BILL ANALYSIS SB 408 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 22, 2010 Counsel: Gabriel Caswell ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Tom Ammiano, Chair SB 408 (Padilla) - As Amended: January 26, 2010 SUMMARY : Deletes the existing definition of "body armor" and instead defines "body armor" as "any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the person wearing the armor" for purposes of the prohibition on possession of body armor by persons convicted of a violent felony. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that any person who wears a body vest in the commission or attempted commission of a violent offense, as defined, shall, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or five years. For purposes of this statute, "body vest" means any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the wearer. [Penal Code Section 12022.2(b) and (c).] 2)Provides that any person who has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined, under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, who purchases, owns, or possesses body armor, as defined by Section 942 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations, except as specified below, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years. [Penal Code Section 12370(a).] 3)States that any person whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor, who is subject to the prohibition on possession of body armor due to a prior violent felony conviction, may file a petition with the chief of police or county sheriff of the jurisdiction in which he or she seeks to possess and use the body armor for an exception to this prohibition. The chief of SB 408 Page 2 police or sheriff may reduce or eliminate the prohibition, impose conditions on reduction or elimination of the prohibition, or otherwise grant relief from the prohibition as he or she deems appropriate, based on the following [Penal Code Section 12370(a)]: a) A finding that the petitioner is likely to use body armor in a safe and lawful manner; and, b) A finding that the petitioner has a reasonable need for this type of protection under the circumstances. In making its decision, the chief of police or sheriff shall consider the petitioner's continued employment, the interests of justice, any relevant evidence, and the totality of the circumstances. It is the intent of the Legislature that law enforcement officials exercise broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which relief is warranted. However, this paragraph may not be construed to require law enforcement officials to grant relief to any particular petitioner. Relief from this prohibition does not relieve any other person or entity from any liability that might otherwise be imposed. [Penal Code Section 12370(a).] 4)Defines "body armor," for purposes of Penal Code Section 12370, as "those parts of a complete armor that provide ballistic resistance to the penetration of the test ammunition for which a complete armor is certified." [Title 11 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 942.] 5)Requires that before any body armor may be purchased for use by state peace officers the Department of Justice (DOJ), after consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, shall establish minimum ballistic performance standards, and shall determine that the armor satisfies those standards. Only body armor that meets state requirements for acquisition or purchase shall be eligible for testing for certification under the ballistic performance standards established by DOJ; and only body armor that is certified as acceptable by DOJ shall be purchased for use by state peace officers. [Penal Code Section 12361.] 6)Prohibits, under federal law, a person who has been convicted of a crime of violence from possessing body armor. Similar to SB 408 Page 3 California's Penal Code Section 12370, federal law states that it is an affirmative defense to prove that the defendant had obtained prior written certification from his or her employer, as defined, that the defendant's purchase, use, or possession of body armor was necessary for the safe performance of lawful business activity; and the use and possession by the defendant were limited to the course of such performance. (18 USC Section 931.) 7)Defines, under federal law, "body armor, for purposes of the above prohibition as, "any product sold or offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment." (18 USC Section 921.) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The James Guelff Act was signed into law in 1998. This critically important public safety measure prohibited violent felons from possessing body armor. Passage of this law followed two horrific incidents: "San Francisco police officer James Guelff was killed in 1994 during a gun battle with a car-jacking suspect wearing full body armor. At the end of a 32- minute firefight involving 120 officers, the suspect was finally killed by a San Francisco Police Department sniper. "In 1997, in North Hollywood, two bank robbers covered from head to toe in body armor were able to engage 350 Los Angeles Police Department officers in an hour long gun battle. The body armor the robbers were using could not be penetrated by the officers' handguns or shotguns. The bullets simply bounced off of them. It was not until additional officers arrived with higher caliber guns that the suspects were finally stopped. Tragically, 11 police officers and 6 civilians were wounded. "On December 17th, 2009 the California Second District Court of Appeals ruled that the James Guelff Act was unconstitutionally SB 408 Page 4 vague. They stated that the definition of body armor in the law was too confusing for the average citizen to understand. "SB 408 addresses the decision of the court by clarifying the definition of body armor. The language in the bill is the same as the definition used the section 12022.2 (b) of the Penal Code. "I'm carrying SB 408 to once again make it illegal for violent felons to own bullet-proof vests and body armor. This bill has strong support throughout the law enforcement community who believe that this is a significant tool in protecting the safety of peace officers in the line of duty." 2)Redefining Body Armor : Under current law, any person who has been convicted of a violent felony is prohibited from owning or possessing body armor. [Penal Code 12370(a).] "Body armor" is defined in that statute by reference to Title 11 of CCR Section 942 and reads, "Those parts of a complete armor that provide ballistic resistance to the penetration of the test ammunition for which a complete armor is certified." A similar statute also prohibits wearing a "body vest" in the commission or attempted commission of a violent offense. [Penal Code Section 12022.2(b) and (c).] That statute, by contrast, defines a "body vest" as "any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the wearer." This bill changes the definition of "body armor" contained in Penal Code Section 12370 to conform to the definition of "body vest" contained in Penal Code Section 12022.2. 3)Penal Code Section 12370 Has Been Found Unconstitutional : On December 17, 2009, the Second District Court of Appeal held in People v. Saleem, 180 Cal.App.4th 254 (2009) that Penal Code Section 12370 is unconstitutionally vague and that statute is, therefore, invalid at this time unless, or until, a higher court stays or overturns that decision. The basis of the decision was that "only an expert would know if any particular protective body vest was proscribed by section 12370." (Saleem, supra.) This bill is in response to the Saleem decision and is intended to reinstate the prohibition on violent felons owning body armor. SB 408 Page 5 4)People vs. Rodriquez : In February 2008, the California Fourth District Appellate Court, in an unpublished opinion, overturned a Penal Code Section 12370 conviction for possession of "body armor" by a person convicted of a violent felony due to lack of evidence that the body armor "was certified to "provide ballistic resistance to the penetration of test ammunition." [People v. Rodriguez 2008 WL 544295, 4 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.).] Certification would have required extensive testing of the armor, which would have to meet the body armor standards defined in CCR Sections 941 and 942. When defining "body armor," Penal Code Section 12370 currently references CCR Sections 941 and 942, which was intended to define "body armor" certification for purchase and use by law enforcement. Uncertified but otherwise effective body armor is not currently illegal for ownership by a person convicted of a violent felony. 5)Certified Body Armor : Penal Code Section 12360, et seq., requires that before any body armor is provided to peace officers in California, it must be certified by DOJ as meeting certain standards. The definition of body armor contained in the CCR is part of the regulatory scheme which implements the certification requirements set forth in Penal Code Sections 12360, et seq. By utilizing this definition, Penal Code Section 12370(a) therefore prohibited persons with violent felony convictions from possessing law enforcement-grade body armor but not all material that might be considered by a lay person as body armor. As the Saleem Court stated, "The body armor proscribed by section 12370 is not just any garment popularly known as a bulletproof vest. Given the detailed technical specifications spelled out in the Code of Regulations, and specifically referenced by section 12370, the proscribed body armor must be some subset of the category garments popularly called bulletproof vests." (People v. Saleem, supra.) Therefore, redefining "body armor" in Penal Code Section 12370(a) as "any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the person wearing the body armor" as this bill proposes broadens the definition of what is illegal to possess for a person with a violent felony conviction beyond that which was prohibited by Penal Code Section 12370. SB 408 Page 6 6)Existing Federal Law Prohibits This Conduct : As noted above, apart from the statute, this bill reinstates that wearing body armor in the commission or attempted commission of a violent crime subjects the wearer to a sentence enhancement of an additional one, two, or five years in state prison. (Penal Code Section 12022.2.) The subject of this bill is the possession of body armor by a person with a violent felony conviction, apart from its use to commit a crime. Although the California statute which prohibits possession of body armor by these felons is currently invalid, the same conduct is still prohibited under federal law. (18 USC Section 931.) The penalty is up to three years in federal prison. [18 USC Section 924(a)(7).] 7)Argument in Support : The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office states, "[t]he law was recently found to be unconstitutional due to a flaw in the definition of 'body armor'. SB 408 corrects the constitutional defect and restores this vital public safety protection. "Unless this bill is adopted by the Legislature and signed into law, it will be legal for violent felons to possess and wear body armor in California. We believe that there is a very real possibility that a peace officer or member of the public will be killed or seriously injured unless the ban on body armor for violent felons is reinstated. "The California Legislature enacted Penal Code Section 12370 in 1998, as a response to several incidents in which violent felons possessed body armor during confrontations with law enforcement, including the murder of San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff by a felon wearing body armor. Over 120 police officers were held over a half an hour. In a North Hollywood bank robbery, two criminals wearing body armor held off 350 police officers during a gun battle that lasted an entire hour. "Violent felons who possess body armor represent a serious threat not only to law enforcement officers by to the general public as well. SB 408 will help protect the lives of law enforcement officers and citizens by making it unlawful to again in California for violent felons to possess body armor." SB 408 Page 7 8)Related Legislation: AB 960 (V. Manual Perez) amends the definition of "body armor" for the purposes of streamlining the prosecution of persons previously convicted of a violent felony from owning or possessing body armor. AB 960 is pending hearing by the Senate Public Safety Committee. 9)Prior Legislation : AB 1707 (Wildman), Chapter 297, Statutes of 1998, made it a felony for any person convicted of a violent felony to possess body armor. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Attorney General of California California Association of Highway Patrolmen California Correctional Peace Officers Association California District Attorneys Association California Highway Patrol California Narcotic Officers Association California Peace Officers Association California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriffs' Association City of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles District Attorney's Office of San Francisco Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (sponsor) Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Los Angeles Police Protective League Orange County Employees Association Peace Officers Research Association of California Riverside Sheriffs' Association San Bernardino Sheriff's Department San Diego County District Attorney's Office San Diego Police Officers Association San Francisco Police Department Opposition None Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 SB 408 Page 8