BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2298 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Weber |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 31, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Gangs
HISTORY
Source: Youth Justice Coalition; Urban Peace Initiative;
PolicyLink
Prior Legislation: SB 458 (Wright) - Ch. 797 Stats. of 2013
Support: A New path; All of Us or None; Alliance for Boys and
Men of Color; Alliance San Diego; American Civil
Liberties Union; American Friends Service Committee;
Arts for Incarcerated Youth Network; Asian Americans
Advancing Justice - California; Asian Pacific Policy &
Planning Council; Aspire Los Angeles; Bay Area Youth
Summit; Boston-area Youth Organizing Project;
California Immigrant Policy Center; California
Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance; California League of
United Latin American Citizens; Public Interest
Advocacy; The Center for Popular Democracy; Central
American Resource Center-LA; Chance Films; Coalition
for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; Community
Coalition; CSA San Diego County; Dream Team Los
Angeles; Drug Policy Alliance; Electronic Frontier
Foundation; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Fair
Chance Project; Filipino Migrant Center; Homeboy
Industries; House Keys not Handcuffs; Immigrant
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
2 of ?
Defenders Law Center; Immigrant Legal Resource Center;
Immigrant youth Coalition; Inland Empire Immigrant
Youth Coalition; Justice Not Jails; Khmer Girls in
Action; KIWA Workers for Justice; Korean Resource
Center; Law Offices of Chavez and Vigil; Learn
Everything About the Parole Process; Legal Services
for Prisoners with Children; Life After Uncivil
Ruthless Acts; Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition;
Los Angeles Brown Berets; Los Angeles Center for Law
and Justice; Loyola Law School of Los Angeles; Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Motivating
Individual Leadership for Public Advancement; National
Association of Social Workers, California Chapter;
national Juvenile Justice Network; Orange County
Immigrant Youth United; People Organized for Westside
Renewal; PICO California; PolicyLink; Public Counsel;
Public Law Center; RAIZ; Santa Ana Boys and Men of
Color; San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium;
Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network;
Silicon Valley De-Bug; Southwestern Law School;
Teachers Unite; T.R.U.S.T. South Los Angeles; Urban
Peace Institute; University of California Irvine
School of Law; Violence Prevention Coalition; The W.
Haywood Burns Institute; The Women's Foundation of
California; Young Women's Freedom Center; Youth
Justice Coalition
Opposition:Association of Deputy District Attorneys; California
District Attorneys Association; California Police
Chiefs Association Inc.; California State Sheriffs'
Association; E3 Research; Fraternal Order of Police;
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Assembly Floor Vote: 42 - 34
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to: 1) extend to adults the right to
be notified of inclusion in a shared gang database and to seek
removal of a person's name and identifying information from the
database; 2) require that database operators comply with federal
privacy and data accuracy rules, as specified; 3) require that
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
3 of ?
any person who has not been convicted of a gang-related crime
within three years be removed from the data; 4) establish an
administrative procedure, with an available superior court
appeal, for seeking removal from a gang database; 5) require any
agency that utilizes a shared gang database to annually report
to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the number of persons in
the database, the number of people in each of the following
categories in the previous year - added to the database, sought
removal, were granted removal and automatically removed; and
6) require DOJ to annually publish the information on its
Website, as specified.
Existing law defines a "criminal street gang" as any ongoing
organization, association, or group of three or more persons . .
. having as one of its primary activities the commission of one
or more enumerated offenses, having a common name or identifying
sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively
engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity. (Pen. Code, §
186.22, subd. (f).)
Existing law provides that any person who actively participates
in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage
in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity and
who promotes, furthers, or assists in any felonious conduct by
members of the gang is guilty of an alternate
felony-misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that any person who is convicted of a
felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in
association with any criminal street gang, with the specific
intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by
gang members, shall receive a sentence enhancement or specified
life term. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that any person who is convicted of either
a felony or misdemeanor that is committed for the benefit of, at
the direction of, or in association with any criminal street
gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in
any criminal conduct by gang members, shall be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or by 1, 2,
or 3 years in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d).)
Existing law defines "pattern of criminal gang activity" as the
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
4 of ?
commission of two or more of enumerated offenses, provided at
least one of the offenses occurred after the effective date of
the statute and the last of the offenses occurred within three
years after a prior offense, and the offenses were committed on
separate occasions, or by two or more persons. (Pen. Code, §
186.22, subd. (e).)
