BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  1


          Date of Hearing:   April 21, 2015
          Counsel:               David Billingsley



                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                                  Bill Quirk, Chair





          AB  
                        390 (Cooper) - As Amended  April 6, 2015




          SUMMARY:  Expands provisions to require persons convicted of  
          specified misdemeanors to provide buccal swab samples (DNA),  
          right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each  
          hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples  
          required for law misdemeanor offenses, to the list of  
          individuals required to provide DNA cheek swab samples, right  
          thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and  
          any blood specimens or other biological samples chapter for law  
          enforcement identification analysis.  The specified offenses are  
          as follows:

          1)Shoplifting.

          2)Forgery where the value for the forged document does not  
            exceed $950.



          3)Check fraud where the total amount of checks does not exceed  
            $950.










                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  2



          4)Grand theft that is punishable as a misdemeanor.



          5)Possession of stolen property that is punishable as a  
            misdemeanor.



          6)A misdemeanor violation for possession of a list of specified  
            drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine, concentrated  
            cannabis.



          7)A misdemeanor violation of petty theft with specified prior  
            theft convictions, and prior convictions for serious or  
            violent felonies, or required to register as a sex offender.  

          EXISTING  
          LAW:1) 



          2)Requires the following persons provide buccal swab samples,  
            right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each  
            hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples  
            required pursuant to this chapter for law enforcement  
            identification analysis.



             a)   Any person, including any juvenile, who is convicted of  
               or pleads guilty or no contest to any felony offense, or is  
               found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony  
               offense, or any juvenile where a court has found that they  
               have committed any felony offense. (Pen. Code,  296, subd.  
               (a)(1).)











                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  3


             b)   Any adult person who is arrested for or charged with a  
               felony offense. (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (a)(2)(C).)



             c)   Any person, including any juvenile, who is required to  
               register as a sex offender or arson offender because of the  
               commission of, or the attempt to commit, a felony or  
               misdemeanor offense, or any person, including any juvenile,  
               who is housed in a mental health facility or sex offender  
               treatment program after referral to such facility or  
               program by a court after being charged with any felony  
               offense. (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (a)(3).)



          3)The term "felony" includes an attempt to commit the offense.  
            (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (a)(4).)



          4)Allows the collection and analysis of specimens, samples, or  
            print impressions as a condition of a plea for a  
            non-qualifying offense. (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (a)(5).)



          5)Requires submission of specimens, samples, and print  
            impressions as soon as administratively practicable by  
            qualified persons and shall apply regardless of placement or  
            confinement in any mental hospital or other public or private  
            treatment facility, and shall include, but not be limited to,  
            the following persons, including juveniles (Pen. Code,  296,  
            subd. (c).)



             a)   Any person committed to a state hospital or other  
               treatment facility as a mentally disordered sex offender.  
               (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (c)(1).)










                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  4



             b)   Any person who is designated a mentally ordered  
               offender. (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (c)(2).)



             c)   Any person found to be a sexually violent predator.  
               (Pen. Code,  296, subd. (c)(3).)



          6)Specifies that the court shall inquire and verify, prior to  
            final disposition or sentencing in the case, that the  
            specimens, samples, and print impressions have been obtained  
            and that this fact is included in the abstract of judgment or  
            dispositional order in the case of a juvenile. (Pen. Code,   
            296, subd. (f).)



          7)Provides that failure by the court to verify specimen, sample,  
            and print impression collection or enter these facts in the  
            abstract of judgment or dispositional order in the case of a  
            juvenile shall not invalidate an arrest, plea, conviction, or  
            disposition, or otherwise relieve a person from the  
            requirements to provide samples. (Pen. Code,  296, subd.  
            (f).)
             


          8)Provides that The Department of Justice(DOJ), through its DNA  
            Laboratory, is responsible for the management and  
            administration of the state's DNA and Forensic Identification  
            Database and Data Bank Program and for liaising with the  
            Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the state's  
            participation in a national or international DNA database and  
            data bank program such as the Combined DNA Index System  
            (CODIS) that allows the storage and exchange of DNA records  
            submitted by state and local forensic DNA laboratories  
            nationwide.  (Pen. Code,  295, subd. (g).)










                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  5



          9)Provides that DOJ can perform DNA analysis, other forensic  
            identification analysis, and examination of palm prints  
            pursuant to the Act only for identification purposes.  (Pen.  
            Code,  295.1, subds. (a) & (b).)



          10)Provides that the DOJ DNA Laboratory is to serve as a  
            repository for blood specimens, buccal swab, and other  
            biological samples collected and is required to analyze  
            specimens and samples and store, compile, correlate, compare,  
            maintain, and use DNA and forensic identification profiles and  
            records related to the following (Pen. Code,  295.1, subd.  
            (c).):



             a)   Forensic casework and forensic unknowns. (Pen. Code,   
               295.1, subd. (c)(1).)



             b)   Known and evidentiary specimens and samples from crime  
               scenes or criminal investigations. (Pen. Code,  295.1,  
               subd. (c)(2).)



             c)   Missing or unidentified persons. (Pen. Code,  295.1,  
               subd. (c)(3).)



             d)   Persons required to provide specimens, samples, and  
               print impressions. (Pen. Code,  295.1, subd. (c)(4).)



             e)   Legally obtained samples. (Pen. Code,  295.1, subd.  
               (c)(5).)









                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  6




             f)   Anonymous DNA records used for training, research,  
               statistical analysis of populations, quality assurance, or  
               quality control. (Pen. Code,  295.1, subd. (c)(6).)



          11)Specifies the Director of Corrections, or the Chief  
            Administrative Officer of the detention facility, jail, or  
            other facility at which the blood specimens, buccal swab  
            samples, and thumb and palm print impressions were collected  
            send them promptly to the Department of Justice.(Pen. Code,   
            298.)



          12)Requires the DNA Laboratory of DOJ to establish procedures  
            for entering data bank and database information. (Cal. Penal  
            Code  298(b)(6).)





          13) Specifies that a person whose DNA profile has been included  
            in the data bank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or  
            her DNA specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database  
            profile expunged from the data bank program if the person has  
            no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies  
            that person for inclusion within the state's DNA and Forensic  
            Identification Database and Data Bank Program and there  
            otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or  
            sample or searchable profile. (Cal. Pen. Code  299, subd.  
            (b).)



             a)   Following arrest, no accusatory pleading has been filed  
               within the applicable period allowed by law charging the  
               person with a qualifying offense or if the charges which  
               served as the basis for including the DNA profile in the  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  7


               state's DNA Database and Data Bank Identification Program  
               have been dismissed prior to adjudication by a trier of  
               fact (Pen. Code,  299, subd.(b)(1).); or 





             b)   The underlying conviction or disposition serving as the  
               basis for including the DNA profile has been reversed and  
               the case dismissed (Pen. Code,  299, subd.(b)(2).),; or, 





             c)   The person has been found factually innocent of the  
               underlying offense (Pen. Code,  299, subd.(b)(3).); or, 





             d)   The defendant has been found not guilty or the defendant  
               has been acquitted of the underlying offense. (Pen. Code,   
               299, subd.(b)(4).)



          14)Requires the person requesting the data bank entry to be  
            expunged send a copy of his or her request to the trial court  
            of the county where the arrest occurred, or that entered the  
            conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the DNA  
            Laboratory of the Department of Justice, and to the  
            prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was  
            arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service  
            on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny  
            the request for expungement. The denial of a request for  
            expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed  
            by petition for writ. (Pen. Code,  299, subd. (c)(1).)










                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  8



          15)Requires DOJ destroy a specimen and sample and expunge the  
            searchable DNA database profile pertaining to the person who  
            has no present or past qualifying offense of record upon  
            receipt of a court order that verifies the applicant has made  
            the necessary showing at a noticed hearing, and that includes  
            all of the following (Pen. Code,  299, subd. (c)(2).):  


             a)   The written request for expungement pursuant to this  
               section. (Pen. Code,  299, subd.(c)(2)(A).);





             b)   A certified copy of the court order reversing and  
               dismissing the conviction or case, or a letter from the  
               district attorney certifying that no accusatory pleading  
               has been filed or the charges which served as the basis for  
               collecting a DNA specimen and sample have been dismissed  
               prior to adjudication by a trier of fact, the defendant has  
               been found factually innocent, the defendant has been found  
               not guilty, the defendant has been acquitted of the  
               underlying offense, or the underlying conviction has been  
               reversed and the case dismissed. (Pen. Code,  299,  
               subd.(c)(2)(B).)





             c)   Proof of written notice to the prosecuting attorney and  
               the Department of Justice that expungement has been  
               requested. (Pen. Code,  299, subd.(c)(2)(C).)





             d)   A court order verifying that no retrial or appeal of the  
               case is pending, that it has been at least 180 days since  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  9


               the defendant or minor has notified the prosecuting  
               attorney and the Department of Justice of the expungement  
               request, and that the court has not received an objection  
               from the Department of Justice or the prosecuting attorney  
               . (Pen. Code,  299, subd.(c)(2)(D).)





          16)States that the Department of Justice shall destroy not any  
            specimen or sample collected from the person and any  
            searchable DNA database profile pertaining to the person, if  
            department determines that the person is subject to the  
            provisions of this chapter because of a past qualifying  
            offense of record or is or has otherwise become obligated to  
            submit a blood specimen or buccal swab sample as a result of a  
            separate arrest, conviction, juvenile adjudication, or finding  
            of guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity for an offense  
            requiring a DNA sample, or as a condition of a plea. (Pen.  
            Code,  299, subd. (d).)





          17)The Department of Justice is not required to destroy  
            analytical data or other items obtained from a blood specimen  
            or saliva, or buccal swab sample, if evidence relating to  
            another person subject to the provisions of this chapter would  
            thereby be destroyed or otherwise compromised. (Pen. Code,   
            299, subd. (d).)








          18) States that a judge is not authorized to relieve a person of  
            the separate administrative duty to provide specimens,  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  10


            samples, or print impressions required, including reduction to  
            a misdemeanor(Cal. Penal Code  17.), or dismissal following  
            conviction. (Cal. Penal Code  1203.4, 1203.4a.) (Cal. Penal  
            Code  299(f).)


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:  

          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "AB 390 will  
            allow for restoration of DNA sample collection for crimes  
            which were previously felonies but were reclassified as  
            misdemeanors by Proposition 47.  The passage of Proposition 47  
            created an unintended consequence which will limit the ability  
            of law enforcement to solve rapes, murders, robberies and  
            other serious and violent crimes through reliable DNA  
            evidence.  With one of the largest databases in the world,  
            California has been able to accurately identify those who have  
            committed prior unsolved violent crimes.  This has benefitted  
            the people of California by allowing for the introduction of  
            reliable scientific evidence that provides powerful proof of  
            identity, both in exonerating some individuals and convicting  
            others.

            "It has been said that DNA technology "constitutes the single  
            greatest advance in the 'search for truth', and the goal of  
            convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent, since the  
            advent of cross-examination." (See United States v. Kincade  
            (9th Cir. 2004) 379F.3d 813; People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.  
            4th 1104; People v. Wesley (1998) 533 N.YS. 2d 643, 644.) 

            "AB 390 reaffirms Proposition 69 by making the criminal  
            justice system more reliable and more just through accurate  
            and expeditious identification using DNA of recidivist  
            criminal offenders, and by focusing investigations on existing  
            unsolved rapes, murders, robberies and other serious and  
            violent cases."

          2)California DNA Database:  The profile derived from the DNA  
            sample is uploaded into the state's DNA databank, which is  
            part of the national Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  11


            can be accessed by local, state and federal law enforcement  
            agencies and officials. When a DNA profile is uploaded, it is  
            compared to profiles contained in the Convicted Offender and  
            Arrestee Indices; if there is a "hit," the laboratory conducts  
            procedures to confirm the match and, if confirmed, obtains the  
            identity of the suspect. The uploaded profile is also compared  
            to crime scene profiles contained in the Forensic Index;  
            again, if there is a hit, the match is confirmed by the  
            laboratory. CODIS also performs weekly searches of the entire  
            system. In CODIS, the profile does not include the name of the  
            person from whom the DNA was collected or any case-related  
            information, but only a specimen identification number, an  
            identifier for the agency that provided the sample, and the  
            name of the personnel associated with the analysis.  CODIS is  
            also the name of the related computer software program.   
            CODIS's national component is the National DNA Index System  
            (NDIS), the receptacle for all DNA profiles submitted by  
            federal, state, and local forensic laboratories. DNA profiles  
            typically originate at the Local DNA Index System (LDIS), then  
            migrate to the State DNA Index System (SDIS), containing  
            forensic profiles analyzed by local and state laboratories,  
            and then to NDIS.

          3)Proposition 69:  Proposition 69 was passed by the voters in  
            2004.  That proposition expanded the categories of people  
            required to provide DNA samples for law enforcement  
            identification analysis to include any adult person arrested  
            or charged with any felony offense.  Proposition 69 provided  
            for an expungement process for those individuals who were not  
            convicted of a qualifying offense and had no prior qualifying  
            offense.

          4)Proposition 47: Proposition 47 was passed by the voters in  
            2014.  By passing Proposition 47, the voters determined that  
            certain offense can only be charged and punished as  
            misdemeanors.  The offenses that were affected by the voters  
            in Prop. 47 were predominantly "wobblers."  A wobbler is an  
            offense which can be charged as a felony, or a misdemeanor, at  
            the discretion of the district attorney's office responsible  
            for charging the crime.  The only offense affected by  
            Proposition 47, that was chargeable exclusively as a felony,  
            was possession of specified drugs, primarily cocaine. (Health  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  12


            and Saf. Code,  11350(a).)



          5)The Proposed Legislation Would Result in DNA Samples Being  
            Taken From Individuals that Would Not Have Been Required to  
            Provide DNA Prior to Proposition 47.  The proposed legislation  
            requires that DNA samples be taken from individuals convicted  
            of misdemeanors that were all affected by Prop. 47.  Given  
            that these offenses were wobblers (except possession of  
            cocaine), an individual arrested for one of these offenses,  
            could have been arrested for  a felony or a misdemeanor, at  
            the discretion of the officer.  Similarly, these offenses  
            could have been charged as either misdemeanors or felonies at  
            the discretion of the district attorney's offices responsible  
            for making charging decisions.  Thus, many instances covered  
            by the proposed legislation would not have triggered DNA  
            collection prior to Proposition 47.

          6)Argument in Support:  According to the California Peace  
            Officers Association (CPOA), "California voters in November  
            2004 passed Proposition 69, the "DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved  
            Crime and Innocence Protection Act", to expand and modify  
            state law regarding the collection and use of criminal  
            offender DNA samples and palm print impressions. Proposition  
            69 was aimed at making the criminal justice system a more  
            reliable, accurate and expeditious identification system  
            through the use of DNA from recidivist criminal offenders and  
            by focusing investigations on existing unsolved rapes,  
            murders, and other serious and violent cases. The impact of  
            Proposition 69 has helped solve many old murders, rapes,  
            assaults, home burglaries and other serious and violent crimes  
            and has insured the integrity of convictions so that innocent  
            individuals are not needlessly arrested, prosecuted or  
            convicted.

          "Proposition 47, The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act,  
            approved in November 2014, reclassified as misdemeanors a  
            number of felonies including drug offenses, fraud crimes,  
            theft and forgery. The reclassification of felony offenses to  
            misdemeanors will result in a significant reduction of DNA  
            samples collected from offenders and will negatively impact  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  13


            the ability of law enforcement to solve rapes, murders and  
            other serious and violent crimes through reliable DNA  
            evidence. It is estimated that approximately 255,000 DNA  
            samples of criminal offenders could be affected by the passage  
            of Proposition 47. Prior to Proposition 47, the DNA database  
            was expanding and had tremendous success accurately  
            identifying individuals who have committed prior unsolved  
            violent crimes while exonerating others.

          "In Sacramento County, DNA helped solve a 20-year old murder of  
            an elderly woman. Sophia McAllister, 80 years old, was  
            brutally raped, robbed and murdered in her home in 1989. The  
            killing went unsolved for 20 years until Donald Carter was  
            arrested in 2009 on an unrelated low level drug possession  
            charge. A DNA sample was taken and entered into the DNA  
            database resulting in a match with the forensic sample taken  
            at the scene of the murder. A jury found Carter guilty in the  
            murder.

          "In Santa Cruz County, a young woman was kidnapped, beaten and  
            sexually assaulted. A DNA sample was collected and entered  
            into the database without any matches. A few months later  
            Octavio Castillo was arrested in Watsonville for receiving  
            stolen property and auto burglary and a DNA sample was  
            collected. When the sample was entered into the DNA database,  
            a match was made with the assault of the young woman. The  
            suspect was arrested for the sexual assault and was convicted  
            for assault, sodomy and false personation.

          "Both cases are examples of the many cases which have been  
            solved through the DNA database by connecting low level  
            offenders to unsolved crimes of the past.   Under Proposition  
            47, neither case would have been solved.

          "AB 390 will enhance California's DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved  
            Crime and Innocent Protection Act to include specified  
            misdemeanor convictions subject to DNA sample database  
            collection when such crimes are committed by adult offenders.  
            Solving rapes, murders, and other serious or violent crimes  
            through reliable DNA evidence will help keep neighborhoods  
            safe from dangerous recidivist offenders who would otherwise  
            remain undetected.  The Association for Los Angeles Deputy  
                                                                     







                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  14


            Sheriffs, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the  
            California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, the  
            California College and University Police Chiefs Association,  
            the California Narcotic Officers Association, the Los Angeles  
            Police Protective League and the Riverside Sheriffs  
            Association are all in favor of Assembly Bill 390.  We commend  
            you for bringing this bill forward."
          
          7)Argument in Opposition:  According to The American Civil  
            Liberties Union of California, "AB 390 is an unnecessary  
            invasion of our privacy and undermines the will of California  
            voters who, by passing Proposition 47, determined that the  
            minor crimes targeted by AB 390 should not be treated like  
            felonies. 

          "Expanding the DNA database will not necessarily make our  
            communities safer.

          "Historically, increasing the number of people from whom DNA is  
            collected in California has not increased the overall rate at  
            which law enforcement have been able to identify perpetrators  
            of violent crimes.  In fact, just the opposite is true.   
            According to the California Department of Justice (DOJ), the  
            clearance rate for unsolved violent crimes in California was  
            higher in 2004 - the year voters passed Prop 69, expanding the  
            database - than it was nearly 10 years later, in 2013.  This  
            means that while more people have been added to the DNA  
            database, and additional taxpayer dollars have gone towards  
            greater collection efforts, the rate at which law enforcement  
            officers have been able to solve violent crimes has not  
            increased.

          "The use of DNA in solving crimes is limited by our ability to  
            detect and collect DNA at crime scenes, not by the number of  
            profiles in the DNA database.  Needless expansion of the  
            database could further overwhelm already backlogged crime  
            labs, delaying investigations and forcing victims of crimes to  
            wait even longer for evidence from their crime to be  
            processed. 

          "Law enforcement and governmental agencies often point towards  
            higher "hit" rates as evidence of successful DNA database  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  15


            expansion.  However, hit rates are misleading.  Hits only  
            indicate that a match was made - not whether the hit resulted  
            in a person being apprehended and prosecuted, or, more  
            importantly, whether the right person was apprehended and  
            prosecuted.  In addition, hit rates are not an accurate  
            measure of cases solved by DNA evidence because such figures  
            include cases in which individuals were charged and convicted  
            without the use of DNA - for example, if the hit occurs  
            subsequent to the conviction.

          "DNA evidence is not infallible. 

          "Like any procedure that relies on human precision, DNA testing  
            is susceptible to human error.  There are already innumerable  
            opportunities for error in the DNA sampling process, and  
            putting more people into the DNA database could create  
            backlogs and undermine quality control at crime laboratories.   
            Even without the thousands of new samples that would require  
            testing under AB 390, a number of cases have already come to  
            light in which people have been wrongly convicted because of  
            mishandled DNA evidence or mistakes made in DNA testing.  Most  
            notably, in Santa Clara County in 2013, Lukis Anderson - a  
            26-year-old man of color - spent six months in jail for a  
            murder he could not possibly have committed, after paramedics  
            accidentally transferred his DNA to the body of the crime  
            victim.  At the time the mistake was discovered, Mr. Lukis was  
            facing life in prison and possibly the death penalty for the  
            crime. 

          "AB 390 seeks to expand California's DNA database beyond what  
            most of the country has determined is necessary or reasonable.

          "DNA collection has very serious privacy implications.  Unlike  
            fingerprints - which are merely two dimensional  
            representations of the surface of a person's finger and reveal  
            nothing other than a person's identity - DNA contains our  
            genetic codes, which reveal the most intimate, private  
            information, not only about the person whose DNA is collected  
            but for everyone else in that person's extended family.   
            Permanent collection and storage of our genetic blueprints  
            represents a serious threat of governmental intrusion when  
            this database is inevitably used for other purposes.  A single  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  16


            breach of security could divulge sensitive information that a  
            person might not even know about him or herself to employers,  
            insurance companies, and identity thieves.  For this reason,  
            most state legislatures and the United States Supreme Court  
            have taken great care to limit collection of DNA to more  
            serious crimes."

          "AB 390 - which seeks to add minor misdemeanor offenses, such as  
            simple drug possession and shoplifting, to the list of crimes  
            that trigger DNA collection - goes far beyond the scope of  
            what most of the country has determined is necessary or  
            reasonable.  In 2013, while 41 other states required DNA  
            collection from people convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses,  
            only 18 required DNA samples from people convicted of  
            misdemeanors other than sex offenses.  Of those, most states  
            limit collection to individuals convicted of serious  
            misdemeanors.  Alabama, for example, collects misdemeanor DNA  
            samples only from people convicted of offenses involving  
            danger to the person. North Carolina limits its misdemeanor  
            collection to people convicted of certain sex offenses,  
            certain arson-related offenses, assaults on handicapped  
            persons, and stalking.

          "Expansion of the DNA database will reinforce racial  
            disparities, and could lead to greater numbers of people of  
            color being accused and convicted of crimes they did not  
            commit.

          "People of color - who are stopped, searched, and arrested at  
            much higher rates than white people - are disproportionately  
            represented in DNA databases.  This racial disparity means  
            that communities of color will be exposed to the negative  
            effects of crime lab error and intrusive police investigations  
            far more often than white people.  

          "Expanding the DNA database as AB 390 proposes to include low  
            level, nonviolent misdemeanors could result in additional  
            people of color being falsely accused and convicted of crimes  
            they did not commit.  This will only add to the existing  
            racial inequalities in our criminal justice system."
          
          8)Related Legislation: AB 84 (Gatto) expands the collection of  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  17


            DNA samples to include persons convicted of specified  
            misdemeanors.  Authorizes samples collected during felony  
            arrests to be forwarded to Department of Justice (DOJ) upon a  
            judicial finding of probable cause, if the California Supreme  
            Court upholds the decision in People v. Buza.  Streamlines the  
            process to expunge DNA samples and profiles, if the California  
            Supreme Court upholds the decision in People v. Buza. Pending  
            hearing in Assembly Appropriations.
          
          
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support
          
          Association of Deputy District Attorneys
          California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
          California College and University Police chiefs Association
          California District Attorneys Association
          California Narcotic Officers Association
          California Peace Officers' Association
          California Police Chiefs Association
          California State Sheriffs' Association
          Chief Probation Officers of California
          Fraternal Order of Police
          Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones
          Long Beach Police Officers Association
          Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
          Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          Los Angeles Police Protective League
          Riverside Sheriffs Association
          Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
          Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert 
          San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos 
          Santa Ana Police officers Association


          Opposition

          American Civil Liberties Union of California
          American Friends Service Committee
          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
          California Public Defenders Association








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  18


          Justice Now
          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children



          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744