BILL ANALYSIS SB 408 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 408 (Padilla) - As Amended: January 26, 2010 Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote: 7-0 Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill clarifies the definition of body armor, for purposes of prosecuting persons with a prior conviction for a violent felony who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing body armor, by deleting the current definition of body armor in this section, defined as "ballistic resistance to the penetration of the test ammunition for which a complete armor is certified," and defining body armor as armor made from any bullet resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the wearer. FISCAL EFFECT Potential for minor state incarceration costs, to the extent this clarification results in additional state prison commitments. Over the past two years, eight persons have been committed to state prison for this offense. It is unlikely this measure will significantly increase these figures. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . Current law makes it a felony, punishable by 16 months, 2, or 3 years in state prison for any person with a conviction for a violent felony to purchase or possess body armor. Current law, however, does not explicitly define body armor but references a definition in the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Proponents (law enforcement) contend this definition can be problematic because the relevant CCR Section establishes a standard intended for use by police agencies buying body armor, not for prosecution. SB 408 Page 2 Proponents cite two appellate court decisions: a) A February 2008 California Fourth District Appellate Court opinion that overturned a 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." Certification requires testing of the armor, which has to meet the body armor standards defined in the CCR. b) A December 2009 California Second District Court of Appeal held Penal Code Section 12370 is unconstitutionally vague and that statute is therefore invalid. The basis of the decision was that "only an expert would know if any particular protective body vest was proscribed by section 12370." According to the author, "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)Support . According to the L.A. D.A.'s Office, "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." 3)Related Legislation . AB 960 (V. M. Perez) is similar and pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee. The authors have agreed on SB 408 as the vehicle for the fix, and Mr. Perez is a co-author of SB 408. SB 408 Page 3 Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081