BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 47 (Gatto) - Emergency services: hit and run incidents.
Amended: July 1, 2014 Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 47 would create a "Yellow Alert" system to
issue and coordinate alerts following a serious hit and run
incident to aid in the apprehension of a suspect, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Potential one-time costs of about $100,000 (Special Fund*)
to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop policies
and procedures, provide training, and develop resource
materials for staff and law enforcement agencies for the new
alert.
Potential first-year costs of $500,000 (Special Fund*) and
ongoing costs of $340,000 to the CHP to confirm information,
as well as activate and staff Yellow Alerts upon request of
local law enforcement agencies. Costs would be dependent on
the volume of hit and run accidents triggering Yellow Alert
activation requests.
Non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs to determine
whether to request activation of a Yellow Alert.
Unknown, potential indirect cost pressure on the Emergency
Digital Information System (EDIS) message system to the
extent there are a significant number of Yellow Alert
activations, thereby increasing the volume of EDIS messages
generated.
*Motor Vehicle Account
Background: Existing law provides that if a law enforcement
agency determines that a child, 17 years of age or younger, or
an individual with a proven mental or physical disability has
been abducted and is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury
or death, and there is information available that, if
disseminated to the general public, could assist in the safe
recovery of the victim, the agency shall request the activation
of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) within the appropriate local
AB 47 (Gatto)
Page 1
area, commonly known as the "Amber Alert." (Government Code (GC)
§ 8594(a).)
Existing law defines "Blue Alert" to mean a quick response
system designed to issue and coordinate alerts following an
attack upon a law enforcement officer and provides that upon the
request of a law enforcement agency that is investigating an
offense where a law enforcement officer has been killed, suffers
serious bodily injury, or is assaulted with a deadly weapon; the
suspect has fled the scene of the offense and is determined an
imminent threat to the public or others; a detailed description
of the suspect's vehicle or license plate is available; and
public dissemination of available information may help avert
further harm or accelerate apprehension of the suspect, then the
CHP shall activate the EAS and issue a Blue Alert, as specified.
(GC 8594.5(b).)
Existing law provides that the Blue Alert incorporate a variety
of notification resources and developing technologies that may
be tailored to the circumstances and geography of the underlying
attacking. The Blue Alert system must utilize the
state-controlled Emergency Digital Information System, local
digital signs, focused text, or other technologies, as
appropriate. (GC § 8594.5(c).)
Existing law defines "Silver Alert" to mean a notification
system designed to issue and coordinate alerts with respect to a
person reported missing who is 65 years of age or older, and
provides that when a person 65 years of age or older is reported
missing under unexplained or suspicious circumstances and the
investigating law enforcement agency determines that person is
in potential danger, as specified, the law enforcement agency
must request that CHP activate a Silver Alert if disseminating
information to the public could assist in the safe recovery of
the missing person. (GC § 8594.10(c).)
Proposed Law: This bill would define "Yellow Alert" to mean, "a
notification system designed to issue and coordinate alerts with
respect to a hit and run incident resulting in the death or
injury of a person." This bill would:
Authorize an investigating law enforcement agency to
request that CHP activate a Yellow Alert if the law
enforcement agency determines that the following conditions
are met:
o A person has been killed or has suffered
AB 47 (Gatto)
Page 2
serious bodily injury due to a hit and run incident.
o The investigating law enforcement agency has
additional information concerning the suspect or the
suspect's vehicle, including, but not limited to, any
of the following:
§ The complete license plate number of
the suspect's vehicle.
§ A partial license plate number and
the make, model, and color of the suspect's
vehicle.
§ The identity of the suspect.
o Public dissemination of available information
could either help avert further harm or accelerate
apprehension of the suspect.
Require CHP, if CHP concurs that the requirements above
are met, to activate a Yellow Alert within the geographic
area requested by the investigating law enforcement agency.
Upon activating a Yellow Alert, CHP will issue a
be-on-the-lookout alert, an Emergency Digital Information
Service message, local digital sign, or an electronic flyer
to assist the investigating law enforcement agency.
Encourage radio, television, and cable and satellite
systems to cooperate in disseminating information contained
in a Yellow Alert.
Related Legislation: SB 1047 (Alquist) Chapter 651/2012
authorized a law enforcement agency to request that the CHP
activate a "Silver Alert" if a person 65 years of age or older
is missing under specified conditions.
SB 839 (Runner) Chapter 311/2010 established the "Blue Alert"
system similar to the Amber Alert system to notify the public
when a law enforcement officer has been attacked, as specified.
SB 38 (Alquist) 2009 would have required the CHP in consultation
with local law enforcement officials, to develop a uniform
system for addressing situations involving missing persons who
are elderly and have an impaired mental state. This bill was
held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations.
AB 415 (Runner) Chapter 517/2002 required the CHP, in
consultation with the Department of Justice and other
stakeholders, to develop policies and procedures providing
instruction specifying how law enforcement agencies,
AB 47 (Gatto)
Page 3
broadcasters, and other intermediate emergency services agencies
that may institute activation of the EAS and other supplemental
warning systems, to proceed after a qualifying abduction has
been reported to a law enforcement agency.
Staff Comments: The CHP's Emergency Notification and Tactical
Alert Center (ENTAC) was created as a result of the
implementation of the AMBER Alert system in August of 2002 and
utilizes one full-time sergeant and two full-time officers to
manage the program. The ENTAC is responsible for the activation
of AMBER Alerts, Silver Alerts, and Blue Alerts. Since the
inception of the AMBER Alert in 2002, there have been 228
activations (152 in 2012, 80 in 2014). Additionally, since its
implementation in January 1, 2013, there have been 232 Silver
Alert activations. There have been only five Blue Alert
activations since 2011. The CHP has indicated that ENTAC
staffing has not been increased as a result of the additional
Silver Alert and Blue Alert activations.
It is unknown how many potential Yellow Alerts will be requested
by law enforcement and ultimately activated by the CHP. Data
from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System indicates
over 10,000 hit and run traffic collisions resulting in injury
or death every year in California. While the data does not
indicate the degree of injury sustained by victims in the
collisions, about two percent of hit and run collisions resulted
in death. To the extent the actual number of Yellow Alerts will
be a small percentage of the total collisions annually, assuming
two to five percent of the hit and run collisions resulting in
death or injury would meet the specified criteria for Yellow
Alert activation would result in 200 to 500 alerts a year, which
would more than double or potentially triple the existing ENTAC
workload associated with Alerts.
As a result, the CHP has indicated that at a minimum, two new
officer positions allocated to ENTAC would be required to manage
the additional workload, at an estimated first-year cost of
$500,000, and ongoing cost of $370,000. The CHP could also
potentially incur one-time costs to develop policies and
procedures, provide training, and develop resource materials for
staff and law enforcement agencies for the new alert.
There are no direct costs to activate or generate an EDIS
message, however, indirect costs for maintaining the current
system are approximately $200,000 annually. To the extent the
AB 47 (Gatto)
Page 4
provisions of this bill result in a significant increase in the
number of EDIS activations required could have an unknown effect
on the existing system, resulting in cost pressure for
additional system maintenance.