California's Parole Rules Let Child Molesters Walk Free. Lawmakers Are Trying to Fix That.

Two Cases, One Pattern

David Allen Funston is 67 years old. In 1995 and 1996, according to prosecutors, he used candy and toys to lure children playing outside in Sacramento-area suburbs into his vehicle, then molested them. He was convicted of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation and sentenced to three consecutive 25-years-to-life terms plus an additional 20 years.

In 2025, California's Board of Parole Hearings found him suitable for release.

Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, was originally sentenced to 355 years-to-life for multiple sexual assaults against young children, also in the Sacramento region. He too was found suitable for parole in 2025, according to CalMatters.

Both men qualified under California's elderly parole statutes, which allow inmates serving life sentences to seek a parole hearing if they are at least 50 years old and have served at least 20 continuous years.

What Happened at the Parole Board

The California Senate voted on June 1 to reconfirm five Board of Parole Hearings commissioners: William Muniz, Michael Ruff, Rosalind Sargent-Burns, Mary Thornton, and Jack Weiss. The votes fell along party lines, according to the LA Times.

Republicans on the Senate floor were vocal about it. Sen. Steven Choi (R-Irvine) said the board "is clearly not doing a good job protecting children and should be replaced." Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) cited a transcript from Funston's parole hearing in which he acknowledged still being attracted to children and described splashing cold water on his face to suppress his urges. "There is not a single person in this chamber who would want this man to be alone with their children or grandchildren," Grove said.

Democrats defended the board by pointing to a 2008 California Supreme Court ruling requiring that parole denials be supported by evidence of a current risk. Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton) said: "Parole decisions must be based on current safety risks, not on the seriousness of the original offense."

Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa) raised a separate procedural objection. Individual commissioners' votes are not made public, even though California law permits disclosure. She said she asked the five commissioners to reveal their records and none complied.

The Legislative Response

Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen of Elk Grove, who represents the district where Funston and Vogelsang committed their offenses, introduced a bill to raise the earliest parole eligibility age for sex offenders with life sentences from 50 to 65. The bill also mandates psychological evaluations through the California Department of State Hospitals, which can commit a person indefinitely if it determines they are a "sexually violent predator." Under current law, that screening applies only to sex offenders NOT serving life sentences, according to CalMatters.

Nguyen did not frame it as an attack on rehabilitation in general. "I think rehabilitation is a thing, people can rehabilitate," she said. "But when you've done things like molested little boys, ages 5 to 11, I just don't know that you can change from that."

The bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee 8-0, according to SierraDailyNews, drawing support from Republican Assemblymember Tom Lackey, who called the current law "a travesty to justice" and "absurd."

The Opposition's Argument

Civil rights and prisoner advocacy groups have pushed back. California's elderly parole program has been effective at reducing an overcrowded prison population without producing the recidivism spike critics predicted. Restricting parole eligibility for one category of offender—even a deeply sympathetic one to restrict—sets a precedent for carving more exceptions into a system that reformers argue works better as a consistent standard. The worry is that each politically charged case creates a new carve-out, eventually gutting a program that, in aggregate, has helped reduce incarceration without obvious public safety costs. This argument does not address what happens when a man who tells a parole board he is still attracted to children gets released under that same system.

Meanwhile, in San Luis Obispo County

Kyle L. Combs, 40, of Grover Beach, was charged with 12 misdemeanor counts of invasion of privacy after allegedly filming nearly 50 women, partially or fully nude, inside tanning booths at a Planet Fitness in Arroyo Grande between July and December of last year. Authorities found more than 50 videos of 47 victims on his phone, according to the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

He is NOT in jail. He cannot be taken into custody because the charges are misdemeanors.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow said it directly. "Under current California law, allegations involving secretly recording multiple nude victims in private tanning booths are generally chargeable only as misdemeanors unless additional circumstances exist." Dow added that if the public believes the conduct should be a felony, "that change must come from the California Legislature."

Since April, eight women have filed civil lawsuits against Combs and Planet Fitness. One suit alleges Combs was caught picking locks on changing room doors. Prosecutors also believe additional incidents occurred outside the statute of limitations.

The Unresolved Question

Nguyen's bill raising the parole eligibility age to 65 cleared committee unanimously, but it still faces full legislative votes and a signature from Governor Gavin Newsom, who has not taken a public position on it as of June 27, 2026. Separately, no bill has been introduced yet to reclassify secret recording of nude individuals as a felony, despite the DA's explicit call for the Legislature to act. Whether either Sacramento chamber moves on that gap—and before another Combs-type case lands—remains an open question.