Existing law requires any person who is convicted in criminal
court or who has a petition sustained in a juvenile court of one
of the specified criminal street gang offenses or enhancements
to register with the local Police Chief or Sheriff within 10
days of release from custody or within 10 days of his or her
arrival in any city, county, or city and county to reside there,
whichever is first. (Pen. Code, § 186.30, subds. (a) & (b).)
Existing law provides that when a minor has been tried as an
adult and convicted in a criminal court or has had a petition
sustained in a juvenile court for any of the specified criminal
street gang offenses or enhancements, a law enforcement agency
shall notify the minor and his or her parent that the minor
belongs to a gang whose members engage in or have engaged in a
pattern of criminal activity as described. (Pen. Code, § 186.32
(a)(1)(B).)
Existing law requires the court, at the time of sentencing in
adult court or dispositional hearing in juvenile court, to
inform any person subject to registration detailed above of his
or her duty to register and requires that the parole or
probation officer assigned to that person to verify that the
person has complied with the registration requirements. (Pen.
Code, § 186.31.)
Existing law requires local law enforcement to notify a minor
and his or her parent or guardian before designating that minor
as a gang member, associate, or affiliate in a shared gang
database and the basis for the designation. (Pen. Code §
186.34.)
Existing law authorizes a minor included in a gang data base, or
the minor's parent or guardian, to request, with supporting
documentation, the relevant local law enforcement agency to
remove the minor's name and information from the database and
gives the law enforcement agency 60 days to act on the request.
(Pen. Code § 186.34 (c).)
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
5 of ?
Existing law requires local law enforcement to notify a minor
and his or her parent or guardian before designating that minor
as a gang member, associate, or affiliate in a shared gang
database and the basis for the designation. (Pen. Code §
186.34.)
This bill expands the notice requirement given to minors to
include adults, by requiring notice be provided to an adult
before designating a person as a suspected gang member,
associate, or affiliate in the database.
This bill requires databases comply with federal requirements
regarding the privacy and accuracy of information in the
database, and other operating principles for maintaining these
databases.
This bill requires local law enforcement, commencing December 1,
2017, and every December 1st thereafter to submit specified data
pertaining to the database to the Department of Justice, and
would require the Department of Justice, commencing January 1,
2018, and every January 1st thereafter, to submit a report
containing that information to the CalGang Executive Board and
to the Legislature.
This bill requires that a person designated as a suspected gang
member, associate, or affiliate in a shared gang database who
has not been convicted of a violation of gang-related crimes, as
specified, within three years of the initial designation be
removed from the database.
This bill establishes a procedure for a person designated in a
shared gang database to challenge that designation through an
administrative hearing and appeal to the superior court as
follows:
a) Provides that a person who is listed by a law
enforcement agency in a shared gang database as a gang
member, suspected gang member, associate, or affiliate may
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
6 of ?
contest that designation pursuant to this section. The
person may contest the designation initially pursuant to
this section or a denial as specified.
b) States that the person may request an administrative
hearing to review the designation decision.
c) Provides that an administrative hearing shall be held
within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request
for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the
hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21
calendar days.
d) States that the administrative hearing shall be
conducted in accordance with written procedures established
by the agency. The hearing shall provide an independent,
objective, fair, and impartial review of a contested
designation.
e) Provides that the agency shall appoint or contract with
qualified examiners or administrative hearing providers
that employ qualified examiners to conduct the
administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate those
qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to
conduct a fair and impartial review.
f) States that the examiner's decision following the
administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the
person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail, and, if
the designation is not canceled, shall include a written
reason for that denial.
g) Provides that within 30 calendar days after the mailing
or personal delivery of the examiner's decision, the person
may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the
superior court where the appeal shall be heard de novo. A
copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or
by first-class mail upon the agency by the person.
h) Provides that the law enforcement agency has the burden
of demonstrating active gang membership, associate status,
or affiliate status to the court by clear and convincing
evidence.
i) States that a successful challenge to the designation
shall result in the removal of the person from the shared
gang database.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
7 of ?
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
overcrowding.
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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state 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:
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
8 of ?
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.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
In 2013 the enactment of SB 458 (Wright) gave a youth
under 18 and his or her parent or guardian the right
to be notified if they were added to a gang file and
to challenge their designation. In just two years
since the passing of SB 458, the number of people on
the CalGang Database has dropped from nearly 202,000
to approximately 150,000.
As an indication of how powerful transparency is in
achieving fair and accurate implementation, AB 2298
continues the work of SB 458 by 1) Extending to adults
the current requirement that youth under 18 be given
notice as well as an opportunity to contest inclusion
in a shared gang database; 2) Removing individuals
from the gang database after three years without a
convicted violation of California's Street Terrorism
Enforcement and Prevention Act; and 3) Requiring that
the California Department of Justice (DOJ) post an
annual local law enforcement data reports on gang
databases.
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
9 of ?
Most important, for youth and young adults that police
suspect of gang membership or association, they and
their families should be both notified and flooded
with intervention resources and other supports.
Instead, the continued secrecy of CalGang and the
increased surveillance and police contact it triggers,
actually eliminate a vital and early opportunity to
prevent victimization, injury, incarceration and
death. In fact, CalGang and similar efforts exclude
people and their families from the community when they
most need that connection and support.
2.History of Shared Gang Databases
In 1987, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department developed
the Gang Reporting, Evaluation and Tracking System (GREAT), the
nation's first gang database. "Before GREAT existed, police
departments collected information on gang members in locally
maintained files, but could not access information that had been
collected by other law enforcement agencies." (Stacey Leyton,
The New Blacklists: The Threat to Civil Liberties Posed by Gang
Databases (a chapter in Crime Control and Social Justice: The
Delicate Balance, edited by Darnell F. Hawkins, Samuel L. Myers
Jr. and Randolph N. Stone, Westport, CT, 2003. The African
American Experience, Greenwood Publishing Group, Mar. 27, 2013.
Using GREAT, local law enforcement could collect, store,
centralize, analyze, and disperse information about alleged gang
members.
In 1988, the Legislature passed the Street Terrorism Enforcement
and Prevention (STEP) Act, asserting California to be "in a
state of crisis? caused by violent street gangs whose members
threaten, terrorize and commit a multitude of crimes against the
peaceful citizens of their neighborhoods." (Pen. Code, § 186.21
(1988).) The STEP Act established the nation's first
definitions of "criminal street gang," "pattern of criminal gang
activity," and codified penalties for participation in a
criminal street gang.
In 1997, less than a decade after the regional GREAT database
was first created, the regional GREAT databases were integrated
into a new unified statewide database, CalGang, with the goals
of making the database easier to use and less expensive to
access. CalGang operates pursuant to the 1968 Omnibus Crime
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
10 of ?
Control and Safe Streets Act, which requires that "all criminal
intelligence systems ? are utilized in conformance with the
privacy and constitutional rights of individuals."
3.Required Parental Notification of a Minor's Duty to
Register as a Gang Member
Prior to 2013, if a minor was tried as an adult and
convicted, or had a petition sustained in a juvenile court,
his or her parent or guardian was required to be notified
of a requirement to register with a local sheriff's office
upon release from custody or moving to a new city or
county. (Pen. Code, § 186.32, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Parents
were notified when a minor was designated in the CalGang
database as a suspected gang member, associate, or
affiliate. Although a conviction or declaration of
wardship was not required for a minor to be placed in the
CalGang database, serious consequences to the minor could
flow from that action.
SB 458 (Wright), Chapter 797, Statutes of 2013 required a
local law enforcement agency to notify any person under 18
years of age and his or her parent or guardian of the
minor's designation in a shared gang database and the basis
for the designation before the minor was designated as a
suspected gang member, associate or affiliate in a shared
gang database, regardless of conviction status.
4.Application of Shared Gang Databases
The CalGang system is accessed by over 6,000 law enforcement
officers in 58 counties. The database tracks 200 data fields
including name, address, physical information, social security
number, and racial makeup and records all encounters police have
with the individual. (Leyton, supra, at 113.) CalGang is a
web-based intranet system accessible by police departments by
way of computer, telephone, and web browser that allows law
enforcement to check an individual's record in real time.
(Ibid.) For example, qualified law enforcement personnel may
sign on to the CalGang database from a laptop in their patrol
car and locate a source document regarding a specific individual
about whom law enforcement seeks information.
Concerns have been raised regarding the secrecy of the CalGang
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
11 of ?
database and the accuracy of records entered into CalGang. For
example, in 1999, then-Attorney General Bill Lockyer described
the database as "mix[ing] verified criminal history and gang
affiliations with unverified intelligence and hearsay evidence,
including reports on persons who have committed no crime."
"This database," he went on "cannot and should not be used, in
California or elsewhere, to decide whether or not a person is
dangerous or should be detained." (Ibid.) Moreover, with
201,094 people currently listed on CalGang, community groups
have expressed concern about transparency, accountability,
notification, release of information to policy makers and the
public, and independent evaluations regarding the effectiveness
of such shared databases in reducing crime.
Youth Justice Coalition states that CalGang "dramatically
expands the criminalization of individuals and communities"
noting that the database is used routinely to determine who
should be served with civil gang injunctions, given gang
enhancements during sentencing and targeted for saturation
policing. With no notification system, community members say,
CalGang has become a "secret surveillance tool," for monitoring
children. This system dramatically impacts the way those
children are seen and treated by law enforcement without
notifying families who may wish to intervene, move to a new
neighborhood or place their child into an intervention program.
(Id.) Although the exact number of minors designated is
unknown, approximately 10% of those listed on the CalGang
database are 19 years of age or younger. (Id.)
Law enforcement representatives, however, have emphasized that
any records which are not modified by the addition of new
criteria for five years will be purged. Thus, a person need
only avoid gang-qualifying criteria for five years to ensure
that he or she will be stricken from the database.
However, as a practical matter, it may be difficult for a minor,
or a young-adult, living in a gang-heavy community to avoid
qualifying criteria when the list of behaviors includes items
such as "is in a photograph with known gang members," "name is
on a gang document, hit list or gang-related graffiti" or
"corresponds with known gang members or writes and/or receives
correspondence." In a media-heavy environment, replete with
camera phones and social network comments, it may be challenging
for a teenager aware of the exact parameters to avoid such
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
12 of ?
criteria, let alone a teenager unaware of he or she is being
held to such standards.
5.Criminal Intelligence Systems
According to the United States Code of Federal Regulations,
title 28, section 23, a Criminal Intelligence System is allowed
to collect the names of individuals or organizations not
reasonably suspected of involvement in criminal activity, as
"noncriminal identifying information" if the information relates
to the identification of a criminal subject or criminal
activity. The broad definition of criminal activity allows the
database to maintain identifying information of many people,
whether or not they have been involved in gang activity.
According to the Criminal Intelligence Systems website, the
stated qualifications limit inclusion to "criminal activity that
constitutes a significant and recognized threat to the
community. In general, 28 CFR Part 23 views such criminal
activity to be multijurisdictional and/or organized criminal
activity that involves a significant degree of permanent
criminal organization or is undertaken for the purpose of
seeking illegal power or profits or poses a threat to the life
and property of citizens. This would normally not include
traffic or other misdemeanor violations."
(http://www.iir.com/Home/28CFR_Program/28CFR_FAQ/)
6.Due Process and the Actions of Law Enforcement Agencies
Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution serve as
protections from arbitrary denials of life, liberty, or
property by the government, absent law. The protections at
risk regarding shared gang databases are both procedural
and substantive. Procedural due process protects
individuals from the coercive power of the government,
which is in this case law enforcement agencies, by ensuring
there are processes in place that allow a fair and
impartial adjudication of issues.
Article I of the State Constitution says a person may not
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
13 of ?
process of law or be denied equal protection of the laws.
In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Vasquez v.
Rackauckas, the court stated that this due process clause
provides greater procedural due process rights for private
parties than does the federal Constitution. The
defendants-appellants had been dismissed from a case to
enforce a local gang injunction. The prosecution proceeded
in the case and secured a gang injunction. When the
injunction was being enforced, the police tried to apply
the injunction to the two defendants who had been dismissed
in the case. The defendant-appellants appealed the
injunction on the basis that they were dismissed from the
injunction case and were never afforded a due process
hearing regarding the injunction. The court held that the
defendant-appellants were entitled to a due process hearing
prior to being subjected to the injunction order. (Vasquez
v. Rackauckas, (2013) 734 F.3d 1025.)
Limited Existing Due Process Procedures: Currently, only
minors and their parent or guardian, are allowed to be
notified that the minor is being entered in the system.
