BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    AB 390        Hearing Date:    July 14, 2015    
          |Author:    |Cooper                                               |
          |Version:   |July 6, 2015                                         |
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
          |Consultant:|MK                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |

                        Subject:  Criminal Law: DNA Evidence 


          Source:   Sacramento County District Attorney

          Prior Legislation:Proposition 69 November 2, 2004
                         SB 883 (Margett) not heard Assembly Public Safety  
                         SB 284 (Brulte) - failed Senate Public Safety  
                         SB 1242 (Brulte) - Chapter 632, Stats. 2002
                         AB 2105 (La Suer) - Chapter 160, Stats. 2002
                         AB 673 (Migden) - Chapter 906, Stats. 2001
                         AB 2814 (Machado) - Chapter 823, Stats. 2000
                         AB 557 (Nakano) - not heard in Senate Public  
          Safety 1999-2000
                                         SB 654 (Schiff) - Chapter 475,  
          Stats. 1999
                                              AB 1332 (Murray) - Chapter  
          696, Stats. 1998

          Support:  Dave Jones, Insurance Commissioner; Alameda County  
                    District Attorney;  Association of Deputy District  
                    Attorneys; Association for Los Angeles Deputy  
                    Sheriffs; California Association of Code Enforcement  
                    Officers; California Association of Crime Laboratory  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageB  
                    Directors; California College and University Police  
                    Chiefs Association; California District Attorneys  
                    Association; California Fraternal Order of Police;  
                    California Narcotic Officers Association; California  
                    Peace Officers' Association; California Police Chiefs  
                    Association; California State Association of Counties;  
                     California State Sheriffs' Crime Victims United;  
                    Chief Probation Officers of California; Fresno County  
                    District Attorney; Kern County District Attorney;    
                    Long Beach Police Officers Association; Los Angeles  
                    Deputy Sheriffs;  Los Angeles County District  
                    Attorney's Office; Los Angeles County Professional  
                    Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles County  
                    Sheriff's Department; The Los Angeles Police  
                    Protective League; Orange County District Attorney;   
                    Peace Officers Research Association; Riverside  
                    Sheriffs Association; Rural County Representatives of  
                    California; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs'  
                    Association; San Luis Obispo District Attorney; San  
                    Diego County District Attorney; Santa Ana Police  
                    Officers Association; Santa Clara District Attorney  

          Opposition:ACLU;  Alameda County Public Defender; American  
                    Friends Committee; California Attorneys for Criminal  
                    Justice; California Civil Liberties Advocacy;  
                    California Public Defenders Association; Californians  
                    for Safety and Justice; Ella Baker Center for Human  
                    Rights; Friends Committee on Legislation of  
                    California; Justice Now; Legal Services for Prisoners  
                    with Children

          Assembly Floor Vote:                 74 - 2


          The purpose of this bill is to require DNA collection of people  
          who commit the crimes that used to be wobblers but are now  
          misdemeanors after the passage of Proposition 47.

          Existing law 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  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageC  
          identification analysis:

                 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. (Penal Code  296  
                 Any adult person who is arrested for or charged with a  
               felony offense. (Penal Code  296 (a)(2)(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. (Penal Code,  296 (a)(3).) 

          Existing law provides that the term "felony" includes an attempt  
          to commit the offense. (Penal Code, 296 (a)(4).) 

          Existing law allows the collection and analysis of specimens,  
          samples, or print impressions as a condition of a plea for a  
          non-qualifying offense. (Penal Code 296 (a)(5).) 

          Existing law 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:
                 Any person committed to a state hospital or other  
               treatment facility as a mentally disordered sex offender. 
                 Any person who is designated a mentally ordered  
                 Any person found to be a sexually violent predator.  
               (Penal Code, 296 (c)(3).) 

          Existing law 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  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageD  
          dispositional order in the case of a juvenile. (Penal Code 296  

          Existing law 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. (Penal Code 296(f).) 

          Existing law 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. (Penal Code,  295 (g).) 

          Existing law provides that DOJ can perform DNA analysis, other  
          forensic identification analysis, and examination of palm prints  
          pursuant to the Act only for identification purposes. (Penal  
          Code  295.1 (a) & (b).) 

          Existing law 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: 

                 Forensic casework and forensic unknowns; 
                 Known and evidentiary specimens and samples from crime  
               scenes or criminal investigations;
                 Missing or unidentified persons;
                 Persons required to provide specimens, samples, and  
               print impressions;
                 Legally obtained samples; and
                 Anonymous DNA records used for training, research,  
               statistical analysis of populations, quality assurance, or  
               quality control.  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageE  
          Existing law specifies that 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 DOJ.(Penal Code  298.) 

          Existing law requires the DNA Laboratory of DOJ to establish  
          procedures for entering data bank and database information.  
          (Penal Code  298(b)(6).) 

          Existing law 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. 

                 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  
               state's DNA Database and Data Bank Identification Program  
               have been dismissed prior to adjudication by a trier of  
                 The underlying conviction or disposition serving as the  
               basis for including the DNA profile has been reversed and  
               the case dismissed;
                 The person has been found factually innocent of the  
               underlying offense; or, 
                 The defendant has been found not guilty or the defendant  
               has been acquitted of the underlying offense. (Penal Code   
               299 (b).)

          Existing law 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  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageF  
          expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a  
          nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition for  
          writ. (Penal Code,  299 (c)(1).) 

          Existing law 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:

                 The written request for expungement pursuant to this  
                 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; 
                 Proof of written notice to the prosecuting attorney and  
               the Department of Justice that expungement has been  
               requested; and
                 A court order verifying that no retrial or appeal of the  
               case is pending, that it has been at least 180 days since  
               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  
               . (Penal Code,  299  (c)(2).):

          Existing law states that the DOJ shall not destroy 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  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageG  
          a condition of a plea. (Penal Code,  299 (d).) 

          Existing law provides that the DOJ 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. (Penal Code,  299 (d).) 

          Existing law states that a judge is not authorized to relieve a  
          person of the separate administrative duty to provide specimens,  
          samples, or print impressions required, including reduction to a  
          misdemeanor(Penal Code  17.), or dismissal following  
          conviction. (Penal Code  1203.4, 1203.4a.) (Penal Code   

          This bill expands these 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. 

          This bill provides that the following misdemeanor offenses will  
          be included in the DNA Databank :

                 Shoplifting; forgery where the value for the forged  
               document does not exceed $950; 
                 Check fraud where the total amount of checks does not  
               exceed $950; 
                 Grand theft that is punishable as a misdemeanor;  
               possession of stolen property that is punishable as a  
                 A misdemeanor violation for possession of a list of  
               specified drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine,  
               concentrated cannabis; and
                 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  

          Existing law provides that notwithstanding any other provision  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageH  
          of law, including specified sections, a judge  is not authorized  
          to relieve a person of the separate administrative duty  to  
          provide specimens, samples, or print impressions required if a  
          person has been found guilty or was adjudicated a ward of the  
          court by a trier of fact of an offense requiring the submission  
          of a DNA sample, or was found not guilty by reason of insanity  
          or pleads no contest to an offense requiring the submission of a  
          DNA sample. (Penal Code  299)

          This bill includes the provision allowing the recall of a  
          sentence where a person was convicted of a felony that has been  
          reduced to a misdemeanor after Proposition 47, as one of the  
          specified sections in Penal Code Section 299.


          For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          In February of this year the administration reported that as "of  
          February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed  
          capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  This current population is now below the  
          court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(  
          Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageI  
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state now must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

              Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed  
               to reducing the prison population;
              Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy;
              Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
              Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
               legislative drafting error; and
              Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy.


          1.  Need for This Bill

          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 or Proposition 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.  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageJ  
               This has benefited 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) 379 F. 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 thorough  
               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 a DNA sample is uploaded into the  
          state's DNA databank, which is part of the national Combined DNA  
          Index System (CODIS), and 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  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageK  
          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 and Safety Code,  11350(a).) 

          5.  Expansion of DNA Data Bank to Include Misdemeanors

          This bill would expand the collection of DNA to include  
          misdemeanors that used to be wobblers or felonies  
          pre-Proposition 47.  Currently in California the only  
          misdemeanors that are included are those for which a person must  
          register as a sex offender or as an arsonist.

          According to the National Conference on State Legislatures,  
          while 29 states collect DNA from at least some felonies only  
          eight states collect DNA from specified misdemeanors. Of those  
          states, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, North  
          Carolina, South Carolina and South Dakota, in all but Kansas and  
          Minnesota the misdemeanors that are collected are misdemeanor  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageL  
          sex offenses. Minnesota does not include all felonies and  
          includes specifies misdemeanors that are either sex offenses or  
          things like stalking.  
          (  )

          This legislation requires that DNA samples be taken from  
          individuals convicted of misdemeanors that were all affected by  
          Prop. 47. Before Prop 47 these offenses were wobblers (except  
          possession of cocaine), and thus 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. 

          Assembly Appropriations Committee limited the Proposition 47  
          misdemeanors that will be included in the data bank to those  
          instances where the person has a prior conviction for one of  
          specified misdemeanors; that limitations was taken out of the  
          bill with the last set of amendments.

