BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2440
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
2440 (Gatto) - As Amended March 17, 2016
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY: Appropriates fifteen-million-dollars ($15,000,000) to
fund a County DNA Identification Fund. Specifically, this bill:
1)Appropriates fifteen-million-dollars ($15,000,000) to fund a
County DNA Identification Fund.
2)Specifies funds pursuant to this section shall only be used
for the following purposes:
a) To assist law enforcement agencies within the county,
including local sheriff and district attorney agencies,
with the identification, review, and investigation of
unsolved serious or violent cold cases to determine if
biological evidence exists that could provide a DNA
investigative lead to law enforcement, including, but not
limited to, the DNA profile of a putative suspect that
could be uploaded into national, state, local, or other law
AB 2440
Page B
enforcement DNA databases, and when more than three years
have elapsed since the date of violation of the cold case
crime.
b) To assist law enforcement agencies within the county,
including local sheriff and district attorney agencies,
with the investigation of cases where crime scene
biological evidence has been collected and analyzed and a
DNA profile that could provide an investigative lead to law
enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to, the
DNA profile of a putative suspect, has been generated and
uploaded into national, state, local, or other law
enforcement DNA databases and a DNA match has resulted in
the identification of a putative suspect or a match to a
DNA profile from another crime scene.
3)Requires the district attorney to publicize, as specified,
when an investigation using these funds results in a solved
case.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies that the "Missing Persons DNA Database" shall be
funded by a two dollar ($2) fee increase on death certificates
issued by a local governmental agency or by the State of
California. The issuing agencies may retain up to 5 percent of
the funds from the fee increase for administrative costs.
(Pen. Code, § 14251, subd. (a).)
2)Funds shall be directed on a quarterly basis to the "Missing
Persons DNA Data Base Fund," hereby established, to be
administered by the department for establishing and
maintaining laboratory infrastructure, DNA sample storage, DNA
analysis, and labor costs for cases of missing persons and
unidentified remains. Funds may also be distributed by the
department to various counties for the purposes of pathology
and exhumation consistent with this title. The department may
AB 2440
Page C
also use those funds to publicize the database for the purpose
of contacting parents and relatives so that they may provide a
DNA sample for training law enforcement officials about the
database and DNA sampling and for outreach. (Pen. Code, §
14251, subd. (b).)
3)Provides that the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall develop a
DNA database for all cases involving the report of an
unidentified deceased person or a high-risk missing person.
(Pen. Code, § 14250, subd. (a)(1).)
4)Provides that the database shall be comprised of DNA data from
genetic markers that are appropriate for human identification,
but have no capability to predict biological function other
than gender. These markers shall be selected by the department
and may change as the technology for DNA typing progresses.
The results of DNA typing shall be compatible with and
uploaded into the CODIS DNA database established by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The sole purpose of this
database shall be to identify missing persons and shall be
kept separate from the database established as specified.
(Pen. Code, § 14250, subd. (a)(2).)
5)Provides that DOJ shall compare DNA samples taken from the
remains of unidentified deceased persons with DNA samples
taken from personal articles belonging to the missing person,
or from the parents or appropriate relatives of high-risk
missing persons. (Pen. Code, § 14250, subd. (a)(3).)
6)Defines "high-risk missing person" means a person missing as a
result of a stranger abduction, a person missing under
suspicious circumstances, a person missing under unknown
circumstances, or where there is reason to assume that the
person is in danger, or deceased, and that person has been
missing more than 30 days, or less than 30 days in the
discretion of the investigating agency. (Pen. Code, § 14250,
subd. (a)(4).)
7)Requires that DOJ shall develop standards and guidelines for
AB 2440
Page D
the preservation and storage of DNA samples. Any agency that
is required to collect samples from unidentified remains for
DNA testing shall follow these standards and guidelines. These
guidelines shall address all scientific methods used for the
identification of remains, including DNA, anthropology,
odontology, and fingerprints. (Pen. Code, § 14250, subd.
(b).)
8)Specifies that all DNA samples and profiles developed
therefrom shall be confidential and shall only be disclosed to
personnel of the Department of Justice, law enforcement
officers, coroners, medical examiners, district attorneys, and
persons who need access to a DNA sample for purposes of the
prosecution or defense of a criminal case, except that a law
enforcement officer or agency may publicly disclose the fact
of a DNA profile match after taking reasonable measures to
first notify the family of an unidentified deceased person or
the family of a high-risk missing person that there has been
an identification. (Pen. Code § 14250, subd. (d).) States
that all DNA, forensic identification profiles, and other
identification information retained by the Department of
Justice pursuant to this section are exempt from any law
requiring disclosure of information to the public. (Pen.
Code, § 14250, subd. (e).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author "AB 2440 will
ensure that local law enforcement has the necessary funding to
pursue DNA matches and investigate cold cases. Funds to local
law enforcement have been reduced in recent years, and the
resources to investigate and follow-up on DNA cold hits is
AB 2440
Page E
limited. Simultaneously, the value of DNA evidence has become
even more apparent, and state mandates requiring expedited
investigation of these leads has put additional tension on
already strained local resources. AB 2440 will provide
crucial funding to aid local law enforcement in the use of
this valuable investigatory tool."
2)Amendments Taken in Committee: The amendments taken in
committee today substantially change the funding source of the
bill. The bill, as drafted, funds the DNA Investigation Fund
by a penalty assessment of $4 for every $10 or part thereof to
be levied in each county upon every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture imposed and collected by the court for specified
offenses, including, among others, misdemeanor and felony
offenses, misdemeanor violations of any city, county, or city
and county ordinance, and violations of the Penal Code
initially charged as a misdemeanor and reduced to an
infraction.
The amendments avoid creating a new penalty assessment by
authorizing an appropriation of $15,000,000 from the General
Fund. Penalty assessments in California are already
excessively high on criminal defendants. Offenders who are
forced to pay these penalty assessments are often facing loss
of employment, housing, and support. Additionally, they often
have to make heavy restitution to victims.
a) Penalty Assessments: The amount spelled out in statute
as a fine for violating a criminal offense are base
figures, as these amounts are subject to
statutorily-imposed penalty assessments, such as fees and
surcharges. Assuming a defendant is fined the default
felony fine of $10,000 under the Penal Code, the following
penalty assessments would be imposed pursuant to the
Government and Penal codes:
AB 2440
Page F
-------------------------------------------------------
|Base Fine: |$10,000.|
| | 00|
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Penal Code § 1464 assessment ($10 for every |$10,000.|
|$10): | 00|
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Penal Code § 1465.7 assessment (20% |$2,000.0|
|surcharge): | 0|
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Penal Code § 1465.8 assessment ($40 per | $40.00|
|criminal offense): | |
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Government Code § 70372 assessment ($5 for |$5,000.0|
|every $10): | 0|
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Government Code § 70373 assessment ($30 for | $30.00|
|felony or misdemeanor offense): | |
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Government Code § 76000 assessment ($7 for |$7,000.0|
|every $10): | 0|
| | |
| | |
AB 2440
Page G
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Government Code § 76000.5 assessment ($2 for |$2,000.0|
|every $10): | 0|
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Government Code § 76104.6 assessment ($1 for |$1,000.0|
|every $10): | 0|
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Government Code § 76104.7 assessment ($4 for |$4,000.0|
|every $10): |0 |
| | |
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+--------|
|Fine with Assessments: | |
| |$41,070.00*|
| | |
| | |
-------------------------------------------------------
*In addition to the assessments detailed in the chart, the
defendant could be subject to pay "actual administrative
costs" related to his or her arrest and booking (Gov. Code,
§ 29550 et seq.) and victim restitution for damages impose
by the court.
b) Abnormally High Criminal Penalties and Assessments in
California: In a January 2016 report, the LAO found that
California has abnormally high criminal penalties and
AB 2440
Page H
assessments. <1> According to the report, "[c]urrently,
comprehensive information is not available on the criminal
fine and fee levels of other states. However, in order to
compare California's fine and fee levels to the rest of
the nation, we surveyed other states. Specifically, we
surveyed one large jurisdiction in each of 33 states
(including many states similar to California) for the fines
and fees associated with two offenses: a stop sign
violation and speeding at 20 miles per hour over the limit.
We found that California's fines and fees associated with
these common traffic offenses are relatively high. For
example, the total fines and fees for a stop sign violation
in California is $238, which was higher than 28 of the [33]
surveyed states (about 85 percent). The total in other
surveyed states ranged from $58 to $277, and averaged $157.
The total fines and fees for speeding at 20 miles per hour
over the limit in California was $367, which was higher
than all of the states we surveyed. The total in other
surveyed states ranges from $73 to $350, and averaged $203.
The LAO made a number of recommendations to improve the
state's fine and fee system. "First, we recommend that the
Legislature reevaluate the overall structure of the fine
and fee system to ensure the system is consistent with its
goals. As part of this process, the Legislature will want
to determine the specific goals of the system, whether
ability to pay should be incorporated into the system, what
should be the consequences for failing to pay, and whether
fines and fees should be regularly adjusted. Second, we
recommend increasing legislative control over the use of
criminal fine and fee revenue to ensure that its uses are
in line with legislative priorities by (1) requiring that
most criminal fine and fee revenue be deposited in the
state General Fund, (2) consolidating most fines and fees
-------------------------
<1> Improving California's Criminal Fine and Fee System.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3322
AB 2440
Page I
into a single, statewide charge, (3) evaluating the
existing programs supported by fine and fee revenues, and
(4) mitigating the impacts of potential changes to the fine
and fee system on local governments."
3)Argument in Support: According to Los Angeles County
Professional Peace Officers Association, "AB 2440 will ensure
that local law enforcement has the necessary funding to pursue
DNA matches and investigate cold cases. Funds to local law
enforcement have been reduced in recent years and the
resources to investigate and follow-up on DNA evidence is
critical to solving cases and helping reduce the backlog of
cold cases."
4)Argument in Opposition: According to California Public
Defenders Association<2>, "As we understand this bill, it
would add an additional $4 penalty assessment for every $10 in
fines above the existing $1 penalty assessment for every $10
in fines. In other words this bill seeks to add a 40% penalty
assessment to fines imposed on most infractions, misdemeanors
and felonies.
"Not only is this bad policy but this is bad for California.
California is already notorious for imposing enormous penalty
assessments on top of fines that disproportionately affect the
poor in this state.
"The majority of individuals who are charged with criminal
--------------------------
<2> The amendments to this bill were negotiated approximately
the same time that the analysis was published. None of the
opposition had an opportunity to review the amendments prior to
publication. As a result, the opposition letters reflect the
"in print" version of the bill which includes penalty
assessments. All of the opposition focused on the issue of
penalty assessments as reflected by this letter.
AB 2440
Page J
offenses are indigent. Those who are employed typically work
long hours and are paid low wages. In addition to jail time
courts are required to impose victim restitution as well as
fines and fees. The amount of money the indigent clients are
required to pay in fines, fees, victim restitution and penalty
assessments is already exorbitant and unrealistic.
"The money defendants convicted of crimes must pay is
frequently money that would otherwise go to feeding and
providing support for themselves and their families. It is for
this reason that the California Public Defenders Association
strongly opposes this bill."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Crime Victims United
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
AB 2440
Page K
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared
by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744