March 9, 1995
When I answered your questions in writing, and spoke with you over the telephone, I indicated I felt you were biased placing your own slant on the story, "Archie's arrest out UPD's Hands" (Gater, March 7).
I was right!
I will reiterate the law, one more time. Had you printed the law it would have balanced the story.
As I indicated to you previously, the statewide CLETS (The California Law Enforcement Teletype System) printout contained written direction to contact a parole officer. California Penal Code Section 3081 provides direction for police officers as follows:
(c) The written order of each County Board shall be a sufficient warrant for all officers named therein to authorize them, or any of them, to return to actual custody any conditionally released or paroled prisoner. All chiefs of police, constables, and other police or peace officers of the state shall execute any such order in like manner as ordinary criminal process.
Likewise, Ron Lam was acting pursuant to the California Penal Code.
Also, attached is a Department of Justice Information Bulletin which outlines the process for contacting parole. Note on the second page, that contact is "essential."
According to James Wagstaffe, lawyer for the Golden Gater, P.C. 3081(c) does not deal with communication to parole agents, but deals with the criminal process. It "authorizes" police to arrest a parolee if so ordered by a parole board.
"It says to treat an 'order' to arrest, as a 'warrant' for arrest," Wagstaffe said.
Regional Parole Director Ron Chun said there was no such order in Archie's case.
Wible attached to her letter a bulletin introducing a new, on-line index (available to police departments) to track subjects on parole or probation, sex offenders, arsonist, and career criminals called the Supervised Release File (SRF). It states: "For the SRF to be effective..." contacting "the originator of record is essential." The bulletin does not state that contact is legally required.