Adults have been totally omitted from the notification
process even though they are affected by being included in
the database. According to the report by the Coalition,
these databases can be very harmful to anyone who is
categorized as being connected to a gang, even if no such
connection ever existed or they were part of a gang 20
years ago. There is no way today for an adult to find out
if they have been "tagged" as a gang member by law
enforcement and entered into this system. Even if that
adult could discover that he or she were included in the
database, there is no way today to challenge that
inclusion. Finding
out that you are in the system during contact with police
or when you are applying for college, places the individual
in an unfair position and there are not many opportunities
for a person to refute the designation. Furthermore, there
must also be a process for having a person's name removed
from the system if the individual is not connected with a
gang. What happens to a person who has a family member or
relative who is associated with a gang? Is that innocent
person also entered into the database because they qualify
as an associate or an affiliate? Suppression of criminal
activity is the job of law enforcement and there are many
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
14 of ?
tools that they use to perform their jobs. However, the
use of these shared databases has to be reviewed to ensure
that their use doesn't destroy the constitutional rights of
those who have been entered.
7.Argument in Support
Urban Peace Institute (UPI) argues in support:
Assembly Bill 2298 will require local law enforcement
departments to notify people when they are added to a
shared gang database, including the statewide CalGang
Database. The bill will also enable people to inquire
as to their status on a database, to challenge their
designation if they no longer or never have never
belonged to a gang. The bill provides a clear process
for removal from a gang database and for notification
of removal. The bill also requires the State
Department of Justice to report on an annual basis how
many people are added and removed from gang databases
by age, race, gender and geography.
In the early 1980s, Los Angeles and quickly the whole
state engaged in an aggressive "war on gangs,"
including the creation of gang databases. Since then -
for nearly 40 years - gang databases have operated
without accuracy, consistency or transparency.
Information for local databases is primarily collected
through routine police stops - on the street, in
schools and traffic stops. Police gather information
through a field interview, and local departments then
feed this information into shared databases and also
into the statewide CalGang Database. Most people are
added to local databases and the CalGang Database
without having been arrested or accused of a crime.
Until the recent passing of Senate Bill 458, no person
had a legal right to be notified or an opportunity to
appeal their designation as a gang member. SB 458
granted those rights only to minors.
Nearly 20% of the people on the CalGang Database are
African- American and 66% are Latino. Since only 6.6%
of Californians are African-Americans, and just 38.1%
are Latino, this represents an alarming racial
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
15 of ?
disparity. Databases are often used to add people to
gang injunctions, contribute to evidence for gang
enhancements in court, and are used to deny people
access to victims' compensation when a person is
killed or injured. An individual's information can
also be shared and accessed by federal law enforcement
agencies including the FBI and ICE, having huge
implications for a person's ability to realize
immigration opportunities including deferred action
and prosecutorial discretion.
To increase accuracy: AB 2298 will create a process
for the removal from gang databases of individuals not
currently active in a gang. To establish consistency:
AB 2298 will create standard processes for law
enforcement agencies across the state for
implementation of both SB 458 and AB 2298. To promote
transparency: AB 2298 will provide notice to
individuals before they are documented as gang
members, allow individuals to inquire about their
inclusion in gang databases and require the annual
release of data on the numbers and demographics of
people added to or removed from gang databases?.
8.Argument in Opposition
E3 Research argues in opposition:
E3 Research, which is comprised of researchers with
experience in the field of law enforcement and gang
expert testimony, opposes AB 2298, which would require
notice to a person if he or she is placed in a gang
database.
It is not a crime to be involved with a gang. The
issue is when individuals engage in criminal activity
for the benefit, at the direction of or in association
with the gang. Some of the most challenging cases to
solve in law enforcement are gang crimes. Many
individuals are afraid for their safety and afraid of
fear and intimidation. The fear not only extends from
victims and witnesses, but it also occurs in the
courtroom with jurors. The theory behind gang
intelligence is to monitor the gang activity that is
AB 2298 (Weber ) Page
16 of ?
conducted by its members. Safety becomes the number
one priority and maintaining intelligence helps to
solve the criminal activity committed by gang members.
By releasing information in the gang database, you not
only jeopardize the safety of the individual you are
releasing the information to who is on the list, you
are also jeopardizing the safety of others within the
gang and their families. Rival gang members can use
the information to identify their targets which can
lead to violent crimes. Releasing the information also
jeopardizes the integrity of law enforcement
investigations that include drug sales, murders,
robberies, selling and manufacturing firearms, just to
name a few. Currently a majority of law enforcement
agencies maintain someone in their gang database for
approximately five-years and then those individuals
are purged from the system, unless there are
additional validation criteria that shows the
individual is continuing their affiliation with the
gang. This has been proven to work in the court of law
when gang cases and gang evidence is required to prove
a case and obtain a conviction.
-- END -