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TO COVER THE COSTS OF THE MEDICAL EVIDENTIARY EXAMINATION PORTION OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS BE REPEALED?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.) ***************