Governor do once the courts confirm that the initiative’s early release provisions also apply to those imprisoned for despicable sex crimes.” We aren’t waiting, and are backing an initiative circulating for signatures that will begin to address the issue of sex offenders and some of the other flaws in Prop 57. This ruling makes it even more important to get the initiative on the ballot and approved by voters.

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Parole Board’s Continuing Irresponsibility

By Eric Siddall

The state parole board continues its reckless policy of early release for violent felons. We previously documented some examples of the parole board’s dangerous trend of ignoring public safety when labeling inmates to be released early as “not a danger” to the public.

This past week a panel of commissioners voted to grant parole to William Bradford, who was convicted of murdering his former wife in 1988 by pumping hollow-point bullets into her body. Why? Because the panel said there was no evidence he would pose a threat to the public.

This was an extraordinary conclusion – and not just because of the cold-blooded nature of his crime. Bradford’s own daughter, Shaun Rickerl, begged the board not to release her father. She said she continues to be terrified of him.

Veteran prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney John Lewin, asked the board to deny Bradford parole. The reason: Not only did Lewin prosecute the case, but after Bradford was convicted, it was discovered that Bradford was plotting to murder Lewin and his family.

“This is the one guy that scares me,” Lewin told the Los Angeles Times. “How dare [the parole board] play Russian roulette with my family.”

The panel’s recommendation is not just terrifying for Rickerl and Lewin. It’s terrifying for all Californians. The board’s lack of judgment is reaffirmed continuously by their poor decisions. Governor Brown has reversed parole grants on multiple occasions. We hope he does it again.

Eric Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Prop 47 Proponent Acknowledges Likelihood of Felony Consequences Will Deter Crime

By Michele Hanisee

In a recent interview, District Attorney George Gascon offered this comment regarding the car break-in epidemic in San Francisco: “What’s driving the numbers is understanding the likelihood of consequences is very low.” Of course, that obvious conclusion applies to California’s rising property crime rate in all categories, not just car break-ins.

What is undeniably ironic is that DA Gascon was one of the leading voices and proponents in support of Prop 47, which reduced a wide range of property crimes to misdemeanors even for repeat offenders. As we have pointed out for many months, this lack of consequence has fueled a rise in property crimes.

The story in which District Attorney George Gascon was quoted concerned legislation he supports which would make any “forcible entry” into a vehicle a felony; current law makes it a felony only if the car was locked. As he noted, misdemeanor charges are no deterrence to vehicle break ins. Particularly when, as we discussed in a prior article, police officers are generally able to arrest people only for misdemeanors committed in the officer’s presence. Because Prop. 47 turned a litany of theft offenses into misdemeanors – even for repeat offenders – police are unable to make arrests for these crimes, unless the crime occurs in their presence.

Gascon’s “one-off” legislation addresses a singular theft offense and seeks to curb it by making it easier to pursue a felony charge, with the real consequences that are attached to a conviction. The irony is that the legislation highlights the problems caused by Prop 47. It is refreshing to see a leading proponent of that initiative acknowledge that felony consequences for property crime will deter such crime; lets broaden that remedy beyond car break-ins.

A comprehensive effort to repair some of the unintended consequences of Prop 47 is underway. A ballot initiative known as the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act would restore accountability for serial thieves.

You can help put this desperately needed initiative on the November ballot. The Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and other partners are now circulating petitions to change the law.

We encourage all of our members to sign and to share the petitions as widely as possible with your friends, neighbors, family, and others. If you would like to receive petitions to help qualify the “Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of 2018” click here. Please be sure to read these rules carefully before gathering signatures.

You can learn more about the Act at www.keepcaliforniasafe.org, and follow our progress on Facebook and Twitter (@KeepCalSafe).

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Drive Begins to Halt Early Release of Violent Inmates & Address Public Safety Threats

By Michele Hanisee, Craig Lally & Ron Hernandez

A comprehensive effort to prevent the early release of child traffickers, hold serial thieves accountable, reinstate DNA collection for a number of serious crimes and repair the broken state parole system is under way.

The ADDA is partnering with crime victims, law enforcement, business owners and public safety leaders with the California Public Safety Partnership (CAPSP to collect 600,000 signatures by April 30, 2018. The initiative, known as the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act, will need about 366,000 valid signatures to qualify for the November 2018 statewide ballot.

The Proposition was a response to the state legislature’s repeated dismissal of common-sense attempts to fix the most egregious flaws in both Propositions 47 and 57 and other recent public safety “reform” measures. Among other things, the Act would:

  • Reclassify crimes that Prop. 57 considers “non-violent” – including rape of an unconscious person, sex trafficking of a child under age 14 and domestic violence – to prevent the early release of inmates convicted of these crimes.
  • Reverse property crime abuses by closing a loophole created by Prop 47.
  • Reinstate DNA collection for certain misdemeanors. DNA collection is an essential investigative tool for solving cold cases including rape and murder It is also important to exonerate the innocent.
  • Reform the parole system to stop the early release of violent felons, expand parolee oversight, and strengthen penalties for parole violations.

You can play a critical role in putting this desperately needed initiative on the November ballot. The ADDA and our partners will soon begin circulating petitions to our membership. We encourage all of our members to sign and to share the petitions as widely as possible with your friends, neighbors, family, and others.

If you would like to receive petitions to help qualify the “Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of 2018” click here. Please be sure to read these rules carefully before gathering signatures.

You can learn more about the Act at www.keepcalsafe.org, and follow our progress on Facebook and Twitter (@KeepCalSafe).

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Craig Lally is President of the Los Angeles Police League. The LAPPL has a proud and distinguished history representing over 9,900 dedicated and professional sworn members of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Ron Hernandez is President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) the collective bargaining agent representing more than 7,900 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County.

Statistics on Theft Offenses May Not Be Telling the Full Story

By Michele Hanisee

Statistics don’t lie, but they are only as good as the data that gets reported. Theft offenses – especially shoplifting – are almost certainly being underreported. Here’s why.

Under California law, police officers are generally able to arrest people for misdemeanors only if the crime is committed in the officer’s presence. Because Prop. 47 turned a litany of felonies into misdemeanors – including theft of goods valued at less than $950 – police are unable to make arrests for these crimes, unless the crime occurs in their presence.

Prior to Prop. 47, a person who committed a theft and who had prior theft convictions could be arrested and charged with the felony offense of “petty theft with a prior.” The conversion of the misdemeanor offense to a felony based upon the prior conviction is what allowed police to make arrests for thefts committed outside their presence. But Prop. 47 created a new system wherein all thefts under $950 are misdemeanors, no mater how many times the perpetrator is convicted. So unless a store employee or theft victim makes a citizen’s arrest of a suspect and holds them until police arrive, the police can do little.

Needless to say, there are significant disincentives for a theft victim or security guard at a retail establishment to do so. Detaining criminals can be dangerous, as shown by the tragic stabbing death in August of a security guard who tried to stop a transient from stealing beer from a Sylmar supermarket. Retailers who instruct their employees to detain thieves create liability for themselves should the employee be injured or killed. The potential harm that could result from a physical altercation while an employee tries to detain a theft suspect outweighs the pecuniary harm that results from the loss of property. A retailer then also faces the additional cost of paying the employee to go to court when the case proceeds to trial.

The current political environment in which police work also disincentives arrest for petty thefts. Police officers are not going to chase someone down for a misdemeanor when they know they could get sued, fired or criminally charged for any use-of-force incident. Further disincentivizing arrests is the sad fact that in L.A. County, misdemeanor convictions usually result in no jail time. A person sentenced to 180 days in jail in Los Angeles County today is highly unlikely to serve any time behind bars aside from the time it takes to process them in and out. When there are other calls for service, a police officer’s time is better spent responding to active calls than spending hours to process a booking that will not result in any jail time.

The bottom line is that criminals know Prop. 47 has freed them up to steal, steal and steal again – with little chance of facing any real consequences. Indeed, one person in LA County has been arrested 80 times for Prop. 47 offenses since the law went into effect.

While the situation seems bleak, there is a solution in the works. Fed up with the state Legislature’s repeated rejection of common-sense attempts to fix Prop. 47’s most egregious flaws, a coalition of public safety proponents has taken matters into its own hands.

We are promoting a statewide ballot initiative to enact a broad swath of critical reforms including preventing the early release of child traffickers, holding serial thieves accountable, reinstating DNA collection for a number of crimes and making parole violators accountable to the courts.

The California Public Safety Partnership (CAPSP) aims to qualify the initiative for the 2018 November general election.

We need to collect about 366,000 valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, and we’re aiming to gather 600,000 by the end of April 2018. Our most powerful asset in getting this initiative qualified is you.

Please share information about the initiative with your family, friends, neighbors and on social media. If you are a Twitter user, please use the CAPSP hashtag @CAsafety to help create viral support for our effort.

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Promises to Keep

By Eric Siddall

As California firefighters battle the Santa Barbara blaze, their pension rights are under fire in the courtroom. Opponents of organized labor hope to score a major victory against firefighters in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

In Cal Fire, firefighters challenged a provision of the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, known as “Airtime.” Airtime, established by the federal tax code in 1997 and enacted into law by the state in 2003, allowed state employees to purchase years of service that counted towards their pension. Its creators intended it to be a cost-neutral program: The purchasing employee was to pay both the employee and employer pension contributions along with interest for the years of service purchased. However, the reality was early retirement and actuarial assumptions that increased the government’s net-contributions. These unintended consequences compelled Gov. Jerry Brown to eliminate the benefit in 2013 in order to shore-up state pensions’ long-term health.

