BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
318 (Calderon)
Hearing Date: 05/18/2009 Amended: 05/05/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
6-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 318 provides mandatory forfeiture procedures
for any property interest acquired through the commission of
dogfighting.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
State Mandated Local Program unknown, potentially significant
costs General
District Attorneys
Mandatory court actions unknown, potentially significant
costs General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
This bill requires an individual being convicted of dogfighting
to be subject to forfeiture of a property interest, whether
tangible or intangible, that was acquired through the commission
of dogfighting. This bill establishes a procedure to be followed
by the district attorney who prosecuted the case, which
specifies that the prosecutor must seek forfeiture or property,
that there must be a court hearing unless all parties agree to
waive it, and that the hearing be decided by a jury (either the
same or a new jury, at the discretion of the court). The
prosecutor is responsible for proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that the property was acquired through the commission of
dogfighting.
Under existing law, all property used to commit a crime is
subject to forfeiture. In cases of dogfighting, this often
includes dogs, cages, training equipment, transport vans, etc.
These items can be sold, upon a conviction. This bill would
require prosecutors to seek additional property that was
obtained by the money made through dogfighting. Often,
dogfighting operations are run by individuals involved in other
criminal activities and/or make money from the crime of
dogfighting. They own property of value that was purchased with
the proceeds of the illegal enterprise.
Currently, prosecutors can and do seek property forfeiture for
certain convicted individuals, under provisions of the law not
specifically related to dogfighting. This makes the process more
difficult for prosecutors, and this bill would streamline the
process for prosecutors who were already planning to seek
forfeiture, which would likely reduce court time and expense.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office report that it
prosecutes approximately 70 cases of dogfighting annually, and
seeks property forfeiture (outside of the property directly
connected with the crime, which is already forfeited) in about
10% of those cases.
Page 2
SB 318 (Calderon)
This bill, however, will likely increase overall court and
prosecution costs, because it requires prosecutors to seek
property forfeiture in every dogfighting conviction. Currently,
prosecutors decide whether or not to pursue property forfeiture
based
primarily on whether or not the property interest in question is
substantial enough to warrant the additional expense. It is
unclear whether all dogfighting cases that resulted in this
additional forfeiture would yield property of enough value to
reimburse the courts for their expenses. Moreover, to the extent
that local district attorneys are not reimbursed for their
expenses, the state could be billed because this bill
constitutes a reimbursable state-imposed local mandate.
Staff recommends to minimize this fiscal impact, that the bill
be amended to provide prosecutors with the option of seeking
forfeiture under these provisions.