3) Authorizes courts to impose what is known as a "split sentence" on persons convicted of a felony for which any custodial time will be served locally (not in state prison), and where the court imposes a sentence comprised of both time in custody and time subject to what is termed "mandatory supervision" in the community by probation. (Penal Code Section 1170(h).)   
  
This bill:   
  
1) Gives courts the power to authorize a county probation officer to use flash incarceration for any violation of conditions of probation or mandatory supervision if, at the time of granting probation or ordering mandatory supervision, the court obtains from the defendant a waiver to a court hearing prior to the imposition of a period of flash incarceration.   
  
2) Requires that if the person on probation or mandatory supervision does not agree to accept a recommended period of flash incarceration upon a finding of a violation, the probation officer may address the alleged violation by filing a declaration or revocation request with the court.   
  
3) Provides that for purposes of this section, "flash incarceration" is a "period of detention in a county jail due to a violation of an offender's conditions of probation or mandatory supervision. The length of the detention period may range between one and 10 consecutive days. Shorter, but if necessary more frequent, periods of detention for violations of an offender's conditions of probation or mandatory supervision shall appropriately punish an offender while preventing the disruption in a work or home establishment that typically arises from longer periods of detention."   
  
4) Does not apply to defendants subject to Proposition 36 of 2000, as specified.   
  
5) Contains a sunset clause of January 1, 2021.   
  
Background   
  
Two provisions in the "2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" changed the responsibilities of probation. First, realignment provided that some inmates released from state prison would be subject to post release community supervision, performed by probation instead of parole. Second, realignment provided that certain persons convicted of felonies would not go to prison, but instead would be sentenced to local punishment which could include jail time, mandatory community supervision, or both (a "split sentence"). Mandatory supervision as part of a "split sentence" is done by probation.   
  
Realignment authorized both parole and probation to employ "flash incarceration" as an "intermediate sanction" for parole and PRCS violations. This bill extends this sanction to offenders on probation and mandatory supervision.   
  
The sponsor of this bill has provided an example demonstrating that, in some jurisdictions, courts now are including flash incarceration authority in their orders for probation and mandatory supervision through the waiver approach proposed by this bill.   
  
  
SUPPORT  
  
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)   
  
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association   
  
California State Sheriffs' Association   
  
  
OPPOSITION  
  
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice   
  
California Public Defenders Association   
  
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children   
  
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the proponents, this bill gives county probation departments the authority to use flash incarceration for a person on probation or mandatory supervision similar to existing authoring for PRCS offenders. By extending this authority, county probation departments can continue to use this effective, evidence based tool for offenders under their supervision.   
  
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents state that the "usage of flash incarceration is a waste of state resources when those resources could be better served by focusing on rehabilitation programs such as community education, counseling, and reentry services."

Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill.