BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 909 (Quirk) - Sexual assault crimes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 26, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: July 6, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 909 would require law enforcement agencies
responsible for taking or processing rape kit evidence to
annually report specified information to the Department of
Justice (DOJ), as specified. This bill would also require the
DOJ to annually submit a report to the Legislature summarizing
the information collected.
Fiscal
Impact:
Potential workload costs in excess of $50,000 (Special Fund*)
for the DOJ to collect/compile the data to the extent the
information is not submitted electronically.
One-time and ongoing state-reimbursable local costs,
potentially in excess of several hundred thousand dollars
(General Fund) per year, for local law enforcement agencies to
track and report the information to the DOJ. Reporting the
reason why a rape kit was not tested is assumed to be more
AB 909 (Quirk) Page 1 of
?
resource intensive than providing only statistical data. Costs
incurred across the 482 cities and 58 counties in California
could vary widely.
Minor ongoing workload and costs to the California Highway
Patrol (CHP) and the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) for annual reporting of DNA evidence
collected.
*DNA Identification Fund
Background: Existing law specifies that law enforcement should do one of
the following for any sexual assault forensic evidence received
by the law enforcement agency on or after January 1, 2015:
Submit sexual assault forensic evidence to the crime lab
within 20 days after it is booked into evidence; or
Ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place
to submit forensic evidence collected from the victim of a
sexual assault directly from the medical facility where the
victim is examined to the crime lab within five days after
the evidence is obtained from the victim.
Existing law also specifies timelines a crime lab should follow
for any sexual assault forensic evidence received by the crime
lab on or after January 1, 2016.
Proposed Law:
This bill would require law enforcement agencies responsible
for taking or processing rape kit evidence to annually report by
July 1 of each year, all of the following information to the
DOJ:
The number of rape kits the law enforcement agency
collects.
The number of rape kits the law enforcement agency
collects that are tested.
The number of rape kits the law enforcement agency
collects that are not tested.
For a rape kit collected and not tested, the reason the
rape kit was not tested.
AB 909 (Quirk) Page 2 of
?
This bill also requires the DOJ, commencing January 1, 2017, and
each January 1 thereafter, to submit a report to the appropriate
policy committees of the Legislature summarizing the information
above received from law enforcement agencies.
Related
Legislation: AB 1517 (Skinner) Chapter 874/2014 establishes
timelines for law enforcement agencies and crime labs to perform
and process DNA testing of rape kit evidence.
AB 322 (Portantino) 2011 would have created a pilot project,
commencing July 1, 2012, in 10 counties to have the DOJ test all
rape kits collected after the start date of the pilot project in
those counties to determine if such testing increases their
arrest rates in rape cases. This bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
AB 558 (Portantino) 2010 would have required law enforcement
agencies that take or collect rape kit evidence to annually
report specified information concerning the testing and
destruction of that evidence to the DOJ. This bill was vetoed by
the Governor with the following message:
This bill is similar to AB 1017 (2009), which I also vetoed.
Unfortunately, while this measure is well-intended, it continues
to ignore the precarious fiscal conditions of California's crime
laboratories. Indeed, as noted by the California Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force in its 2009 report, DNA,
fingerprints, and firearms testing have been identified as areas
where requests often exceed staffing capabilities. The Task
Force also noted that in order to eliminate the backlog for DNA
testing, an additional 282 analysts would have to be funded.
Unfortunately, AB 558 will not provide any additional funding or
staffing for crime laboratories and will instead divert
resources away from testing to sending reports to the Department
of Justice. In this time of fiscal crisis, I cannot condone this
shift in priorities.
AB 1017 (Portantino) 2009 would have required law enforcement
agencies that take or collect rape kit evidence to annually
report specified information concerning the testing and
destruction of that evidence to the DOJ. This bill was also
AB 909 (Quirk) Page 3 of
?
vetoed by the Governor.
Staff
Comments: By requiring law enforcement agencies responsible for
taking or processing rape kit evidence to report annually on
specified information collected during the preceding year to the
DOJ, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. The
potential costs associated with this mandate are unknown, and
would vary by city and county. In addition to great variation in
the number of rape kits among cities and counties, local law
enforcement agencies organize, store, log, and track rape kits
differently. For cities and counties which have their evidence
logs computerized, this bill requires a much smaller task than
for those that do not.
It is estimated that all law enforcement entities, both local
and state, would be subject to the data collection and reporting
requirements of this bill. There are currently 482 cities and 58
counties in the State. While statewide costs cannot be estimated
with certainty, given the large number of local agencies and the
non-numerical information required to be collected and reported,
these activities could result in significant one-time and
ongoing costs potentially in excess of several hundred thousand
dollars annually. To the extent local agency expenditures
qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim
reimbursement of those costs (General Fund).
While the workload involved to report the number of rape kits
collected, tested, and untested, may not be substantial, the
workload required to document and report the reason for each
rape kit that remains untested would be much more resource
intensive. To the extent local agencies additionally require the
development of a central database and other system enhancements
to collect, track, and report the information, these one-time
and ongoing costs for maintenance and operations could also be
significant.
The CHP and CDCR have both indicated minor, absorbable workload
to meet the reporting requirements of this bill.
-- END --
AB 909 (Quirk) Page 4 of
?