BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 6, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


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


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Public Safety                  |Vote:|5 - 1        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          Yes


          SUMMARY:


          This bill includes individuals convicted of specified  
          misdemeanors (such as shoplifting, forgery, check fraud, etc.)  
          to the list of convicted individuals who must provide buccal  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  2





          swab samples (DNA), right thumbprints, and a full palm print  
          impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other  
          biological samples, for law enforcement identification analysis.  
           


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)Potential reimbursable state mandated costs in the hundreds of  
            thousands (GF) for the additional requirements on misdemeanors  
            offenses.  Some of these costs may not be covered under  
            Proposition 69 funding because the misdemeanors identified in  
            this bill were not violent felonies.


          2)Minor absorbable costs to the Department of Justice.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose.  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."


             "AB 390 reaffirms Proposition 69 by making the criminal  
            justice system more reliable and more just through accurate  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  3





            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)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.

          3)Proposition 47, passed by the voters in 2014, provided that  
            certain offense can only be charged and punished as  
            misdemeanors.  The offenses that were affected were  
            predominantly "wobblers" 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.

            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 arresting officer or 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. 

          4)Argument in Support.  According to the California Peace  
            Officers Association (CPOA), "AB 390 will enhance California's  
            DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocent Protection Act to  








                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  4





            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 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."

          1)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.



          2)Related Legislation: AB 84 (Gatto), in this committee, expands  
            the collection of 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; and  
            streamlines the process to expunge DNA samples and profiles,  
            if the California Supreme Court upholds the decision in People  
            v. Buza. 
          
          Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081












                                                                     AB 390


                                                                    Page  5