          6.  Can't Have DNA Removed if Felony is Now a Misdemeanor 
          Proposition 47 set up a process for people currently serving a  
          sentence for a conviction of a felony, who would have been  
          guilty of a misdemeanor now that Proposition 47 has passed, to  
          have his or her sentence recalled and to be resentenced as a  
          misdemeanor under specified circumstances. (Penal Code   

          This bill provides that even if a person is resentenced under  
          the above provision, a court could not relieve their duty to  
          give a DNA sample and thus the person could not seek to have his  
          or her DNA removed from the data bank.

          7.  Support 
          According to one of the sponsors, the Sacramento County District  
          Attorney's Office:

               With the passage of recently enacted Proposition  
               47(the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act), many of  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageM  
               the goals of the State DNA Act have been thwarted by  
               allowing serious offenders to escape detection and  
               entry into the DNA database. AB 390 links the goals of  
               Proposition 69, passed in 2004 with Proposition 47 and  
               ensures that dangerous criminals do not get an  
               unintended benefit by reclassification of certain  
               felony crimes to misdemeanors.

               Allowing collection of DNA samples from adults  
               convicted of recently reduced "Prop 47" misdemeanor  
               crimes and other specified sex and violent offenses  
               will better protect public safety and allow improved  
               allocation of law enforcement resources to focus on  
               serious violent offenders.

               The California Department of Justice, Bureau of  
               Forensic Services has had tremendous success in  
               identifying recidivist sex offenders and violent  
               offenders. Limiting the number of collections, as  
               Proposition 47, did by making serious violent and  
               sexual offenders to conceal their identities for their  
               serious crimes and repeat them again. If collection of  
               samples is allowed to remain severely limited, many  
               more sexual and violent offenders will never be  
               identified for their crimes and other innocent  
               individuals may be investigated while the real  
               perpetrator goes free.

          In support of this bill the Los Angeles County District  
          Attorney's Office states:

               According to the Attorney General's Office, 61% of the  
               DNA samples entered into California DNA Datatbank that  
               resulted in a "cold hit" were for non-violent,  
               "lower-level" felony crimes such as drug offenses,  
               fraud or other property crimes. Without legislative  
               correction Proposition 47's unintended consequence  
               would lead to a disastrous reduction in "cold hits."  
               Solving rapes, murders and other violent crimes  
               through reliable DNA evidence will help meet Prop 47's  
               safety goals by keeping neighborhoods safe from  
               dangerous recidivist sex and vi9oletn offenders who  
               would otherwise remain undetected for their worst  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageN  

          8.  Opposition 

          The ACLU opposes this bill stating in part:

               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 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.<1>

               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.<2>   
               Of those, most states limit collection to individuals  
               convicted of serious misdemeanors.<3>  Alabama, for  
               example, collects misdemeanor DNA samples only from  
               people convicted of offenses involving danger to the  
          <1> See Maryland v. King (U.S. 2013) 133 S. Ct. 1958. 
          <2> Convicted Offenders Required to Submit DNA Samples: National  
          Conference of State Legislatures, available at  
          (data based on 2013 numbers).
          <3>  Id. 


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageO  


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageP  
               person.<4>  North Carolina limits its misdemeanor  
               collection to people convicted of certain sex  
               offenses, certain arson-related offenses, assaults on  
               handicapped persons, and stalking.<5>

          Californians for Safety and Justice oppose this bill stating:

               Our sister 501(c)(4) organization, Vote Safe, was the  
               sponsor of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and  
               Schools Act.  California voters overwhelmingly passed  
               Proposition 47 in November 2014, a measure that  
               reclassified six low--level nonviolent drug possession  
               and petty theft crimes from potential felonies to  
               misdemeanors and reallocates prison cost savings to  
               mental health treatment, school programs and victim  

               We are concerned about AB 390 because it seeks to  
               require DNA testing specifically for the six crimes  
               Proposition 47 changed to misdemeanors, without  
               clarity as to how these particular crimes are more  
               deserving of DNA testing than any of the other  
               hundreds of misdemeanors that exist in California's  
               Penal Code.  

          9.  Other legislation
          AB 1492 (Gatto) also set for hearing today, 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.  
           It also streamlines the process to expunge DNA samples and  
          profiles, if the California Supreme Court upholds the decision  
          in People v. Buza and it allows DNA searches against any a  
          "publicly available" database.

                                      -- END -

          <4> Ala. Code  36-18-25; 36-18-24; 13a, et seq. .
          <5> N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 15A-266.4.


          AB 390  (Cooper )                                         PageQ