(a)Every inmate who has been convicted for any felony violation of a “registerable sex offense” described in subdivision (c) of Section 290 or any attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses and who is committed to prison and released on parole pursuant to Section 3000 or 3000.1 shall be monitored by a global positioning system for the term of his or her parole, or for the duration or any remaining part thereof, whichever period of time is less.
(b)Any inmate released on parole pursuant to this section shall be required to pay for the costs associated with the monitoring by a global positioning system. However, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall waive any or all of that payment upon a finding of an inability to pay. The department shall consider any remaining amounts the inmate has been ordered to pay in fines, assessments and restitution fines, fees, and orders, and shall give priority to the payment of those items before requiring that the inmate pay for the global positioning monitoring. No inmate shall be denied parole on the basis of his or her inability to pay for those monitoring costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 2007–2012 · leading case:
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 4× “2d 856 (2007); (7) his sentence violated state sentencing law; (8) the “superior court clerk and/or department of corrections” violated his Constitutional rights by “adding to [his] sentence;” (9) California Penal Code § 3000 is vague and unconstitutional; (10) California Penal…”
Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2007).
“5, and requires them to be monitored by a global positioning system (“GPS”) for parole, Cal.Penal Code § 3000.07, and for life, Cal.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 3000.07(a) — 1 case
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
“2d 856 (2007); (7) his sentence violated state sentencing law; (8) the “superior court clerk and/or department of corrections” violated his Constitutional rights by “adding to [his] sentence;” (9) California Penal Code § 3000 is vague and unconstitutional; (10) California Penal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.