BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
0
7
SB 107 (Corbett)
As Amended April 1, 2013
Hearing date: April 9, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
SEXUAL ASSAULT:
VICTIM MEDICAL EVIDENTIARY EXAMS AND VAWA FUNDING
HISTORY
Source: Alameda County District Attorney; California Coalition
Against Sexual Assault
Prior Legislation: SB 534 (Corbett) - Ch. 360, Stats. 2011
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California Chapter of the
American College of Emergency Physicians; Peace
Officers Research Association of California; California
State Sheriffs' Association; Alameda County Board of
Supervisors
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE JANUARY 1, 2014, SUNSET DATE NOW IN STATUTORY LANGUAGE
(More)
SB 107 (Corbett)
Page 2
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF VAWA GRANT FUNDING TO COVER THE COSTS OF THE
MEDICAL EVIDENTIARY EXAMINATION PORTION OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS BE REPEALED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the January 1, 2014,
sunset date now in statutory language authorizing the use of
federal Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") grant funding to
cover the costs of the medical evidentiary examination portion
of medical examinations of sexual assault victims.
Current law generally provides that no costs incurred by a
qualified health care professional, hospital, or other emergency
medical facility for the medical evidentiary examination portion
of the examination of the victim of a sexual assault, as
specified, shall be charged directly or indirectly to the victim
of the assault. (Penal Code § 13823.95.)
Current law further provides that the cost of a medical
evidentiary examination performed by a qualified health care
professional, hospital, or other emergency medical facility for
a victim of a sexual assault shall be treated as a local cost
and charged to the local law enforcement agency in
whose jurisdiction the alleged offense was committed, provided,
however, that the local law enforcement agency may seek
reimbursement for the cost of conducting the medical evidentiary
examination portion of a medical examination of a sexual assault
victim who does not participate in the criminal justice system.
Current law provides that the amount that may be charged by a
qualified health care professional, hospital, or other emergency
medical facility to perform the medical evidentiary examination
portion of a medical examination of a victim of a sexual assault
(More)
SB 107 (Corbett)
Page 3
shall not exceed $300. "The California Emergency Management
Agency shall use the discretionary funds from federal grants
awarded to the agency pursuant to the federal Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reorganization Act of 2005
through the federal Office of Violence Against Women,
specifically, the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and
Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program to
cover the cost of the medical evidentiary examination portion of
a medical examination of a sexual assault victim. The agency is
authorized to use grant funds to pay for medical evidentiary
examinations until January 1, 2014." (Penal Code § 13823.95(d)
(italics added).)
This bill would delete the sentence italicized above authorizing
the use of grant funds until the January 1, 2014, date.
This bill would make additional, purely technical revisions to
this section.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
(More)
SB 107 (Corbett)
Page 4
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order to reduce the state's prison population to
137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted in part
that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons has been
reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public
safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates
compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000
inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs, who oppose the state's
motion, argue in part that, "California prisons, which currently
average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity
at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient."
In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted
the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner
population cap by December 31st of this year.
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unsettled. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
(More)
SB 107 (Corbett)
Page 5
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
(More)
The author states:
The appropriation of VAWA Funds for forensic medical
examinations for victims/survivors of sexual assault
who do not wish to cooperate with law enforcement
granted under SB 534 will sunset on January 1, 2014.
After that time, it is unclear what funding source
will be used to reimburse local law enforcement for
these forensic medical examinations. Without the
extension of this authorization, if no additional
funding source can be found to reimburse local law
enforcement, California may once again fall out of
compliance with the VAWA.
Sexual assault remains a problem for Californians. In
2009, in the United States, 1.3 million women were
raped. In the United States, nearly 1 in 5 women and 1
in 71 men will be raped in their lifetime. In
California alone, approximately 2 million women have
been raped in their lifetime. In 2012, CalEMA/Office
of Emergency Services received approximately $12
million from the federal government for VAWA.
Victims of sexual assault have already suffered
physical trauma, fear, and an attack on their privacy
and dignity. SB 107 will reaffirm California's
commitment to protecting victim's rights. Also, it is
not only important for the victim should they choose
to pursue legal action later, but also for society at
large as these tests will grow the DNA database which
will help to ensure that those who commit horrendous
crimes can be held accountable.
2. What This Bill Will Do
As explained above, this bill will remove the January 1, 2014,
authorization date for VAWA funding to be used for the medical
evidentiary examination portion of a medical examination of a
sexual assault victim. The bill also makes additional,
(More)
SB 107 (Corbett)
Page 7
nonsubstantive technical changes.
3. The Federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - Background of
the Law and Federal Grants to Fund State Programs
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted in Congress in
1994. It has been reenacted in 2000 and 2005. On March 7,
2013, the President signed an extension of VAWA for another five
years.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the intent of VAWA
is to "remedy the legacy of laws and social norms that serve to
justify violence against women. Since the passage of VAWA,
there has been a paradigm shift in how the issue of violence
against women is addressed." In 2000, VAWA expanded or created
programs for sexual assault victims, dating violence victims and
battered immigrants. Domestic violence victims who fled across
state lines were allowed to obtain custody orders in their new
states. In 2005, VAWA was expanded to include court training,
child witness and culturally specific programs. Expansions of
VAWA generally have been done to reach underserved populations.
The initial VAWA legislation established the Office on Violence
Against Women (OVW) in the Department of Justice. According to
the Department of Justice, "OVW administers financial and
technical assistance around the country to facilitate"
programs and practices to end or limit sexual assault, domestic
and dating violence, and stalking.
VAWA effectively set national standards for state and local
government responses to sexual assault, domestic violence and
related issues. These standards maintained or enforced in
significant part through conditions on grants of federal funds
to states, local governments, tribal entities, non-profit
organizations and even law schools.
The STOP (Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors) grants under
VAWA are essentially the subject of this bill. Each state
receiving a STOP grant must allocate the funds in this manner:
SB 107 (Corbett)
Page 8
25% to law enforcement; 25% to prosecution; 5% for courts; and
30% for victim services. In order to receive STOP funds, the
state or another governmental entity must bear "the full
out-of-pocket cost of forensic exam for victims of sexual
assault." The state or local entity may not condition receipt
of an examination on cooperation by the victim with law
enforcement.
(42 U.S.C. § 3896gg-4; DOJ, OVW website.)
***************