A convicted child molester, David Allen Funston, was slated for release under California’s Elderly Parole Program but was arrested at about 7:30 a.m. after Placer County filed new charges from a 1996 Roseville case, intervening just hours before his scheduled freedom; the move exposed tensions between parole boards, the governor’s office, and local prosecutors over public safety and the design of the law.

David Allen Funston, 64, was serving three life terms for kidnapping and child molestation when prosecutors in Placer County refiled charges and issued a warrant that led to his transfer to law enforcement custody. He had been scheduled to walk out of prison later that week, but county action stopped that release at the eleventh hour.

California’s Elderly Parole Program allowed Funston to become eligible once he turned 50 and had served at least 20 consecutive years, and the Board of Parole Hearings found him suitable for parole on September 24, 2025. The board heard from Funston, who reportedly told them he was “disgusted and ashamed” of his past behavior and “truly sorry” for the harm he caused, and that was enough for the initial approval.

Gov. Gavin Newsom referred the case for an en banc review on January 9, 2026, and that review on February 18, 2026, again upheld the board’s recommendation. The governor’s referral changed nothing, and the system marched toward releasing a man convicted on three life sentences for crimes against children. The problem here is structural: laws and procedures that treat vastly different offenders the same way.

One victim, identified as Amelia, spoke out with blunt clarity after learning of the impending release, and her words cut through bureaucratic process. “I’m disgusted with the fact that they would even believe anything that he would happen to say.” She said she did not believe “people like that change” and described the long-term damage to her life, including hopes of having a child taken by the crime.

“I don’t believe that people like that change.”

“I would love to have a child, and this is what this man took from me. And I feel like, personally, that’s very hurtful.”

Amelia also shared the ongoing consequences in plain terms: “I have trauma. I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust anything.” Those sentences are a reminder that parole hearings are not just paperwork; they affect flesh-and-blood victims whose lives are altered forever. Yet in this case, the parole board weighed the offender’s remorse more heavily than the victim’s permanent harm.

“I have trauma. I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust anything.”

Local leaders in Sacramento raised alarms as the release loomed. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper and District Attorney Thien Ho warned Funston remained dangerous and urged intervention that never arrived from the state level. It fell to Placer County to act, refiling decades-old charges from the Roseville case and effectively preventing an immediate release.

The reaction from a former prosecutor who helped convict Funston was pointed and unapologetic: “God bless Placer County DA for charging David Funston for crimes committed by this serial child predator.” That praise came with a pointed reminder about the law’s role in the situation: “Let’s remember that @CAgovernor signed the law allowing this to happen. But Placer DA stepped in to stop this insanity.”

“God bless Placer County DA for charging David Funston for crimes committed by this serial child predator.”

“Let’s remember that @CAgovernor signed the law allowing this to happen. But Placer DA stepped in to stop this insanity.”

California GOP Chair Corrin Rankin framed the arrest as proof the system is built in the wrong direction and called out state leaders by name. “This last-minute warrant doesn’t fix the problem — it exposes it. California Democrats, led by Gavin Newsom, built a parole system that was ready and willing to release a violent child predator back into our community. Newsom signed the laws that created these loopholes, appointed the people who uphold them, and the Democratic majority in the legislature continues to prioritize the well-being of criminals over victims.”

Rankin’s point is that a county prosecutor had to race the clock to keep a convicted serial predator behind bars, which is not the same thing as a functioning justice system. The Elderly Parole Program might make sense on paper for some offenders, but it does not differentiate between a nonviolent elderly offender and a 64-year-old with a history of child sexual fantasies according to his victim’s testimony.

The law, in practice, treats those very different risks the same because it was designed to move people out of prison, not to fine-tune community protection against specific predators. That mismatch created a loophole that nearly freed a man convicted of the most serious violent crimes against children.

Placer County’s warrant bought the state time, but it did not change the statutes that allowed this situation to arise. How many cases never produce public outrage, no vocal victim, no sheriff sounding the alarm, and no county DA willing or able to file old charges at the last minute? Those are the real questions the system should answer before the next dangerous offender reaches a parole hearing.

“I was told that he fantasizes still about children… why would you let this man out? When he gets out, how do you not know if he will continue?”

For now, it is unclear when Funston will first appear in court in Placer County, and the statutes that almost freed him remain in force. The arrest highlighted a gap between Sacramento policy decisions and local officials tasked with keeping communities safe, and it exposed a political reality: when the law prioritizes population reduction over nuanced risk assessment, victims can be left to pick up the pieces.