BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          1848 (Chiu and Quirk)


          As Amended  May 9, 2016


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
          |Public Safety   |7-0  |Jones-Sawyer,         |                     |
          |                |     |Melendez, Lackey,     |                     |
          |                |     |Lopez, Low, Quirk,    |                     |
          |                |     |Santiago              |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
          |Appropriations  |19-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                     |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                     |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                     |
          |                |     |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                     |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                     |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                     |
          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                     |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                     |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 










                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  2





          SUMMARY:  Requires local law enforcement agencies to  
          periodically update the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence  
          Tracking database (SAFE-T) on the disposition of all sexual  
          assault evidence kits (rape kits) in their custody.   
          Specifically, this bill:  
          1)Finds and declares that there is a significant public interest  
            in knowing whether rape kits have been tested and if the kits  
            have not been tested, the reasons why they were not tested.
          2)Requires participation by law enforcement agencies in the  
            SAFE-T database.


          3)Requires law enforcement agencies, on a schedule set by the  
            Department of Justice (DOJ) to submit via SAFE-T the:  


             a)   Number of rape kits collected during the set period, 
             b)   Number of kits where biological evidence was submitted  
               to a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) laboratory for analysis, 


             c)   Number of kits from which a DNA profile hit was  
               generated, and 


             d)   Reasons why a particular rape kit was not submitted to a  
               DNA laboratory for testing.


          4)Requires DNA laboratories to enter into SAFE-T, every 120  
            days, and the reasons why any particular rape kit has not been  
            tested.
          5)Provides that when the statute of limitations has expired, or  
            when a law enforcement agency elects not to analyze DNA, or to  
            destroy or dispose of it, the agency shall provide a written  
            statement explaining why the kit was not analyzed.  This  
            statement relieves the agency of any further duty to report.  










                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  3





          6)States that SAFE-T shall not contain any identifying  
            information about a victim or a suspect, any DNA profiles, or  
            any information that would impair a pending criminal  
            investigation.


          7)Requires DOJ to annually report to the Legislature a summary  
            of the information entered into SAFE-T.


          8)States that, beside the required report to the Legislature,  
            all contents of SAFE-T shall be confidential, and no law  
            enforcement agency or laboratory may be compelled in a civil  
            or criminal proceeding to disclose the contents of SAFE-T  
            unless the contents contain exculpatory evidence for a  
            criminal defendant.


          9)Finds and declares that it is necessary to keep SAFE-T's  
            contents confidential in order to protect victims of crime. 


          EXISTING LAW: 


           1) Requires an adult arrested for or charged with a felony and  
             a juvenile adjudicated for a felony to submit DNA samples.  


           2) Establishes the DNA and Forensic Identification Database and  
             Data Bank Program to assist federal, state, and local  
             criminal justice and law enforcement agencies within and  
             outside California in the expeditious and accurate detection  
             and prosecution of individuals responsible for sex offenses  
             and other crimes, the exclusion of suspects who are being  
             investigated for these crimes, and the identification of  
             missing and unidentified persons, particularly abducted  
             children.  









                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  4






           3) Encourages DNA analysis of rape kits within the statute of  
             limitations, which states that a criminal complaint must be  
             filed within one year after the identification of the suspect  
             by DNA evidence, and that DNA evidence must be analyzed  
             within two years of the offense for which it was collected.  


          4)Encourages law enforcement agencies to submit rape kits to  
            crime labs within 20 days after the kit is booked into  
            evidence.  


           5) Encourages the establishment of rapid turnaround DNA  
             programs, where the rape kit is sent directly from the  
             facility where it was collected to the lab for testing within  
             five days.  


           6) Encourages crime labs to do one of the following:


             a)   Process rape kits, create DNA profiles when possible,  
               and upload qualifying DNA profiles into CODIS within 120  
               days of receipt of the rape kit; or


             b)   Transmit the rape kit to another crime lab within 30  
               days to create a DNA profile, and then upload the profile  
               into Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) within 30 days of  
               being notified about the presence of DNA.  



           7) Requires law enforcement agencies to inform victims in  
             writing if they intend to destroy a rape kit 60 days prior to  
             the destruction of the rape kit, when the case is unsolved  
             and the statute of limitations has not run.  









                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  5






          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:


          1)Unknown minor reimbursable state mandated costs (General Fund)  
            for local agencies to provide the required information, in a  
            yet unspecified schedule, to DOJ.  However, this bill does  
            require DOJ to submit quarterly reports to the Legislature;  
            therefore staff assumes the information must be submitted at  
            least quarterly.  The database is web-based and free for local  
            law enforcement agencies, so the only cost to local agencies  
            will be workload to enter and data and any status updates.   
            Also, DOJ manages all DNA evidence testing for 46 of the 58  
            counties; the reimbursable cost from the other 12 should be  
            minor, if any.  However, reporting the reason why a rape kit  
            was not tested will be more resource intensive than providing  
            statistical data; but that should not be a common occurrence. 


          2)Costs to DOJ are minor and absorbable.


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, "When tested, DNA evidence can be an  
          incredibly powerful tool to solve and prevent crime.  It can  
          identify an unknown assailant and confirm the presence of a  
          known suspect.  It can affirm the survivor's account of the  
          attack and discredit the suspect.  It can connect the suspect to  
          other crime scenes.  It can exonerate innocent suspects.




          "However, as we've seen over the past few years, there has been  
          widespread mismanagement of DNA evidence in sexual assault cases  
          in many jurisdictions.  Survivors of sexual assault who are  
          submitting sexual assault evidence kits aren't getting the  
          answers they need and deserve. 









                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  6








          "To accomplish these things, however, rape kits must be tested.   
          Right now, some kits are analyzed, but a vast majority is not.   
          In California, we know there is a backlog of over 6,100 kits -  
          but we don't know how long they've been sitting on the shelf, or  
          if there were or were not legitimate reasons why they were not  
          tested. 




          "Currently, there is no comprehensive data on how many rape kits  
          are collected and the reasons why kits are not tested.  To get  
          at the crux of the backlog problem, we need to know how many  
          kits are collected each year, and if they're not analyzed, we  
          need to know why. 




          "AB 1848 aims to solve this problem by directing law enforcement  
          agencies to track how many sexual assault evidence kits they  
          collect and the number of kits they analyze each year, and  
          further directing agencies to report annually to DOJ their  
          reasons for not analyzing sexual assault evidence kits. 




          "Data and transparency are a necessary part of the solution.   
          The data collected through AB 1848 could help policy makers  
          consider whether law enforcement agencies' current approaches in  
          this area need to change or whether or not law enforcement needs  
          additional resources to better manage the processing of these  
          kits."










                                                                    AB 1848


                                                                    Page  7







          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Sandy Uribe/ PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744  FN:  
          0002900