BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 322 (Portantino)
Hearing Date: 08/25/2011 Amended: 08/15/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 7-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 322 would:
1) Require law enforcement agencies that take or process
rape kit evidence to report specified information
concerning the testing of that evidence to the Department
of Justice (DOJ); and,
2) Create a pilot project, commencing July 1, 2012, in ten
counties to have the DOJ test all rape kits collected after
the start date of the pilot project in those counties to
determine if such testing increases their arrest rates in
rape cases.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Pilot project rape kit $155 to $310 annually to DOJ Special*
testing through June 2015
New convictions Unknown; potentially significant
Generalstate incarceration costs of $50 per
year per felony conviction
*DNA Identification Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
This bill would require each local law enforcement agency
responsible for taking or collecting rape kit evidence to
collect the following information for rape kits collected on or
after January 1, 2012:
1) The total number of rape kits collected during the
preceding calendar year and, of that total, the number of
rape kits for which the identity of the assailant is
unknown;
AB 322 (Portantino)
Page 1
2) The total number of rape kits tested during the
preceding calendar year and, of that total, the number of
rape kits for which the identity of the assailant is
unknown;
3) For rape kits tested during the preceding year for which
the identity of the assailant is unknown, the number of
searchable profiles obtained, the number of offenders
identified, and the number of other criminal cases
associated with that profile; and,
4) The total number of untested rape kits that were not
submitted for DNA analysis in its possession as of January
1 of the reporting year.
This bill requires each local law enforcement agency responsible
for taking or collecting rape kit evidence to report by July 1
of each year from 2013 to 2017 the information collected during
the preceding year to the DOJ. By requiring local law
enforcement agencies to provide a new report to the DOJ, this
bill likely would result in a state-mandated local program. The
potential costs associated with this mandate are unknown, and
would vary by city and county. In addition to great variation in
the number of rape kits among cities and counties, local law
enforcement agencies organize, store, log, and track rape kits
differently. For cities and counties which have their evidence
logs computerized, this bill requires a much smaller task than
for those that do not. Because this bill is prospective, it will
not require as significant a workload impact for local law
enforcement agencies to develop a system of cataloguing this
information in comparison to reporting on existing backlogs.
Although the bill does not require the DOJ to do anything with
the reports, the bill provides that the reports received by the
DOJ are subject to inspection under the California Public
Records Act (PRA). The DOJ estimates additional part-time
staffing needs of approximately $35,000 per year to provide
administrative support and tracking associated with the newly
mandated reports from local agencies. The additional staff would
also be available to respond to PRA requests for this
information.
This bill provides that the DOJ shall establish a pilot project,
commencing July 1, 2012, to open and test all rape kits
collected after the start of the pilot project in the following
ten counties: Alpine, Amador, Colusa, El Dorado, Napa, Nevada,
AB 322 (Portantino)
Page 2
Plumas, Shasta, Tehama, and Tuolumne. The counties chosen for
inclusion have an arrest rate of less than 12 percent for the
crime of forcible rape as reported to the Attorney General's
office for the reporting periods of 2007-2009. The pilot project
shall be inoperative on July 1, 2015, or until all rape kits
collected in the pilot counties during the period July 1, 2012,
through December 31, 2014, are counted.
This bill provides that the DOJ shall, in cooperation with the
pilot project counties, establish a process regarding the
collection, storage and testing of rape kits collected in the
county. Based on statistics submitted to the DOJ for 2007 to
2009 inclusive on the reported number of forcible rapes
committed in the ten pilot counties (878 crimes reported over
three years), approximately 293 rape kits tested per year would
result in an annual cost of $205,000 (assuming $700 per rape
kit). As the DOJ received 71 cases to test in 2009-10, the
provisions of this bill would result in an increase of 222 kits
to test, resulting in additional costs of approximately
$155,000. Given the total number of kits that may be received
for testing under the pilot is expected to be greater than the
number of cases reported, estimated costs could be greater,
possibly twice as high or approximately $310,000 annually. These
costs would be charged against the DNA Identification Fund.
This bill provides that the purpose of this pilot project is to
determine whether counties with the lowest arrest rates in
California for the crime of forcible rape can bring justice to
victims by increasing their arrest rates by having all rape kits
that are collected in the county tested for evidence of crime.
To the extent the testing of rape kits in the pilot counties
results in increased arrests and subsequent convictions that
otherwise would not have occurred in the absence of the testing
required under the provisions of this bill, additional state
incarceration costs of an unknown but potentially significant
amount could result. The annual cost of a new state prison term
is approximately $50,000 per inmate.
Prior Legislation. AB 558 (Portantino) 2010 included local law
enforcement reporting requirements that are nearly identical to
the reporting provisions in this measure and was vetoed by the
Governor with the following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill (AB) 558 without my signature. This
AB 322 (Portantino)
Page 3
bill is similar to AB 1017 (2009), which I also vetoed.
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 to eliminate 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. For these reasons, I am unable to sign
this bill.
The proposed amendments remove the mandated data collection and
reporting provisions of the bill to reduce costs.