BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 322
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 322 (Portantino) - As Amended: April 26, 2011
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires local law enforcement to report information
regarding the processing of rape kit evidence to DOJ, and
establishes timeframes for evidence processing. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires that by July 1 of each year, from 2013 to 2017, local
law enforcement agencies must report the following information
to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
a) The number of rape kits received during the preceding
calendar year and the number of kits for which the identity
of the assailant is unknown.
b) The number of kits tested during the preceding calendar
year and the number of kits for which the identity of the
assailant is unknown.
c) The number of rape kits submitted for analysis that
remain untested and, of that figure, the number of kits for
which the identity of the assailant is unknown.
d) The number of untested rape kits in its possession as of
January 1 of the reporting year.
2)Requires law enforcement agencies that collect a rape kit
after July 1, 2012 to submit that kit for testing within 30
business days.
3)Requires DOJ to establish a timeframe for local law
enforcement agencies to submit rape kits collected before July
1, 2012, in order to complete analysis by January 1, 2014.
4)Requires all rape kits submitted to a forensic laboratory
AB 322
Page 2
after July 1, 2012 to be analyzed within six months if
sufficient staffing and resources are available.
5)Requires DOJ, by January 1, 2014, to submit to the governor
and the Legislature an assessment of, and plan for, testing
rape kits pursuant to the requirements of this bill.
6)Requires every law enforcement agency to provide written
notice to the DOJ, By July 1, 2013, stating the number of rape
kits in custody that have not been submitted for analysis.
7)Requires, by January 1, 2014, arrangements between local law
enforcement and DOJ to ensure all rape kits collected prior to
July 1, 2012 have been tested.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant ongoing GF and special fund (DNA Fund) costs,
likely in the range of $3 million, to DOJ to clear rape kit
testing backlogs. (DOJ crime labs service 47 of the state's 58
counties.) Preliminary estimates indicate there may be about
1,000 rape kits that would need to be expedited pursuant to
this bill, at about $2,500 per kit. L.A. County, however,
projects it will clear its backlog by this summer, so ongoing
costs could be considerably less.
2)Significant annual state-reimbursable local law enforcement
costs, likely in the range of $2 million, for statistical
compilation and reporting, and for expedited kit testing.
3)Unknown annual GF costs to the extent this bill results in
convictions and state prison terms that would not otherwise be
achieved without the testing required by this bill. If this
bill results in just two annual convictions with an average of
four years served, the annual cost would be about $350,000 in
four years.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to proponents, one of the biggest
problems facing the criminal justice system today is the
substantial backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples and biological
evidence from crime scenes, especially in sexual assault
cases. A 2009 L.A. City Auditor's report revealed thousands of
rape kits awaiting DNA processing in LAPD evidence lockers.
AB 322
Page 3
Timely analysis of these samples and placement into a DNA
database can avert tragic results.
The author contends that disclosure of how many rape kits have
been collected, tested, shelved or destroyed will pressure law
enforcement agencies to process backlogs.
2)Current law allows a criminal complaint to be filed within one
year of the date on which the identity of the suspect is
conclusively established by DNA testing if the following
conditions are met: a) The alleged offense is a registerable
sex offense, and b) The offense was committed before Jan. 1,
2001 and DNA evidence is analyzed no later than January 1,
2004; or the offense was committed after Jan. 1, 2001 and DNA
is analyzed no later than two years from the date of the
offense.
3)Opposition. The State Sheriffs Association and the Law
Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors, while
supporting the goal of this measure, contend that the cost of
compliance may simply be prohibitive.
"We recognize and share your intent to ensure that rape kits
are analyzed and processed in order to identify and convict
offenders of these heinous crimes. However, doing so by
requiring law enforcement agencies to provide statistics to
DOJ would place significant cost burdens on these agencies in
terms of resources and personnel and consequently, would
inadvertently hamper our abilities to process these kits. It
is for these reasons that the Governor vetoed AB 558, a
similar version of this bill last year.
"Local law enforcement agencies are grappling with significant
budget cuts over the last several years while trying to
maintain critical services. Adding an additional reporting
requirement would divert limited resources away from providing
current services.
"The additional costs associated with this new requirement
would be detrimental to the provision of critical services we
currently provide."
4)This bill appears to reduce law enforcement discretion to
address priority cases. By mandating specific testing
timelines, this bill reduces law enforcement's discretion to
AB 322
Page 4
prioritize the most pressing DNA cases, which include murder
and kidnapping. For example, not all rape cases require
expedited DNA analysis. DOJ has noted that less than five
percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers,
meaning the suspect is often known. As this bill makes no
distinction between cases for which expedited DNA analysis is
crucial, state and local crime labs would be required to
expedite cases that may push more urgent cases down in the
queue.
5)Prior Legislation . AB 558 (Portantino), 2010, which contained
the reporting requirements of AB 322, was vetoed. Gov.
Schwarzenegger stated,
"Unfortunately, while this measure is well-intended, it
continues to ignore the precarious fiscal conditions of
California's crime laboratories. Indeed, as noted by the
California Crime Laboratory Review Task Force in its 2009
report, DNA, fingerprints, and firearms testing have been
identified as areas where requests often exceed staffing
capabilities. The Task Force also noted that in order
toeliminate the backlog for DNA testing, an additional 282
analysts would have to be funded. Unfortunately, AB 558 will
not provide any additional funding or staffing for crime
laboratories and will instead divert resources away from
testing to sending reports to the Department of Justice. In
this time of fiscal crisis, I cannot condone this shift in
priorities."
AB 1017 (Portantino), 2009-10, received a similar veto
message.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081