A convicted serial child predator who was hours from walking out of a California state prison remains behind bars after Placer County authorities intervened with a last-minute arrest warrant.
Fox LA reported that David Allen Funston, 64, was transferred directly into law enforcement custody Thursday morning instead of being released into the public.
Funston was convicted in 1999 on 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation involving children under seven years old. He was sentenced to three life terms plus additional decades. He had served roughly 20 years when California's Elderly Parole Program made him eligible for release.
The new warrant stems from a 1996 Roseville case in which Funston allegedly kidnapped and molested a child. He will remain in custody pending his first court appearance on those charges in Placer County.
The Elderly Parole Program, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, lowered the eligibility age from the 60s to 50 and requires only 20 years of continuous incarceration. On September 24, 2025, the Board of Parole Hearings found Funston suitable for parole under this program.
Newsom referred the case back for a full review on January 9, 2026. The board reaffirmed its decision to release him on February 18, 2026. The governor's referral changed nothing.
Anne Marie Schubert, the former prosecutor who originally tried Funston's case, explained why. Under California's constitutional framework, the governor can only reverse a parole grant in murder cases:
"The short answer is no, under the constitutional authorities, he only can reverse a parole grant on a murder case, not on horrible violence, sexual predators, serial rapists."
So the system worked exactly as designed. A man convicted on 16 counts involving the kidnapping and molestation of small children sailed through a parole process that the governor himself was powerless to override, even after he flagged it for review. The board looked at the case twice and said yes both times.
Schubert did not mince words about the program Newsom signed into law:
"You gotta be 62 to get, collect social security. You can't collect your pensions until much, much later. But we're willing to let violent sex offenders out of prison as early as 50 after only 20 years on three life terms? I mean honestly, I think it shocks the conscience of all Californians, with the exception of our parole board, who thought it was okay."
Read that math again. Three life sentences. Sixteen counts. Victims under seven. Twenty years served, and the state of California decided that was enough.
Schubert placed responsibility squarely on the governor:
"I think the governor owns this. I mean, he signed this law. The legislature under the Supreme Court already passed it and for some reason felt that it was an appropriate law to reduce the age."
Newsom signed a law that stripped his own office of the ability to intervene in exactly this kind of case, then found himself unable to intervene in exactly this kind of case. That is not irony. That is policy.
One victim, identified only as Amelia, told "The Ingraham Angle" she was "disgusted" by the board's decision.
"I don't believe that people like that change."
California's parole board apparently disagrees. It looked at a man convicted of serial predation against children and concluded, twice, that he belonged back in the community. The victims learned about it through news coverage and public outcry, not through a system that prioritized their safety.
California GOP Chair Corrin Rankin argued the last-minute warrant exposes the deeper rot:
"California Democrats... built a parole system that was ready and willing to release a violent child predator back into our community."
She's right, and the Funston case is the proof. Consider what had to happen to keep this man locked up:
If Placer County had not acted, Funston would be free right now. The parole system did not fail in this case. It performed precisely as California Democrats built it to perform. The intervention came from outside that system entirely.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and the California District Attorneys Association have since sent a formal letter to the Board of Parole Hearings urging them to rescind the parole grant entirely. Whether the board listens remains an open question. Its track record on this case suggests it won't.
Funston will face new criminal charges related to the 1996 Roseville case. A release date has not been announced. For now, a county arrest warrant is doing the work that three life sentences and a governor's review could not.
This is where California's criminal justice philosophy lands in practice. Not in the abstract debates about rehabilitation and redemption that Sacramento loves to hold, but in the concrete reality of a 64-year-old predator nearly walking free because the state decided 20 years was long enough for crimes against children who hadn't yet reached second grade.
Placer County stepped in. The parole board didn't have to. That tells you everything about which part of California's justice system still works, and which part has decided that protecting children is someone else's job.
