BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 434|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 434
Author: Logue (R)
Amended: 3/29/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 07/05/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 04/11/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : County penalties: forensic laboratories
SOURCE : Yuba County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of
Pat
McGrath, Yuba County District Attorney
DIGEST : This bill allows funds remaining in a countys
DNA Identification Fund to reimburse a regional state crime
laboratory for costs associated with the analysis and
comparison of crime scene DNA with forensic identification
samples.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved
Crime and Innocence Protection Act, an initiative measure,
requires an additional penalty of $1 for every $10 or part
thereof to be levied in each county upon every fine,
penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts
for all criminal offenses, as specified. The act requires
the county board of supervisors to establish in the county
CONTINUED
AB 434
Page
2
treasury a DNA Identification Fund, into which the
collected penalties are to be deposited. The act specifies
the purposes for which funds in the county's DNA
Identification Fund may be used, including to reimburse
local sheriff, police, district attorney, and regional
state crime laboratories for expenditures and
administrative costs made or incurred in connection with
the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA
crime scene samples, as specified. The act provides for
its amendment by the Legislature if the amendments further
the act and are consistent with its purposes to enhance the
use of DNA identification evidence for the purpose of
accurate and expeditious crime solving and exonerating the
innocent.
This bill provides that if authorized by a resolution of
the county board of supervisors, funds remaining in the
county's DNA Identification Fund after distribution under
existing law, may also be used either independently or in
combination with remaining funds from another country, to
provide supplemental funding to a qualified local or
regional state forensic laboratory for expenditures and
administrative costs made or incurred in connection with
the processing, analysis, and comparison of DNA crime scene
samples and forensic identification samples, and testimony
related to that analysis.
This bill provides that the above shall only apply to those
counties that do not have a local public law enforcement
laboratory provided the transfer of funds will not
interfere with the transfer to law enforcement for the
collection of samples.
This bill proves that any supplemental funding provided by
the above shall not be used to supplant funds already
allocated to a qualified local or regional state forensic
laboratory by the state's DNA Identification Fund.
This bill defines a qualified local or regional state
forensic laboratory as a Department of Justice regional
forensic laboratory or a local law enforcement agency
forensic laboratory that meets state and federal
requirement for contributing DNA profiles for inclusion in
California's DNA databank, including the FBI Quality
CONTINUED
AB 434
Page
3
Assurance Standards and accreditation requirements, and
shall be accredited by an organization approved by the
National DNA Index System Procedures Board.
Background
Proposition 69 was passed in November 2004 and made
substantial changes to the laws regarding the CAL-DNA Data
Bank Program. Among these changes is the requirement that
all convicted felons provide DNA samples. This requirement
has created a significant backlog in crime laboratories
throughout California. Proposition 69 also provides how
accredited laboratories are authorized to analyze crime
scene samples. Proposition 69 included an assessment of
one dollar for every ten dollars on every fine, penalty or
forfeiture. This fee was intended to pay for the testing
of the additional DNA samples collected because of the
Proposition. The money collected was to be placed in the
DNA Identification Fund.
Under current law, funds remaining in the county's DNA
Identification Fund shall be used only to reimburse local
sheriff or other law enforcement agencies to collect DNA
specimens, samples, and print impressions, as specified;
for expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred
to comply with specified requirements including the
procurement of equipment and software integral to
confirming that a person qualifies for entry into the
Department of Justice DNA Database and Data Bank Program;
and to local sheriff, police, district attorney, and
regional state crime laboratories for expenditures and
administrative costs made or incurred in connection with
the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA
crime scene samples from cases in which DNA evidence would
be useful in identifying or prosecuting suspects, including
the procurement of equipment and software for the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime
scene samples from unsolved cases.
This bill allows funds remaining in a county's DNA
Identification Fund to reimburse a regional state crime
laboratory for costs associated with the analysis and
comparison of crime scene DNA with forensic identification
samples.
CONTINUED
AB 434
Page
4
Prior Legislation
AB 2009 (Logue) which passed the Senate Floor on consent
(34-0) on 8/9/10 and was vetoed in 2010. This bill allowed
the funds to be used for private labs, as well as the
regional state labs that may be reimbursed in this bill.
The money to the private labs was the focus of the
Governor's veto which stated:
This measure would allow counties to use funds from
their DNA Identification funds to pay for private
laboratories to process DNA samples.
While this measure is well-intentioned, leftover
public funds would be better used to increase local
and state capacity to test DNA rather than diverting
these funds to private laboratories. Moreover, as
noted by the California Association of Crime
Laboratory Directors, this measure could create
additional costs for counties and preclude DNA from
being submitted to the national Combined DNA Index
System.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/6/11)
Yuba County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of Pat McGrath,
Yuba County District Attorney (source)
California Association of Crime Lab Directors
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
California State Association of Counties
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Urban Counties Caucus
California State Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Proposition 69, enacted in 2004, created a fund to
help offset the costs incurred by regulations on the
collection and processing of DNA samples. Prop 69
stipulates that for every $10 of criminal fines
CONTINUED
AB 434
Page
5
collected an additional $1 should be levied; these
revenues are used at the state and local level to help
pay for the collection and processing of DNA samples.
A portion of the revenue is earmarked for countries to
reimburse them for the costs related to DNA
collection, analysis, tracking and processing.
Countries have the option to set up their own DNA lab
using Prop 69 money or to contract with the state
Department of Justice on a case by case basis. The
latter option is selected by counties that do not have
enough Prop 69 funds to cover the expenses of
operating their own lab. However, the DOJ suffers
from a large backlog and counties sometimes wait over
a year for DNA test results. Public Safety depends on
the speedy return of DNA test results, as many crimes
go unsolved or uncharged due to lack of DNA evidence.
AB 434 would allow counties to get around the
backlogged DOJ queue by securing their own DNA lab
technician.
This bill was drafted as a response to the veto of AB
2009 (Logue, 2010) and is the result of negotiations
between the sponsor and representatives of the
Department of Justice and the California Association
of Crime Lab Directors. This will enable counties that
do not have their own DNA crime labs to get DNA tests
done in a shorter time frame than under the current
process of contracting with the DOJ, aiding in solving
of crimes and the prosecution of violent criminals.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 04/11/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto,
Gordon, Grove, Hagman, 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,
CONTINUED
AB 434
Page
6
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Butler, Donnelly, Fletcher, Gorell,
Halderman, Vacancy
RJG:nl 7/6/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED