BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 239
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 239 (Ammiano)
As Amended August 30, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(May 31, 2011) |SENATE: |38-0 |(September 7, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY : Requires the Crime Laboratory Review Task Force (CLRTF)
to reconvene to prepare a supplemental report, to be submitted to
the Legislature by July 1, 2013, that includes a recommendation
regarding the composition of a statewide body to oversee crime
laboratories, as specified.
The Senate amendments remove the requirement that the office of
the President pro Tempore of the Senate sit on the task force,
and instead requires a representative from the Senate Committee
on Rules and specify that data shall be collected to determine
the root causes of laboratory errors.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to
establish and chair the CLRTF, comprised of representatives
from DOJ, the California Association of Crime Laboratory
Directors; the California Association of Criminalists; the
International Association for Identification; the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors; the Department of the
California Highway Patrol; the California State Sheriffs'
Association, from a department with a crime laboratory; the
California District Attorneys Association, from an office with
a crime laboratory; the California Police Chiefs Association,
from a department with a crime laboratory; the California Peace
Officers' Association; the California Public Defenders
Association; a private criminal defense attorney organization;
the Judicial Council, to be appointed by the Chief Justice; the
Office of the Speaker of the Assembly; the Office of the
President pro Tempore of the Senate; and, two representatives
to be appointed by the Governor.
2)Requires the CLRTF to review and make recommendations as to
AB 239
Page 2
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:
a) 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;
b) 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;
c) 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,
d) 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, and if so, a determination
regarding what entity should serve as the sanctioning body.
3)Requires the CLRTF to seek input from specialized law
AB 239
Page 3
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.
4)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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required the Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force (CLRTF) to reconvene to prepare a
supplemental report, to be submitted to the Legislature by July
1, 2013, that includes a recommendation regarding the composition
of a statewide body to oversee crime laboratories, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provided that the oversight body shall perform the following
tasks:
a) Implement federal legislation or guidelines imposed
directly on crime laboratories or imposed indirectly as a
requirement for receiving a grant;
b) Oversee investigations into acts of misconduct or
negligence committed by any employee or contractor of a
crime laboratory;
c) Collect data generated by investigations in order to
determine the root causes of crime;
d) Identify systemic failures and make recommendations for
preventing future problems;
e) Study methods to facilitate communication between
laboratories and stakeholders and draft guidelines for
disclosure and discovery of crime laboratory documents; and,
f) 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
AB 239
Page 4
equitable manner.
2)Stated that the reporting requirements, as specified, are to be
inoperative by July 1, 2017, and that the report shall be
submitted to the Legislature in compliance with provisions of
the Government Code, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
DOJ to reconvene CLRTF $34 $68 $0 General
CLRTF member Potential state-reimbursable costs
toGeneral
participation local agency participants
Supplemental report Substantial future cost pressure
ifGeneral/Federal
oversight body convened
COMMENTS : According to the author, "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 effects public's perception of the
criminal justice system, but also the numerous people who
potentially might be wrongfully convicted due to serious neglect.
"In a 2007 bi-partisan effort, the Legislature created the CLRTF
to review and make recommendations as to how to improve the
delivery of state and local crime laboratory services for the
future (Pen. Code, Section 1106(c)). In November 2009, the CLRTF
issued an initial report that called for the creation of a state
AB 239
Page 5
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 CLRTF voted
to terminate itself, and consequently a follow up report was
never produced.
"According to the CLRTF'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 just criminal justice system.
California must follow in suit.
"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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0002475