Blog

February 23, 2010 |  www.hightechcops.com

Attached is a press release from the United States Attorneys Office regarding Michael Bruce Hays from Winston Oregon who was sentenced to 10 years for possession of child pornography.

In 2009 members of the Southern Oregon High-Tech Crimes Task Force assisted the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with a search warrant in Winston, Oregon as a result of an undercover Internet investigation.  All of the computer forensic examinations were done by Certified Forensic Computer Examiners within the Central Point based forensics lab.

The Southern Oregon High-Tech Crimes Task Force is a regional, multi-jurisdictional task force that provides cyber crime investigations and digital forensic services to over 30 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.  The task force is the only standalone state/local law enforcement digital evidence forensics laboratory in the entire world that is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCDL/LAB)'s legacy program. 

The task force is staffed by personnel from the City of Central Point Police Department and the City of Medford Police Department.

Click here to read the press release.

E-mails allege pressure

February 24. 2010  |  by Nick Budnick  |  bendbulletin.com

SALEM — Last July, Deschutes County District Attorney Mike Dugan learned that he and Oregon's other elected top prosecutors had each lost about $5,000 pay. Not only that, but his own wife, Rep. Judy Stiegler, D-Bend, had, like other lawmakers, voted for the bill that slashed his salary in the final days of the 2009 legislative session — not knowing it would hit the elected DAs personally.

For many district attorneys, $5,000 is almost a month's paycheck. And that sum, it turns out, is enough to affect how a public debate plays out at the Capitol.

Though Dugan, a Democrat, won't say much about the politics of the pay cut, several prosecutors say they stayed out of this month's legislative debate over a criminal sentencing bill, hoping the Legislature would restore their unexpected pay cut. The cut is slated to be restored in a budget bill expected to be voted on today.

Some of the state's 36 district attorneys contend lawmakers used the pay cut to pressure the DA s group into an uncharacteristically quiet role on a “fix-it” bill modifying “earned time” sentencing provisions that allow some inmates to be released early. The bill, which effectively puts a six-month moratorium on early release, was approved by both houses and sent to Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who signed it Feb. 17.

The accusations are contained in e-mails obttained by The Bulletin under Oregon's Public Records Law.

On Feb. 10, Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis warned his fellow elected prosecutors not to voice criticisms of an earned time bill, Senate Bill 1007.

“There are many problems with this 'fix' but if any of us say a word they'll cut off our salaries.... so I hope everyone has equity for a loan, savings or has been setting aside money,” he wrote.

In an e-mail to his elected colleagues the next day, Malheur County District Attorney Dan Norris wrote that the Legislature “is buying our silence on (legislation) with our salary ... The Legislature has taken a very dangerous low road by tying our hope that we get the salary (restored) to our rolling over on earned time.”

Truth and rumor

Several key Democratic lawmakers said they don't believe the claim that pay raises were linked to legislative positions. “Neither I nor anyone I am aware of would tie the two together,” said House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Clackamas County. “It wouldn't be appropriate, and it didn't happen.”

Sen. Chip Shields, D-Portland, clashed with prosecutors last year over the earned time issue. Told of their allegations of improper pressure, he said, “I hope they use more evidence than that when convicting people.”

The prosecutors won't say who they think pressured them to stay silent. But Marquis, who is active in Democratic politics and who is among the candidates to be Oregon's next U.S. attorney, said that based on his inquiries at the Capitol, he firmly believes that “legislators who had the power to do this” made the threat.

He said he wouldn't single out any lawmakers in part because he didn't want to reveal his sources. But he's lobbied on criminal justice bills for close to three decades, and “I think I'm able to distinguish between truth and rumor,” he said.

Marquis, like other prosecutors, refused to discuss the pay politics until the e-mails were obtained under records law.

“I've never seen anything like this, and it's very concerning,” he said of the politics around the pay cut.

The concerns add prosecutors to those who in the last month have complained about pressure politics in the Capitol, a list that includes Oregon Head Start officials, corporate lobbyists and a bank president.

Last week, e-mails surfaced that show that Hunt warned Head Start officials that their budget was at risk next year because the group had failed to support two tax measures on the Jan . 26 ballot, backed by Democratic leaders, and wouldn't fire their conservative lobbyist, Mark Nelson, a leader in the opposition to the measures. For his part, Hunt contends he simply was worried Nelson's role would hurt Head Start.

