BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 818
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
818 (Quirk) - As Amended April 16, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes a party in a criminal action to make a
written motion for the comparison of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
evidence or latent fingerprint evidence. Specifically, this
AB 818
Page 2
bill:
1)States that a party in a criminal action may make a motion for
the comparison of DNA obtained from biological evidence in the
case with DNA profiles contained in the State DNA Index System
(SDIS) and, if appropriate the National DNA Index System
(NDIS).
2)Provides that a party in a criminal action may make a written
motion for the comparison of latent fingerprint evidence in
the case with fingerprints contained in the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and in
local fingerprint databases, including, but not limited to,
the Los Angeles Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems
(LAFIS).
3)Provides, if the court grants the motion for the comparison,
the court shall order the local law enforcement agency to
conduct the comparison, and shall order that the identity of
any individuals who are a match to be submitted for
comparison, if available.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Significant cost to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the $10
million range, $5 million for the DNA comparisons and $5
million for the latent fingerprint comparison. Both cases
assume the existing workload would triple.
2)Potential significant reimbursable state mandated cost (GF) to
local law enforcement agencies for the additional comparisons
the court may order in the event of DNA or finger- print
AB 818
Page 3
matches with other parties, other than the accused. Some of
these costs would be offset by avoiding post-conviction
requests for the same tests, and by avoiding the prosecution
and/or incarceration of innocent persons.
3)Unknown fiscal impact (GF) to the courts for additional
hearings to process the motions and potentially prolonged
criminal trials.
4)Unknown GF savings to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) by avoiding the incarceration of
innocent persons.
5)Unknown GF savings to the California Victim Compensation and
Government Claims Board by avoiding paying an individual $100
per day of incarceration, served in a state prison, as a
result of erroneous conviction and imprisonment, if a claim
were made.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose/Background. According to the author, "Currently,
prosecutors alone decide (1) whether or not an item of
physical evidence should be examined and/or tested, and (2)
decide whether or not the results of that examination or
analysis should be searched against existing law enforcement
controlled databases such as CODIS [Combined DNA Index
System], IAFIS and IBIS.
"DNA databases such as CODIS, NDIS, and SDIS contain DNA
profiles uploaded by law enforcement agencies from biological
materials collected from crimes scenes, and from arrestees and
convicted offenders. IAFIS and local fingerprint
identification systems are databases that contain biometric
AB 818
Page 4
information and criminal histories of offenders. A search of
these databases allow criminal justice agencies to compare DNA
or fingerprints in a case that is being investigated with data
in these systems to find a match or connect the suspect with
other criminal cases.
"These databases are powerful crime fighting tools but are
presently only available to law enforcement and prosecution.
They alone decide what evidence to collect and test. The ends
of justice are not met when law enforcement has exclusive
control over the decision of whether or not to test and upload
evidence that may prove the accused is actually innocent of
the crime charged and may provide evidence that someone else
is actually guilty. [Current law] allows defense counsel to
make a motion to have additional evidence tested, there is no
explicit authority to compel the prosecution to test the
evidence or have it searched against one of the databases when
directed by a judge. "
2)Argument in Support. According to the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of California, a co-sponsor of this
bill, "ACLU has long advocated reforms to prevent wrongful
convictions. When the innocent go to prison, the guilty go
free. Wrongful convictions continue to occur and typically
take many years, even decades, to rectify. An innocent person
who has been wrongfully convicted may one day regain his or
her freedom, but that person's life will never be restored.
Meanwhile, the true perpetrator remains free to commit
additional crimes.
3)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 980 (Lieu), Chapter 554, Statutes of 2014, revised
the process for obtaining a court order authorizing
post-conviction forensic DNA testing.
b) SB 83 (Burton), Chapter 943, Statutes of 2001,
established a procedure for the court to appoint counsel
for an indigent person in order to investigate and file a
AB 818
Page 5
motion for post-conviction DNA testing.
c) SB 1342 (Burton), Chapter 821, Statutes of 2000,
established the procedure for the post-conviction testing
of DNA evidence.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081