BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
3
9
AB 239 (Ammiano)
As Amended April 27, 2011
Hearing date: June 21, 2011
Penal Code
MK:mc
CRIME LABORATORIES: OVERSIGHT
HISTORY
Source: California Public Defenders Association
Prior Legislation: AB 1079 (Richardson) - Chapter 405, Stats.
2007
Support: Unknown
Opposition:Sheriff-Coroner of San Bernardino County
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 79 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE CRIME LABORATORY REVIEW TASK FORCE BE RECONVENED TO
SUBMIT A REPORT MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING A STATEWIDE
OVERSIGHT BODY TO OVERSEE AND PERFORM TASKS RELATING TO CRIME
LABORATORIES IN CALIFORNIA?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to reconvene the Crime Laboratory
Review Task Force to make recommendations regarding a statewide
oversight body and to perform specified tasks relating to crime
laboratories in California.
Existing law requires the California Department of Justice (DOJ)
to establish and chair the Crime Laboratory Review Task Force
(CLRTF), comprising of representatives from DOJ, the California
Association of Crime Laboratory Directors; California
Association of Criminalists; International Association for
Identification; American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors;
Department of the California Highway Patrol; California State
Sheriffs' Association, from a department with a crime
laboratory; California District Attorneys Association, from an
office with a crime laboratory; California Police Chiefs
Association, from a department with a crime laboratory;
California Peace Officers' Association; California Public
Defenders Association; a private criminal defense attorney
organization; the Judicial Council, to be appointed by the Chief
Justice; Office of the Speaker of the Assembly; Office of the
President pro Tempore of the Senate; and two representatives to
be appointed by the Governor. (Penal Code § 11062(a) and (b).)
Existing law requires the CLRTF to review and make
recommendations as to best configure, fund, and improve the
delivery of state and local crime laboratory services in the
future. To the extent feasible, the review and recommendations
shall include, but are not limited to, the following issues:
With respect to organization and management of crime
laboratory services, consideration of whether the
existing mix of state and local crime laboratories is
the most effective and efficient means to meet
California's future needs; whether laboratories should
be further consolidated, and who should have oversight;
if some management for some laboratories should be
transferred; whether all laboratories should provide
similar services; and how other states have addressed
similar issues;
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 3
With respect to staff and training, consideration of
how to address recruiting and retention problems of
laboratory staff; whether educational and training
opportunities are adequate to supply the needs of fully
trained forensic criminalists in the future; whether
continuing education is available to ensure that
forensic science personnel are up to date in their
field of expertise; if crime laboratory personnel
should be certified and if so, the appropriate agency
to assume this responsibility; and the future
educational role if any for the University of
California or the California State University;
With respect to funding, consideration of whether
the current method of funding laboratories is
predictable, stable and adequate to meet future growth
demands and to provide timely and accurate testing
results; and, the adequacy of salary structures to
attract and retain competent analyst and examiners;
and,
With respect to performance standards and equipment,
consideration of whether workload demands are being
prioritized properly and whether there are important
workload issues not being addressed; if existing
laboratories have necessary capabilities, staffing and
equipment; and if statewide standards should be
developed for the accreditation of forensic
laboratories, including minimum staffing levels; if so,
a determination regarding what entity should serve as
the sanctioning body. (Penal Code § 11062(c).):
Existing law requires the CLRTF to seek input from specialized
law enforcement disciplines, other state and local agencies,
relevant advocacy groups, and the public. The final report also
shall include a complete inventory of existing California crime
laboratories. This inventory shall contain sufficient details
on staffing, workload, budget, major instrumentation, and
organizational placement within the controlling agency. (Penal
Code § 11062(d).)
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 4
Existing law requires the CLRTF to submit a final report of its
findings to the Department of Finance and the Budget and Public
Safety Committees of both houses of the Legislature.
(Penal Code § 11062(f).)
This bill requires CLRTF to reconvene to prepare a supplemental
report by July 1, 2013, which includes recommendations regarding
the composition of a statewide body to oversee crime
laboratories.
This bill provides that the oversight body shall perform the
following tasks:
Implement federal legislation or guidelines imposed
directly on crime laboratories or imposed indirectly as
a requirement for receiving a grant;
Oversee investigations into acts of misconduct or
negligence committed by any employee or contractor of a
crime laboratory;
Collect data generated by investigations in order to
determine the root causes of crime;
Identify systemic failures and make recommendations
for preventing future problems;
Study methods to facilitate communication between
laboratories and stakeholders and draft guidelines for
disclosure and discovery of crime laboratory documents;
and,
Make recommendations to the Legislature and local
governmental entities regarding the allocation of
resources to crime laboratories throughout the state to
ensure that taxpayers' funds are maximized and
distributed in a more equitable manner.
This bill states that the reporting requirements, as specified,
are to be inoperative by July 1, 2017, and the report shall be
submitted to the Legislature in compliance with provisions of
the Government Code, as specified.
This bill makes the following declarations:
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 5
The State of California has benefited from having a
large number of publicly operated crime laboratories,
some operated by the state and others by local
government.
The state is also served by a number of forensic
units housed in local law enforcement agencies.
Currently there is no statewide oversight of
publicly operated crime laboratories in California.
The Crime Laboratory Review Task Force was
established by the Department of Justice and made
recommendations to the Department of Finance and the
Legislature regarding the role a statewide oversight
body would play in California. The task force did not,
however, make a recommendation regarding the
composition of that oversight body.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 6
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Criminal laboratories play an integral role in the
criminal justice system, however cases of serious
misconduct, neglect, and poor practices cast doubt and
mistrust in criminal cases and the justice system. AB
239 seeks to address the critical need of statewide
crime laboratory oversight in California to ensure that
all criminal cases are handled fairly and appropriately.
In 2010, San Francisco's criminal laboratory was hit
with a scandal involving stolen drug evidence,
contaminated DNA samples, destroyed records, and sample
switching. This scandal alone prompted hundreds of
narcotics cases to be thrown out or not charged because
of possible evidence tampering, and the review of over
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 7
1,400 more for possible dismissal.
While the charges of misconduct are shocking, they are
not unique to San Francisco. In recent years,
laboratories in Santa Clara and the Central Valley have
had similar problems of stolen drug evidence, and
misconduct. These cases raise serious red flags about
the management, and integrity of criminal laboratories,
which not only affects public perception of the criminal
justice system, but also the numerous people who
potentially might be wrongfully convicted due to serious
neglect.
AB 239 seeks to not only improve California's criminal
justice system through an increased dialogue, but also
garner public trust. By reinstating the Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force, experts from the criminal
justice, forensics, and law enforcement fields will have
a voice in reviewing and making recommendations as to
how to improve state and local crime laboratory services
through the creation of a supplemental report that
includes a proposal to establish a statewide body to
oversee crime laboratories.
Specifically, AB 239 provides the California Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force be reconvened for the sole
purpose of making recommendations by July 1, 2013, on
how to best configure a state-wide oversight body whose
responsibilities will include but not be limited to (1)
implementing federal legislation and/or guidelines
imposed directly on crime labs or indirectly as a
requirement of accepting a grant; (2) oversee
investigations into acts of misconduct or negligence;
(3) collect data generated by investigations in order to
determine root causes of misconduct or negligence; (4)
identify systemic failures and make recommendations for
preventing future problems (5) study means to facilitate
communication between labs and stakeholders and draft
guidelines for disclosure and discovery of crime lab
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 8
documents; and (6) make recommendations to the State
Legislature and local governments regarding the
allocation of resources to crime laboratories throughout
the state to ensure that taxpayers' funds are not wasted
and are distributed in a more equitable manner.
In a 2007 bi-partisan effort, the Legislature created
the California Crime Laboratory Review Task Force to
review and make recommendations as to how to improve the
delivery of state and local crime laboratory services
for the future. (Pen. Code
§ 1106(c).) In November 2009, the Task Force issued an
initial report that called for the creation of a state
oversight or advisory body to review forensic science
and crime laboratory issues, and that the specifics of
this proposal, including the composition and functions
of this body, would be described in a supplemental
report published in one year of the initial report.
Despite the growing problems in San Francisco, Santa
Clara and San Joaquin Counties' crime labs, the Task
Force voted to terminate itself. Consequently, a follow
up report was never produced.
According to the Task Force's initial report, states
across the nation, as many as 16 such as New York,
Texas, Washington State, have created an entity charged
with some degree of oversight responsibility over crime
laboratories. While the scope of these entities ranges
from make up to the purpose, they all are concerned
about the challenges facing crime laboratories, and
believe that crime laboratory oversight is essential in
creating high quality forensics testing and a just
criminal justice system. California must follow in suit.
2. Background
AB 1079 (Richardson), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2007, established
the California Crime Laboratory Review Task Force to review and
make recommendations on how to improve the delivery of state and
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 9
local crime laboratory services in California. After issuing a
report, the Task Force disbanded before making recommendations
on an ongoing oversight body:
ÝO]n June 3, 2010, a seemingly inexplicable thing
happened. In the midst of the scandal in San
Francisco that illustrates the importance of its work,
certain members of the task force suddenly voted to
disband. This is particularly surprising given that
the task force itself, in a report issued only last
November, called for the creation of a state oversight
or advisory body to review forensic science issues and
was authorized to continue deliberations up to one
year (commencing in February 2010) regarding what type
of advisory body would best meet the state's needs.
Having neither completed this review nor issued any
recommendations, the task force, by a majority vote,
effectively terminated itself.
The demise of the task force comes just over a year
after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel
issued a scathing report for the overhaul of forensic
science in the United States. The NAS report found
that the entire disciplines of forensic sciences rest
on deficient scientific foundations; that procedures
routinely used for interpretation are lacking in
rigor; that analysts routinely take inadequate
measures to avoid error and bias; and that testimony
is offered with unwarranted certainty. The NAS report
found that these problems are systemic-rooted in the
institutional structure of forensic science-and
therefore called for sweeping changes in how forensic
science is administered. The NAS report cited growing
evidence that forensic science has contributed to
wrongful arrests and convictions. There is no question
that crime laboratories in California routinely engage
in the very practices that NAS has challenged and that
forensic scientists in California routinely testify in
ways that NAS has condemned. As California's crime
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 10
labs struggle to address these longstanding problems,
the need for advice and guidance is palpable.
(Thompson, William and Friedman, Jennifer, "Statewide
Oversight of Forensic Science Needed in California"
Daily Journal, Perspective June 22, 2010.)
The need for continued oversight and the ability to address
continued problems by an oversight body or some other group that
is made up of a balanced representation of scientists, lawyers,
law enforcement and forensic science administrators was also
expressed in a letter by four of the members of the Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force, who did not vote to disband the
Task Force, as well as by a letter from the Attorney General
representative to the Task Force.
(More)
3. Report by the California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice
The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
was established by California State Senate Resolution No. 44,
"to study and review the administration of criminal justice in
California, determine the extent to which that process has
failed in the past, examine safeguards and improvements, and
recommend proposals to further ensure that the administration of
criminal justice in California is fair, just, and accurate."
In a February 20, 2007, report the Commission made a number of
recommendations to address the problem of DNA testing backlogs,
as well as other problems in California. These included:
The DOJ should immediately ascertain the staffing
levels required for the State Laboratory to reduce the
backlog in DNA profiles to 30 days or less both now and
when the future demands of Proposition 69 take effect.
Emergency budget appropriations should be
immediately introduced to provide state funding to
staff the State Laboratory at the levels ascertained
pursuant to the first recommendation.
The California Attorney General should immediately
commence consultation with state and local public
laboratories, criminalists, law enforcement,
prosecutor's offices, public defenders and private
defense lawyers, victim representatives and judges to
address the problems of DNA forensic technology
resources in California. The following concerns should
be urgently addressed:
o Identify the nature and scope of current
capacity problems, backlogs of unprocessed
evidence and systems issues that impede
utilization of DNA forensic technology to its
fullest potential;
o Identify the best practices that enhance
collection and timely processing of DNA evidence
to meet the needs of the criminal justice system;
(More)
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 12
o Make recommendations for eliminating the
current backlogs and preventing future backlogs of
unprocessed evidence in state and local public
laboratories;
o Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness
of the current organization of resources in the
State of California, to determine what strategies
and systems will most effectively serve the needs
of California;
o Recommend strategies for training and
educational programs to address the shortages of
trained personnel to meet the staffing needs of
crime labs;
o Assess the impact of 'cold hits' upon
local investigative, prosecution and defense
resources; and,
o Report to the Legislature and the Governor
regarding the legislative or administrative steps
that must be taken to ensure timely processing of
evidence in California's criminal justice system.
The Legislature and the Governor should provide
adequate support to quickly respond to the needs
identified by the Attorney General.
(http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/problems/officia
l/Report%20on%20DNA%20Backlogs.pdf)
4. Further Statewide Oversight
This bill reconvenes the Criminal Laboratory Review Task Force
so that the Task Force can create a supplemental report to make
recommendations regarding the composition of a statewide
oversight body to oversee crime labs and perform specified tasks
including implementing federal legislation and guidelines in
order to be eligible for federal grants; collet data to
determine root causes of crimes; identify systemic failures in
crime labs in order to make recommendations to fix the problems
and make recommendations to legislative bodies regarding the
allocation of lab resources.
AB 239 (Ammiano)
Page 13
SHOULD THE CRIMINAL LABORATORY REVIEW TASK FORCE BE RECONVENED
TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AN OVERSIGHT BODY, AS WELL AS
OTHER TASKS?
5. California Association of Criminalists
The California Association of Criminalists recommends that this
bill be amended to allow the Task Force "to make recommendations
regarding both the functions and composition of a statewide body
dealing with forensic issues."
6. Technical Amendment
The appointment on page 3, line 4, by the President pro Tempore
of the Senate needs to read instead, "The Senate Rules
Committee."
***************