Pay cut imbroglio

The prosecutor pay cut controversy dates back to November 2008, when voters approved Measure 57, which increased penalties for drug and property offenders, including drug dealers, burglars, car prowlers and identity thieves. But in 2009, legislators wanted to suspend Measure 57 to help close a $4 billion hole in the budget — and they ran into a fight.

Prosecutors protested that House Bill 3508 would effectively let thousands of inmates out early to reduce prison costs. It did so by increasing the amount of “earned time” an inmate could shave off his or her sentence, from 20 percent to 30 percent.

Crook County District Attorney Daina Vitolins said prosecutors fought the bill out of concern for public safety as well as on behalf of thousands of crime victims.

In late June, it became clear the bill would pass, over their objections. So the prosecutors decided to “get out of the way” and support the bill, said Kevin Neely, the lobbyist who represented the Oregon District Attorneys Association in the fight.

But that wasn't the end of it.

In two budget hearings in June, several lawmakers said that the prosecutors' pay deserved to be cut but said it wouldn't be.

They complained that the ODAA's activism on House Bill 3508 had reduced the scope of the bill and therefore necessitated cuts elsewhere. In a June 22 hearing of the budget-writing Joint Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Nick Kahl, D-Portland, called prosecutors' lobbying an “incursion to the legislative process.”

It was only after the hearings closed that lawmakers were presented with a last-minute budget bill that cut about $170,000 from elected district attorneys' pay.

Lawmakers now say that DA pay was cut not in retribution but because so many deeper cuts were being made elsewhere. “Prosecutors were not singled out,” said former state Sen. Margaret Carter, D-Portland, who co-wrote the budget bill before leaving office last summer.

A personal issue

Stiegler recalls the day in July she learned about it from Dugan, her husband: “I remember Mike coming home and saying, 'Do you know you cut my salary? '”

“And I'm like, 'What are you talking about, dude?'” she said.

Dugan said that he thinks most of the 90 state representatives and senators didn't know their vote would make prosecutors the only elected officials to receive a pay cut last year. “It's my opinion that at least 87 of the people in that building had no inkling whatsoever,” he said.

The news hit district attorneys in a personal way. Prosecutors in smaller counties make about $87,000 from the state, and in larger counties, of more than 100,000 people, about $99,000. On top of that, many counties give their elected district attorneys supplements to boost salary.

Jefferson County District Attorney Steven LeRiche said he has two young sons and a wife to support and said the lost paycheck wouldn't just affect his kids' college fund.

“I'm probably living more month to month than that,” he said. “You're pretty much talking about a month's salary, and what employed person can say they could lose a month's salary and not (feel it)?”

Relations between the elected prosecutors and lawmakers remained tense after the session. Media accounts discussed how thousands of inmates were being released, some of whom had records of violence and sex abuse. Lawmakers vowed to take up a legislative fix to stop further releases of dangerous convicts.

Meanwhile, many prosecutors tried to find out why their salaries had been cut and what they had to do to get it back. E-mails from the elected district attorney's listserv show the first mention of pressure from lawmakers appeared less than six weeks after the pay cut.

On Aug. 12, Tillamook County District Attorney William Porter e-mailed his colleagues in support of a legal challenge to the salary cut, calling the pay cut punishment for their fight against HB 3508. “We are also being blackmailed w/ threats of further cuts if we don't behave ... Let's fight back!”

In another e-mail, Marquis insisted lawmakers told the group that the negative newspaper articles about HB 3508 risked their salaries.

Asked about the e-mails, Neely denied knowledge of any direct threats, instead saying he had typical political discussions with lawmakers when he approached them about getting the DA pay restored. In an e-mail, he called it a “two way street” in which lawmakers sought the district attorneys' support on the legislative “fix” bill, later called Senate Bill 1007.

“Some legislators expressed dismay over the media attention around earned time; I expressed my dismay over the salary reduction,” Neely wrote. “Was I specifically told to play ball on SB 1007 or lose salary money? No. Did legislators insinuate that it would be an easier road if we assisted on SB 1007? Sure. At the same time, I told legislators that it would be pretty hard to ask for the DAs to support anything until our salaries are restored.”

Most district attorneys, in fact, wanted HB 3508 to be fully repealed, not just fixed. But in the end, they decided not to fight it actively, instead co-authoring a polite letter with law enforcement groups. Neither Neely nor any elected district attorney testified on the bill.

Under pressure?

Neely characterized the toned-down stance as a tactical decision to repair frayed relations with the Legislature. Was it motivated partly by desire to restore their salaries? “I'm not sure,” he said, adding that while some prosecutors had that motivation, others didn't.

Stiegler, for her part, said she hadn't heard from lawmakers about DA salaries getting wrapped up in pressure politics, though she knew some prosecutors suspected it.

Dugan and Vitolins say they don't think lawmakers pressured prosecutors.

LeRiche said he doesn't know what to think. But the suspicions aren't good for public faith in the democratic process, he said, adding that legal protections for district attorney pay could be the solution.

“If people are suggesting that you can influence public officials with money, then that's a bad thing, and it shouldn't be part of the process,” he said.

E-mails allege pressure

Dec. 22: Malheur County District Attorney Dan Norris to his fellow DAs on whether they should respond to an Op-Ed supporting House Bill 3508, a bill that let thousands of inmates out early to help ease a budget crisis:

“Failing to respond will encourage legislatures to view our organization as weak and divided. Couple that with the fact that they intentionally cut our salary, and are holding the add back hostage to our keeping silent about a bad policy that we opposed will appear that they can control us for 1.8% of our salary. If we set that precedence we will be encouraging more of the same.”

Aug. 12: Tillamook District Attorney William B. Porter's e-mail to his fellow elected district attorneys, discussing whether the DA's association should mount a legal challenge to a pay cut the Legislature approved for them:

“Why not go there? We are duly elected constitutional officers. We are being punished for exercising our rights as citizens and our duty as DAs. The Governor has consciously chosen to just let it happen. We are also being blackmailed w/ threats of further cuts if we don't behave. The legislators that hate us are already out to cut our pay more.

Let's fight back!”

Feb. 10: Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis to his fellow district attorneys on whether they should point out flaws in Senate Bill 1007, a bill to fix problems with HB 3508:

“Colleagues

There are many problems with this “fix” but if any of us say a word they'll cut off our salaries ... or more accurately refuse to reinstate our June 2011 paycheck so I hope everyone has equity for a loan, savings or has been setting aside money. This WILL pass. There is nothing we can do about it.”

Feb. 11: Malheur County District Attorney Dan Norris to his fellow DAs on whether they should ask Sen. Floyd Prozanski for help getting their pay restored in light of their restraint in speaking out:

“The legislature (Floyd et al) is buying our silence on earned time with our salary. We have always taken the high road, and not traded policy for a pay raise. The legislature has taken a very dangerous low road by tying our hope that we get the salary that the law requires to our rolling over on earned time. This is a very dangerous precedent. I should have spoken more forcefully last month, but I had already said enough. It is too late to change our course. However the pay cut worked so well this time for the legislature that it will become the way that they neutralize us in the future.”

In a series of e-mails obtained under Oregon Public Records Law, elected county district attorneys claimed lawmakers were using DA salaries to pressure them to keep silent about bills changing the rules on inmates' early release thanks to “earned time.”

Mikki Trowbridge | February 28, 2010 | StatesmanJournal.com

When I tell someone I'm writing about human trafficking, the common response is "in which country?"

Today's column, unfortunately, focuses on human trafficking as a local problem.

For various reasons, the few statistics we have under-represent the severity of the issue. However, we know that Portland has the largest sex industry per capita in the country and that Oregon plays a major role in the lucrative Pacific coast trafficking circuit because of the I-5 corridor, our international airport and proximity to Canada.

Oregon police encounter three to five sex trafficking victims per week: 80 percent are female and 50 percent are minors.

Based on conservative federal averages, it is estimated that Marion County alone has at least 2,400 homeless or runaway youth at any point in time. One of three teens on the street will be lured toward prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home, with the average age of entry into prostitution being 12-14.

Outreach Workers from HOME Youth & Resource Center, our local drop-in center for at-risk youth, have observed that runaway and homeless youths frequently end up trading "survival sex" for shelter and food.

Male youths involved in survival sex tend to have been on the streets longer, while female youths tend to become entangled with new, adult "boyfriends" within days of running away or becoming homeless and eventually disappearing from HOME's radar.

In some cases, the adult male lures the female youth across state lines into isolation from familiar support networks, frequently using drugs and alcohol for compliance.

We are just beginning to address and understand this issue locally, so building awareness is critical. Here are a few ways you can help:

Get Educated: Go to www.oregonoath.org to learn about human trafficking and the Oregon Human Trafficking Task Force.

Raise Awareness: Contact Mid-Valley Women's Crisis Service at (503) 378-1572 to schedule a free training on human trafficking for your workplace or community group.

Make a Report: If you or someone you know is a victim of human trafficking, call the Women's Crisis Service Crisis Line at (503) 399-7722.

Mikki Trowbridge is the Community Impact Director at United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley. Mikki can be contacted at 503-363-1651, or by e-mail at mtrowbridge@unitedwaymwv.org.

February 23, 2010 | BY COLIN LOVETT | OPB

It's been a year since raids around the country cracked down on human trafficking. In the last year, the Oregon legislature has passed a bill to address the problem, and a bill is making its way through the Washington legislature.

Law enforcement officials say because Portland and Seattle have ports, and lie along I-5, the two cities have become hubs for the criminal groups that traffic in people.

Multnomah Country Sheriff's Deputy Steven Bickford heads the Oregon Human Trafficking Task Force. He says the public is more aware of the crime, and that helps law enforcement.

Bickford: "I've had several people come in with tips that have led to different police agencies going out and at least recovering victims. Maybe not getting the bad guys yet, but at least we've found some victims."

Oregon's legislature recently passed a bill designed to raise public awareness of the problem. If signed by the governor, it would provide information on how to spot victims, and help them.

A bill pending in Washington's legislature would dramatically increase fines and jail time for those found guilty of human trafficking.

February 16, 2010 | By Michelle Cole, The Oregonian | oregonlive.com

 SALEM -- By a unanimous vote, the Oregon Senate endorsed a bill Tuesday offering district attorneys greater discretion in offering qualified veterans the option of diversion programs, such as treatment, when convicted of certain crimes.

"In some cases, these veterans become involved with the criminal justice system due to their actions, which are directly attributable to post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or some other factor related to combat experience," said Sen. Martha Schrader, D-Canby, in a statement.

Senate Bill 999 would give district attorneys new authority to divert an accused soldier or veteran before a trial and avoid prosecution altogether. The accused would plead guilty and enter a program where charges would be dismissed once the program is complete. Those who fail would face sentencing under existing laws.

The proposed change would not apply to drunken driving, any crime involving a serious injury, or a Class A or B felony in which someone is injured. Veterans with a dishonorable discharge or bad conduct also would be excluded.

The bill now goes to the House for consideration. 
 

FEBRUARY 17, 2010 | BY ALAN GUSTAFSON | statesmanjournal.com

The Oregon House voted Tuesday to suspend Oregon's expanded early-release program for state prison inmates until mid-2011.

House approval of Senate Bill 1007 came on a 37-23 vote. It goes to Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who is expected to sign it into law.

Proponents of the legislation said a 16-month "timeout" will allow the Legislature to fix flaws in a 2009 law that increased the amount of time that inmates could get shaved off their sentences. The original legislation increased inmate "earned time" from 20 percent of the sentence to 30 percent.

In recent months, the expanded early-release program has become a target of criticism from law enforcement leaders and crime-victim advocates, who say that it clogged courts with resentencing hearings, reopened wounds for crime victims and hastened prison departures for thousands of criminals.

The 2009 law was supposed to apply only to inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes, but lawmakers have acknowledged that they mistakenly left serious crimes off the list that disqualified inmates from reduced sentences.

SB 1007 expands the number of crimes ineligible for consideration of the extra earned time, adding about 30 crimes to the list.

The bill also directs the Secretary of State Audits Division to review the earned-time program and issue a report to the Legislature before the suspension of 30 percent earned time ends in July 2011.

During the moratorium on 30 percent earned time, prisoners will be eligible for 20 percent cuts in their sentences.

Legislative debate on SB 1007 largely split along party lines in both the House and the Senate, drawing support from Democrats and opposition from Republicans.

Democrats said the legislation solves "unintended consequences" of the Legislature's 2009 expansion of earned time.

"We listened to those who raised raised legitimate concerns," state Rep. Jeff Barker, D-Aloha, said Tuesday. "This bill ensures that only nonviolent offenders get increased earned time and takes a timeout so we can study the impacts of earned time on our criminal justice system."

House Republicans favored repealing the extra 10 percent earned time and reinstating the maximum 20 percent earned-time law that previously had been in place for 20 years.

"The Attorney General, Oregon State Sheriff's Association, Oregon Chiefs of Police and the District Attorney's Association have begged this institution to repeal this law," said Rep. Tim Freeman, R-Roseburg. "Unfortunately, this plea has fallen on deaf ears in the Legislature."

Rep. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, criticized the planned reinstatement of 30 percent earned time for 2011-13, saying it defies the wishes of Oregonians who favor truth in sentencing.

"Where is truth in sentencing in this state?" she asked. After boosting earned time in 2009, legislators now are amending the law to "save face," Thatcher said.

The 2009 law was designed to save $6 million by pruning incarceration costs in the current budget. Lawmakers allocated the projected savings to other public safety programs.

Since the summer, about 3,520 inmates in Oregon's 14,000-inmate prison system have been approved for accelerated early releases by judges. Their sentences were reduced by an average of 55 days. About 800 other inmates were denied the increased sentence reductions.

SB 1007 "strengthens controls over earned time and gives us an opportunity to continue to review and analyze its effectiveness while we are in this timeout period," said Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland.

Critics of the legislation disagreed.

"The Legislature can't fix the damage that has been done to crime victims by the expansion of the earned time law," said Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany.

February 15, 2010 | thenewspaper.com

Police in Oregon can draw blood from motorists accused of drunk driving without making any attempt to obtain a warrant.

Police in Oregon can draw blood from motorists without the need for a warrant following a Thursday state supreme court decision overturning lower court limitations on the practice. Attorney General John Kroger personally led the fight to remove what he called a "serious barrier" to the state's prosecution of 25,000 driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) arrests each year.

The high court decision came in the case of Thomas Gregory Machuca who had crashed his car in Portland, injuring only himself. After examining the accident scene, a police officer went to the hospital where Machuca had been taken to place him under arrest. After being advised that under the state's implied consent law he would be convicted for refusing to allow his blood to be tested, Machuca agreed to have his blood drawn. The appeals court majority believed that this "consent" had been coerced by the police officer's threat that the punishment for refusing the test would be worse than the consequences for failing the test. The high court dismissed this argument.

"Under settled Oregon law, an accurate statement regarding the lawful consequences that may occur if consent to a legal search is withheld is not coercive with respect to a defendant's decision to allow such a search to take place," Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz wrote, citing the argument of dissenting appeals court judges.

Attorney General Kroger argued that the voluntary consent was entirely unnecessary because the state and federal constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures do not apply to motorists accused of DUI, so there is no need to apply for a warrant. The high court agreed.

"When probable cause to arrest for a crime involving the blood alcohol content of the suspect is combined with the undisputed evanescent nature of alcohol in the blood, those facts are a sufficient basis to conclude that a warrant could not have been obtained without sacrificing that evidence," De Muniz wrote. "It may be true, phenomenologically, that, among such cases, there will be instances in which a warrant could have been both obtained and executed in a timely fashion. The mere possibility, however, that such situations may occur from time to time does not justify ignoring the inescapable fact that, in every such case, evidence is disappearing and minutes count. We therefore declare that, for purposes of the Oregon Constitution, the evanescent nature of a suspect's blood alcohol content is an exigent circumstance that will ordinarily permit a warrantless blood draw of the kind taken here."

Because no warrant is needed, such blood draws are always permitted under the new precedent. Kroger praised this analysis in a statement.

"The decision in State v. Machuca clearly establishes the principle that the constitution does not require a police officer to obtain a warrant for a test to determine blood alcohol content from a DUI suspect," Kroger wrote. "I would like to express my appreciation for the speed with which the supreme court resolved this extremely important case."

A copy of the decision is available at the source link below.

Source: Oregon v. Machuca (Supreme Court of Oregon, 2/11/2010)
 

FEBRUARY 12, 2010 | BY PETER WONG | statesmanjournal.com

Police do not have to obtain search warrants before they can order blood samples drawn from some suspected drunken drivers, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court reversed a Sept. 30 Oregon Court of Appeals decision that could have reshaped how police investigate drunken-driving arrests and enforce the law in Oregon.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Paul De Muniz said the nature of a driver's blood alcohol is a circumstance that allows a drawing of a blood sample without a warrant.

"We do so ... understanding that particular facts may show, in the rare case, that a warrant could have been obtained and executed significantly faster than the actual process otherwise used under the circumstances," De Muniz wrote.

"We anticipate that only in those rare cases will a warrantless blood draw be unconstitutional. Applying the foregoing rule, this is not the rare case."

Attorney General John Kroger, who has been in office 13 months, made his first appearance before the state's highest court Dec. 16 when he argued the state's case.

"Today's decision is a victory for Oregon because it will help ensure that when people drive under the influence and put their neighbors and fellow citizens at risk, they are held accountable," he said in a statement.

Police make about 25,000 drunken-driving arrests annually; about 1,200 involve blood draws.

Oregon and virtually all states have "implied-consent" laws, under which licensed drivers using public roads agree to submit to breath, blood and urine tests — refusal of which can cost them fines or their their licenses. Oregon's law dates to 1965.

Peter Gartlan, chief defender in the Office of Public Defense Services, argued that the law amounted to coercion. He said lawyers found Thursday's decision "disappointing."

"We continue to assert that because blood draws are invasive searches that produce extensive medical information of a personal nature, the Constitution dictates that the decision to draw blood from an individual should be made by a neutral and detached judge, not an arresting officer in the field," Gartlan said in a statement.

"Further, advances in electronic communication over the last 20 years readily enable judges to make a decision on issuing a warrant for the blood draw within minutes without any loss of evidence."

This case involved Thomas Gregory Machuca of West Linn, whose blood was drawn after a June 1, 2005, crash on Portland's Naito Parkway. He failed to persuade a trial judge to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol level. (It was 0.20 percent, above the legal limit of 0.08 percent.) He said it violated his state constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first officer arrived at the crash scene at 1:52 a.m., and Officer Joshua Ladd determined at 2:10 a.m. that there was probable cause for a charge of drunken driving.

Ladd went to Oregon Health & Science University hospital, where Machuca had been taken, and drew Machuca's blood at 3:18 a.m. after reading to him the implied-consent form prepared by the Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division.

Machuca was found guilty, but only after he had served notice that he would challenge the circuit court's denial of his motion to exclude his blood alcohol level as evidence.

The case was argued twice before the Oregon Court of Appeals, which decided Sept. 30 on a 6-4 vote in Machuca's favor.

The Supreme Court did not decide the issue of whether the law was coercive. But De Muniz's opinion said that Machuca was informed of his rights and the legal consequences of a refusal to submit to the blood draw.

"The implied-consent law operated exactly as the Legislature intended," he wrote.

February 10, 2010 | By Guest Columnist | oregonlive.com

Tara Lawrence

It's taken a long time to arrive at any kind of truth in sentencing in Oregon. The state has capped earned time for most prison inmates at 20percent since 1989. That was the year in which a commission led by former Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers determined that 20percent earned time was the best number to encourage good behavior by inmates and ensure public safety.

While the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance agrees with the Myers commission, Attorney General John Kroger, the Oregon District Attorney's Association, the Oregon Police Chief's Association and the Oregon Sheriff's Association are all on record urging the Legislature to adopt a federal early-release standard that would limit Oregon's criminals to receiving a maximum 15percent off their prison sentences.

Kroger points out in a letter he recently sent to state legislators that increasing earned time reduces the deterrent effect of prison and undermines the credibility of Oregon's criminal justice system, which is why he supports reducing earned time to 15percent.

Oregon does not send criminals to prison for petty offenses. According to Oregon's Criminal Justice Commission, only 23percent of Oregon felony convictions result in any kind of prison sentence. So it follows that 77percent of felony convictions in Oregon result in probation or a suspended sentence, not prison time. The felons who Oregon does send to prison are among the most dangerous, violent criminals, sex offenders, repeat property criminals and drug dealers. It makes little sense to grant these dangerous criminals early release to save less than half of a percent of our state budget, especially when you consider the enormous financial and emotional losses suffered by crime victims each year.

According to a National Association of State Budget Officers report on state spending, Oregon spends only 3.3 percent of total state expenditures on corrections. That's average when compared to other states. If our state spending on corrections is average, then the claim that our corrections spending is out of control is flat-out laughable.

It's also misleading to tell Oregonians that we spend more on corrections than higher education. Oregon spends 11.5 percent of total state expenditures on higher education. That's above average nationally. Oregon's general fund does provide a bit more support to corrections than higher education, but that makes sense considering that higher education receives a large amount of other funds and grants simply not available to corrections.

