BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 239|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 239
Author: Ammiano (D)
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/21/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 5/31/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Crime laboratories: oversight
SOURCE : California Public Defenders Association
DIGEST : This bill reconvenes 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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/30/11 provide that the
oversight body would determine the root cause of crime
laboratory errors.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to establish and chair the Crime Laboratory
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
2
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 Section 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:
1. 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.
2. 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
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
3
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.
3. 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.
4. 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 Section 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 Section
11062(d))
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 Section 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.
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
4
This bill provides that the oversight body shall perform
the following tasks:
1. Implement federal legislation or guidelines imposed
directly on crime laboratories or imposed indirectly as
a requirement for receiving a grant.
2. Oversee investigations into acts of misconduct or
negligence committed by any employee or contractor of a
crime laboratory.
3. Collect data generated by investigations in order to
determine the root causes of crime laboratory errors.
4. Identify systemic failures and make recommendations for
preventing future problems.
5. Study methods to facilitate communication between
laboratories and stakeholders and draft guidelines for
disclosure and discovery of crime laboratory documents.
6. 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:
1. 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.
2. The state is also served by a number of forensic units
housed in local law enforcement agencies.
3. Currently there is no statewide oversight of publicly
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
5
operated crime laboratories in California.
4. 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
DOJ to reconvene $68 $68
$0General
CLRTF
CLTF member Potential state-reimbursable costs
to General
participation local agency participants in excess
of
$100
Supplemental report Substantial future cost
pressure if General/
oversight body convened
Federal
The DOJ indicates one-time costs of over $100,000 over two
years to administer the CLRTF. Costs include temporary
staffing, operating expenses, equipment, and travel costs.
Although not keyed as a reimbursable mandate, by requiring
additional duties upon CLRTF members to provide a
supplemental report could result in state-reimbursable
costs of an unknown amount.
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
6
There may be substantial future cost pressure to implement
the recommendations of the CLRTF, once developed. The
extent of those costs and the agencies that would incur
those costs are unknown at this time but would be
significant, and would be dependent upon the specific
recommendations outlined in the report regarding the
composition of the oversight body and the responsible
entities to complete the tasks required to be performed.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/26/11)
California Public Defenders Association (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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
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
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
7
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
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.
CONTINUED
AB 239
Page
8
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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 5/31/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
RJG:mw 8/31/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED