BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1517
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1517 (Skinner) - As Introduced: January 15, 2014
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill shortens recommended timelines for law enforcement
agencies and crime labs to perform and process DNA testing of
sexual assault evidence (rape kits). Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies a law enforcement agency assigned to investigate a
sexual assault offense "should submit sexual assault forensic
evidence to the crime lab as soon as practically possible, but
no later than five days after being booked into evidence."
(Current law specifies "in a timely manner.")
2)Specifies a crime lab "should process evidence, create DNA
profiles when able, and upload qualifying DNA profiles into
the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) as soon as practically
possible, but no later than 30 days after submission by a law
enforcement agency." (Current law does not specify a
timeline.)
3)Requires a law enforcement agency to inform sexual assault
victims if the law enforcement agency elects not to analyze
DNA evidence within the time frames specified above. (Current
law requires such notification only when the identity of the
offender is at issue.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant GF, special fund, and local costs, potentially in
the $20 million range, to reduce the turnaround time for state
and local crime labs to process evidence and upload DNA
profiles into CODIS from "a timely manner" to 30 days.
AB 1517
Page 2
For example, preliminary estimates from L.A. officials
indicate the costs to its labs would be about $3 million per
year, based on reducing the average turnaround time of 90-120
days to 30 days. This would include about 30 DNA examiners
plus additional equipment. Assuming LA County accounts for
about 30% of the cases, with about 25% handled by DOJ,
extrapolating from this preliminary L.A. estimate results in
an additional $4 million from the remaining local labs.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) handles the crime lab
functions for 46 counties, representing about 25% of the state
population. DOJ estimates reducing the turnaround time to 30
days would result in one-time costs of about $15 million for a
new facility and equipment, with ongoing staffing costs of
about $3 million. As the current DNA Fund revenue stream is
not sufficient to cover this potential increase, an additional
funding source, potentially the GF, would have to be
identified.
2)Significant nonreimbursable local law enforcement costs,
potentially in the millions of dollars, to reduce the
turnaround time for submitting evidence to crime labs from "a
timely manner" to 5 days, and to inform all sexual assault
victims if the law enforcement agency elects not to analyze
DNA evidence within the time frames specified by this bill.
(Current law requires such notification only when the identity
of the offender is at issue.)
For example, if the 20 largest local law enforcement
jurisdictions required two additional personnel years, and the
next 20 largest required an additional personnel year, the
annual statewide cost would exceed $4 million.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends more rape kits should be
processed and processed more quickly, which would enhance
investigation and prosecution, expedite resolution for
victims, and lead to more cold hits with the national Combined
DNA index system (CODIS).
The author also notes DOJ has implemented a Rapid DNA Service
(RDS) in the 46 counties for which it provides lab services.
As opposed to processing DNA in multiple forms forwarded from
law enforcement, the nurses who perform sexual assault
examinations in those counties receive three probative body
AB 1517
Page 3
swabs, in addition to the materials in regular rape kits, and
send those three swabs directly to a DOJ lab for expedited
processing. DOJ analyzes the swabs using large-batch automated
DNA analysis, informs local law enforcement agencies of its
findings, and uploads DNA profiles to CODIS when appropriate.
In many cases, this process takes less than two weeks.
The author suggests RDS could prove to be a cost-efficient
model for the state, one which could dramatically reduce
current and prospective costs.
2)Statute of Limitations Expire if DNA not Analyzed. Prosecution
for specified felony sex offenses must be commenced within 10
years after the commission of the offense. However, a criminal
complaint may be filed within one year of the date on which
the identity of the suspect is conclusively established by DNA
testing, if the crime is one that requires the defendant to
register as a sex offender; and the biological evidence
collected in connection with the offense is analyzed for DNA
type no later than two years from the date of the offense.
3)Rape Kit Backlog ? Several years ago, rape kit backlogs were a
growing problem. The most commonly cited problems were a 2009
City of L.A. Auditor's report cited thousands of LAPD rape
kits awaiting processing, and a significant backlog at DOJ.
According to L.A. - County and City - and DOJ, as well as
other large jurisdictions, the large backlogs have been
cleared.
If backlogs have been reduced or eliminated, is it necessary
to shorten processing timelines? By the same token, if
backlogs have been reduced or eliminated, is tightening
processing timelines to avoid future backlogs an onerous task
for local and state law enforcement? If backlogs persist, what
is the appropriate timeline? (Regardless of the timeline,
current and proposed language states "should," not shall, so
the proposed change is not a mandate, nor is there a penalty
for noncompliance.)
4)Pending State Audit Re Backlog Issues . An audit by the State
Auditor, likely to be completed in the fall, is designed to
provide an analysis of the backlog of untested rape kits,
including the rationale for backlogs, from law enforcement and
labs, funding issues, efficacy of existing timelines, as well
as recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes.
AB 1517
Page 4
Should statutory changes await the recommendations of the
State Auditor?
5)Support . Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley
contends this bill will maintain pressure on law enforcement
and laboratories to expedite rape kit processing and reduce or
eliminate backlogs, preserve the statute of limitations, and
increase the potential for cold hits with CODIS.
O'Malley states, "Untested rape kits mean lost opportunities
to develop DNA profiles, search for matches, link cold cases,
prosecute offenders, and bring resolution to rape victims and
prevent sexual assault crimes by serial sex offenders?. The
only way we are able to utilize the 'floating' statute of
limitations beyond the 10 year statute, is if there is a
preliminary examination of the rape kit within 2 years of the
crime. And, even that time frame is often unmet."
6)Opposition . The CA State Sheriffs Association states, "The
five-day time limit will be very burdensome on jurisdictions
that, for reasons of resources and/or geography, submit
evidence to crime labs on a less-frequent basis.
Additionally, though an item may be booked into evidence
within a shorter timeframe, there is no guarantee that enough
information is available to justify submitting it to the crime
lab within the five-day window.
"Requiring a crime lab to test a rape kit within 30 days of
receipt also creates an untenable burden. We believe it is
more appropriate for local priorities and resources as well as
case-specific factors to govern this process. A jurisdiction
may have pending cases that demand forensic evidence testing
resources and examining evidence from those cases may be more
time-sensitive than testing a rape kit generated by a case,
for example, in which the identity of the perpetrator is
known.
The CA Association of Crime Lab Directors states, "the
timelines set forth in this proposal are unattainable within
existing resources and do not take into account the
complexities of processing kits. The 30-day timeline is very
problematic for crime labs and is not feasible without a huge
influx of resources (equipment, personnel, and possible larger
facilities).
AB 1517
Page 5
"Further, this bill does not take into account the multitude
of circumstances surrounding these kits. For example, in a
number of cases, the identity of the involved parties is not
in question as both parties indicate a sexual act occurred. In
most of these cases, the issue is consent, not identity, so
DNA analysis would only confirm what is already known. In
other cases, we are completing analysis on cases where we are
attempting to identify suspects. Requiring a 30-day processing
of all kits redirects resources from the latter and undermines
prioritization of testing based on the facts of the case and
potential pending investigation."
7)Prior Legislation.
a) AB 322 (Portantino), 2011, required law enforcement
testing of rape kits within 30 days and lab analysis within
six months. These provisions were deleted by this committee
for fiscal reasons, and the bill became a a pilot project,
commencing July 1, 2012 and ending on January 1, 2016, in
10 counties to have DOJ test all rape kits collected after
the start date of the pilot project in those counties to
determine if such testing increases arrest rates in rape
cases.
AB 322 was vetoed, Gov. Brown stating, "This measure would
establish a new pilot program and require the Department of
Justice to test all rape kits collected from 10 specified
counties. These counties, however, don't wish to
participate in the program. I don't see why we would
mandate counties to participate in a program they don't
want, especially when the state is cutting back on so many
programs that are needed and wanted. Local officials are in
the best position to determine whether to participate in
such a program."
b) AB 558 (Portantino), 2010, was similar to the pilot
proposed in AB 322 and received the same veto message.
c) AB 1017 (Portantino), 2009, was similar to AB 558 and AB
322 and received the same veto message.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1517
Page 6