Oregon's corrections costs are average. Our incarceration rate is well below the national average and has held steady for years. Factually, corrections in Oregon is under control in terms of spending and incarceration rates. But if Oregon does not keep dangerous criminals off the streets, our crimes rates will quickly become out of control. Just ask Lane County, which has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, largely because of a lack of will to appropriately fund the local jail and law enforcement.
 
Tara Lawrence is executive director and general counsel of the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance.
 

Feb 10, 2010 | BY DAVID STEVES | registerguard.com

SALEM — After months of criticism of the state’s cost-saving early release of prisoners, the Legislature on Tuesday took the first steps to suspend the program.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that will end until mid-2011 the expansion of “earned time” sentence reductions to 30 percent from 20 percent.

And when the state restarts the program, it will no longer allow a lawbreaker to seek a shorter prison sentence unless it’s been five years since he completed a sentence for a violent crime or other offense that has made him ineligible for early release.

That goes much further than what was originally proposed in a bill before the Legislature when it convened Feb. 1. That bill would have kept the expanded earned-time program, but added to the list of crimes for which an offender would be ineligible for the added 10 percent off his sentence.

Judiciary Committee Chairman and state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said the changes were necessary to address concerns about the original 2009 legislation expanding earned time to 30 percent in order to reduce prison populations and shift saved corrections money to other public safety work. Those concerns included that certain types of crimes, such as assaulting a police officer and fleeing the scene of a vehicular homicide, were eligible for sentence reduction, along with less serious crimes such as drug possession and theft.

Another complaint was that the expanded earned time was available retroactively to those already serving time — and in some instances to prisoners who were eligible for a reduced sentence on a less serious crime, while still serving out a full sentence for violent, sometimes deadly offenses. In a case where a criminal was serving consecutive sentences for both a serious and less serious crime, their total time in prison could be reduced under the sentence reduction plan.

Prozanski, a chief architect of the 2009 legislation, said lawmakers never intended those consequences, especially for “those people who are committing those more heinous crimes” to be given reduced-sentence hearings for second, lower offenses. Many of those hearings proved upsetting to crime victims and their advocates.

“We heard the concerns that were raised after the bill was passed and was being implemented,” Prozanski said. “We’ve heard, we’ve seen, it’s time to fix.”

The most notable element of the new legislation, Senate Bill 1007, is its suspension of the expanded earned time. So far, 3,520 inmates have been granted the additional sentence reductions and judges have denied it for 797 others.

But according to the Department of Corrections, 182 other inmates’ cases are pending approval. They will no longer will be eligible, unless they’ve been approved by the time SB 1007 becomes law. Those whose sentencing for new crimes occurs while the 2009 law is suspended also would lose out on eligibility for the added 10 percent off their sentences.

The bill on Tuesday was referred to the budget- writing Ways and Means panel, so lawmakers can deal with the effect the resulting longer prison terms will have on the budget. Prozanski said the savings from early releases so far have reached about $4 million. If the expanded earned time was in place for all of 2009-11, the savings were expected to total $6 million.

Prozanski said the bill dropping earned time from 30 percent to the previous 20-percent maximum is a “time out” to allow the secretary of state to carry out the bill’s required audit of how well the Department of Correction has followed its “earned time” standards for inmates who have followed rules and worked to better themselves, as well as to determine in Oregon and in states with similar programs whether such practices lead to lower rates of repeated crime, or recidivism.

Shannon Wight, a lobbyist with the sentencing-reform group Partnership for Safety & Justice, said she didn’t think the law needed to be suspended.

“Some incredibly vocal and maybe misleading concerns were raised about the (law),” she said. “To make sure the policy gets a fair shake, some legislators felt they needed to suspend the (law).”

Anti-crime and victims-rights groups have been among the most critical, running recent radio ads criticizing the expanded earned time and lobbying for a full repeal of the policy.

Former Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said he wasn’t satisfied by the changes approved in committee.

“The time out needs to be a permanent time out. It’s that simple,” said Harcleroad, now a lobbyist for the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance.

Steve Doell, head of Oregon-based Crime Victims United, said suspending the expansion of earned time until 2011 allows lawmakers up for re-election to try to avoid some of the campaign punishment they’d otherwise suffer for having pushed through sentence-reduction policies last year.

“This is a temporary political move to get them through an election season,” he said.