BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1848 (Chiu) - DNA evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 1, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 1848 would require local law enforcement agencies
to periodically update the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence
Tracking (SAFE-T) database on the disposition of all sexual
assault evidence kits in their custody, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact:
Local law enforcement agencies : Ongoing costs potentially in
excess of $150,000 annually statewide to local law enforcement
agencies, potentially state-reimbursable (General Fund), for
mandated data collection, written statements, and reporting
workload. The magnitude of costs to each agency would be
dependent on the reporting frequency, the specified time
period (specifically whether retroactive reporting would be
required), and the data required to be reported, which is
unspecified and subject to the DOJ's discretion. Reporting the
reason why a rape kit was not tested is assumed to be more
resource intensive than providing only statistical data. Costs
AB 1848 (Chiu) Page 1 of
?
incurred across the 482 cities and 58 counties in California
could vary widely.
Department of Justice (DOJ) : Ongoing minor costs (Special
Fund*) to collect the data electronically and submit an annual
legislative report summarizing the data entered into the
SAFE-T database.
CHP/CDCR : Minor ongoing workload and costs (Special
Fund**/General Fund) for annual reporting of DNA evidence
collected.
*DNA Identification Fund
**Motor Vehicle Account
Background: In its report, "Sexual Assault Evidence Kits: Although
Testing All Kits Could Benefit Sexual Assault Investigations,
the Extent of the Benefits Is Unknown," (Report 2014-109,
October 2014), the California State Auditor noted the following
results in brief:
In the last few years, questions about why sexual
assault evidence kits are not sent to crime labs for
analysis have been raised at the state and national
levels. For example, multiple news media outlets have
covered stories about unanalyzed sexual assault
evidence kits that exist across several jurisdictions
in the country. Several major metropolitan areas,
including Detroit, Michigan; Memphis, Tennessee; and
Los Angeles County, have been the subject of national
attention focused on the number of sexual assault
evidence kits that law enforcement agencies in these
jurisdictions did not send for analysis. In a May
2011 special report titled The Road Ahead: Unanalyzed
Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases, the National
Institute of Justice - the research arm of the
federal Department of Justice - stated that untested
sexual assault kit evidence is being discovered at
law enforcement agencies across the country. While
the report acknowledges that there may be legitimate
reasons why a sexual assault evidence kit is not sent
for analysis, it concludes that more information is
needed about why agencies decide to send some kits
but not others.
AB 1848 (Chiu) Page 2 of
?
The California State Auditor made several recommendations in its
report, including but not limited to the following:
To establish more comprehensive information about sexual
assault evidence kits, specifically the number of kits
collected and the number of kits analyzed across the State,
the Legislature should direct law enforcement agencies to
report to Justice annually how many sexual assault evidence
kits they collect and how many kits they analyze each year.
The Legislature should also require an annual report from
Justice that details this information.
To provide the Legislature and the public with more
complete information about agency decisions not to analyze
sexual assault evidence kits, the Legislature should direct
agencies to report annually to Justice their reasons for
not analyzing sexual assault evidence kits. The Legislature
should require an annual report from Justice that details
this information.
As stated in this measure's legislative findings and
declarations, "There is a significant public interest in knowing
what percentage of rape kits are analyzed for the perpetrator's
DNA profile, as well as why any untested rape kits are not
analyzed. Currently, there is no mandatory statewide tracking
mechanism in place to collect and report these metrics. It is
the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section, pursuant
to recommendations by the California State Auditor to the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee, to correct that."
"In 2015, the Department of Justice created the Sexual Assault
Forensic Evidence Tracking (SAFE-T) database to track the status
of all sexual assault evidence kits collected in the state based
on voluntary data input from law enforcement agencies. It is the
intent of the Legislature by enacting this section to require
participation in that database."
AB 1848 (Chiu) Page 3 of
?
Proposed Law:
This bill, on a schedule set forth by the DOJ, requires each
law enforcement agency that has investigated a case involving
the collection of sexual assault kit evidence during the
relevant period of time, as determined by the DOJ to report to
the DOJ through the SAFE-T database, the data required by the
DOJ in its communications to law enforcement. The data shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
The number of kits collected during the period.
The number of kits from which one or more biological
evidence samples were submitted to a DNA laboratory for
analysis.
The number of kits from which a probative DNA profile
was generated.