However, much more is at stake in this case than Airtime. Opponents of labor hope to terminate a legal doctrine known as the California Rule, and they see Cal Fire as their opportunity. For almost seven decades, the California Rule held that a vested pension right cannot be modified unless the change was reasonable, material to the successful operation of the pension system, and, most importantly, comparably advantageous to the employee. The bottom line: You cannot eliminate a bargained benefit without giving something of equal or greater weight. This is basic contract law.

Those against organized labor – who hypocritically will defend contract law to the hilt so long as it does not involve workers’ rights – want this principle overturned. They believe the Cal Fire case may be labor’s Waterloo.

They may be right. The public today has developed a dim view of pensions thanks in part to the anti-labor movement. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, this view held limited sway because CalPERS and other state pension funds were on sound financial footing. Unlike Social Security, state pension funds were permitted to invest heavily in the financial markets. Their returns were impressive and paid for most of the cost of pensions. In 2007, for example, CalPERS earned a rate of return of 19.1 percent.

After the 2008 financial collapse, CalPERS endured long-term financial insolvency. In 2008 and 2009, CalPERS went from earning double-digit rates of returns to losing 5.1 percent and 24 percent of its total value in each respective year. This financial downturn exposed government pensions to renewed attack.

Anti-union constituencies have successfully painted public employee’s pensions as a drain on government finances. They tend to forget that these are the very people who educate our children and safeguard our communities. They have created an image of pensioners living high on the hog despite the fact that teachers on average receive about $3,300 per month after 27 years of service, and public employees contribute between 8 to 12 percent of their paychecks to their own pensions. Many taxpayers believe that pensions will continue to cannibalize the state government’s budget. Yet projections show that the percentage of California’s state budget devoted to pensions will decrease from 8.2 percent in 2013 – an artificially high figure due to the budget crisis and to the downturn in financial markets – to 5.7 percent in 2046.

If the anti-labor side wins in Cal Fire, it could mean the end of government pensions. The irony is that it was labor that created this scenario by fighting back on sensible pension reform, specifically by challenging the government’s ability to eliminate Airtime. Greed on both sides has presented obstacle after obstacle for ensuring the long-term health of our pension system.

But we should not forget that the primary goal of pensions is to induce smart and capable people to become public servants and reduce attrition. Without pensions, instead of draining the swamp, we will drain talent out of our public sector.

Eric Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Opinions Aren’t Facts

By Michele Hanisee

The critical feature of an op/ed is that it is opinion and commentary rather than investigative journalism. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. In a recent foray, columnist Sal Rodriguez mixed “facts” in with personal attacks to argue that criminal justice “reforms” are working. Rodriguez first contended that crime is lower than in 2006 when the prison population was at its highest point. Of course, the alternate takeaway is that imprisoning repeat offenders for a lengthy period leads to the crime rate falling. As we covered in our last blog, the facts show that decreases in imprisonment based upon the criminal justice reforms” of AB 109 and Prop 47, have been followed by rising violent crime rates and rising property crime rates.

Rodriguez took umbrage with me for stating in a radio interview on the Doug McIntyre radio program that Prop 47 allows a thief to walk out of a store with a flat screen TV every day of the week with little chance of punishment beyond a notice to appear. Rodriguez labeling my factual statement to be “fear-mongering.” He then blamed law enforcement for not arresting repeat thieves and taking them to jail.

Here are some facts for Mr. Rodriguez. Police officers do not have legal authority to make an arrest for a misdemeanor theft not committed in their presence. It is not their choice, they are acting on laws passed by our legislature. If they are somehow able to witness a shoplifting in progress, or if the store security makes a citizen’s arrest, the police have two options. One option is to make an arrest in the field and issue a notice to appear in court. The other option is to spend hours booking the suspect into jail, after which the suspect will be released with a notice to appear in court. There is no room in L.A. County jail to hold people arrested on misdemeanors because the jail is now housing convicted felons under AB 109. If the suspect is convicted and sentenced to jail, he or she is still unlikely to serve any time. At present, a person sentenced to 180 days in L.A. County jail will be immediately released. These are not opinions, these are facts.

Other “highlights” of Rodriguez’s screed include: (1) touting a debunked study claiming crime in California decreased statewide, even though those figures were conjured up by excluding Los Angeles County, home of 1 in 4 Californians; (2) thanking Prop 47 for freeing up jail space, apparently not realizing he has just verified that Prop 47 has made many crimes inconsequential misdemeanors for which no time will be served; and (3) asserting police spend “much of their time arresting drug offenders,” despite the well-documented fact that drug arrests have plummeted in Los Angeles County and across the state since passage of Prop 47.

Opinion writers, are, of course, entitled to hold opinions and to write about those opinions. We, in law enforcement, do not have that self-indulgent luxury. As Joe Friday said, “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

In my next article I will explore how property crimes are very likely being underreported.

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.