BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1060 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 1060 (Roger Hernandez) - As Amended: April 28, 2011 Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 5-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill: 1)Creates special maritime criminal jurisdiction extending to crimes against persons on board a ship outside of California under specified circumstances, including: a) When the suspect is either a California resident or a resident of a state that consents to California jurisdiction. b) When the ship master or flag-state official turns a suspect over to state law enforcement. c) When the state where the crime occurred asks California to exercise jurisdiction. d) When the crime occurs during a voyage where the majority of passengers embarked and intended to disembark in California. e) When the crime constitutes an attempt or a conspiracy to cause a substantial effect in California that is an element of the charged offense. f) When the crime committed is one with respect to which all states could exercise criminal jurisdiction under international law or treaty. 2)Provides that if a crime is punishable under California law, it is punishable in the same way under the special criminal maritime jurisdiction. 3)Creates an affirmative defense when an act was authorized by the ship's master or an officer of the flag state in accord with the laws of that state and international law. AB 1060 Page 2 4)Requires state law enforcement officers and prosecutors not to interfere with federal jurisdiction, the flag state, or a state in whose territory the crime occurs. 5)Creates a series of enforcement limitations on this jurisdiction. 6)Encourages local law enforcement to enter into agreements with the Coast Guard and FBI. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Unknown, potentially significant annual state trial court GF costs to the extent special maritime jurisdiction results in additional court time and trials. For example, 10 trials averaging two weeks, would cost in the range of $400,000. 2)Unknown, annual GF costs to the extent the special jurisdiction results in additional convictions and state prison commitments. Four felony convictions could result in annual GF costs of almost $200,000. 3)Unknown nonreimbursable local law enforcement costs. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . The authors' intent is to provide justice for crimes against persons that occur on cruise ships outside California's three-mile-off-the-coast jurisdiction. The author contends that the federal government does not make these crimes a priority. According to the author, "victims of crimes at sea are not getting justice they deserve. Only a startling few of the cases that are reported are actually ever prosecuted mainly because these crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI, who gives little priority to robberies and sex crimes on cruise ships. In 2008 for example, the FBI released data that indicates that there were only six sentences for any crime that was committed at sea." As noted by the Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis, this bill appears to be modeled on a statute that creates a special maritime criminal jurisdiction for Florida, which was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court when tested over an AB 1060 Page 3 attempted sexual battery and burglary 100 miles off the Florida coast. The cruise ship originated in Florida and returned there. 2)L.A. County currently has an MOU with the federal government for this purpose. 3)Prior Legislation . SB 1582 (Simitian), 2008, required operators of large passenger vessels operating in California to have an ocean range on board to monitor compliance with specified laws. SB 1582 failed passage in Assembly Public Safety. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081