The reason or reasons for not submitting evidence from a
given rape kit to a DNA laboratory for processing.
Additionally, this bill:
Requires a public laboratory to provide the reasons for
the status in the appropriate SAFE-T data field, after 120
days following submission of rape kit biological evidence
for processing, if a public DNA laboratory has not
conducted DNA testing.
If the investigating law enforcement agency has
contracted with a private laboratory to conduct DNA testing
on rape kit evidence, the submitting law enforcement agency
shall provide the 120-day update in SAFE-T. The process
described is required to take place every 120 days until
DNA testing occurs, except as specified.
Upon expiration of a sexual assault case's statute of
limitations, or if a law enforcement agency elects not to
analyze the DNA or intends to destroy or dispose of the
crime scene evidence, requires the investigating law
enforcement agency to state in writing the reason the kit
collected as part of that case's investigation was not
analyzed. This written statement relieves the investigating
law enforcement agency or public laboratory of any further
duty to report information related to that kit pursuant to
this section.
Provides that the SAFE-T database shall not contain any
identifying information about a victim or a suspect, shall
AB 1848 (Chiu) Page 4 of
?
not contain any DNA profiles, and shall not contain any
information that would impair a pending criminal
investigation.
On an annual basis, requires the DOJ to file a report to
the Legislature summarizing data entered into the SAFE-T
database during that year. Specifies the report shall not
reference individual victims, suspects, investigations, or
prosecutions. Requires the report to be made public by the
DOJ.
In order to protect the confidentiality of the SAFE-T
database information, provides that the SAFE-T database
contents to be confidential and a participating law
enforcement agency or laboratory shall not be compelled in
a criminal or civil proceeding, except as required by Brady
v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, to provide any SAFE-T
database contents to any person or party seeking those
records or information.
Includes codified Legislative findings and declarations
(reflected in the Background section of this analysis).
Related Legislation: AB 909 (Quirk) 2015 would have required a
law enforcement agency responsible for taking or processing rape
kit evidence to annually report, by July 1 of each year, to the
DOJ information pertaining to the processing of rape kits,
including the number of rape kits the law enforcement agency
collects, the number of those rape kits that are tested, and the
number of those rape kits that are not tested. For those rape
kits that are not tested, the bill would require the law
enforcement agency to also report the reason the rape kit was
not tested. This bill was held on the Suspense File of this
Committee.
AB 2499 (Maienschein) 2016 would require the DOJ, on or before
July 1, 2018, to establish a process by which victims of sexual
assault may inquire regarding the location and information
regarding their sexual assault evidence kits. This bill is
scheduled to be heard today by this Committee.
Prior
Legislation: AB 1517 (Skinner) Chapter 874/2014 AB 1517
(Skinner) Chapter 874/2014 sets timelines for law enforcement
agencies and crime labs to perform and process DNA testing of
AB 1848 (Chiu) Page 5 of
?
rape kit evidence.
AB 322 (Portantino) 2011 would have established a three-year
pilot program in 10 counties, commencing July 1, 2012, in which
all rape kits collected in those counties after that date will
be processed by the DOJ in department laboratories. This bill
was vetoed by the Governor with the following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 322 without my signature. This
measure would establish a new pilot program and require the
Department of Justice to test all rape kits collected from 10
specified counties. These counties, however, don't wish to
participate in the program. I don't see why we would mandate
counties to participate in a program they don't want, especially
when the state is cutting back on so many programs that are
needed and wanted. Local officials are in the best position to
determine whether to participate in such a program.
Staff
Comments: By requiring law enforcement agencies responsible for
taking or processing rape kit evidence to report periodically 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
AB 1848 (Chiu) Page 6 of
?
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. Staff notes, as drafted, it is unclear whether
retroactive reporting of an agency's existing backlog would be
required, or whether reporting would be required prospectively
only. As the bill provides DOJ with the discretion to determine
the frequency of reporting and the collection of sexual assault
kit evidence "during the relevant period of time," both of which
are unspecified, the potential workload impact to local agencies
is unknown but potentially significant.
The CHP and CDCR have both indicated minor, absorbable workload
to meet the reporting requirements of this bill.
Recommended
Amendments: This bill contains codified findings and
declarations. In the interest of code clarity and efficiency,
staff recommends this bill be amended to place the findings and
declarations (Penal Code § 680.1, subdivision (a)) in an
uncodified section of the bill.
-- END --