BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2440 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gatto |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 27, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: County DNA Identification Fund
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 1006 (Budget) - Ch. 32, Stats. 2012
AB 434 (Logue) - Ch. 195, Stats. 2011
Support: Association of Deputy District Attorneys; California
District Attorneys Association; California Police
Chiefs Association; Crime Victims United of
California; Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office; Los Angeles County Professional Peace
Officers; Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Los Angeles
Police Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs; Orange
County District Attorney's Office
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
2 of ?
The purpose of this bill is to appropriate
fifteen-million-dollars ($15,000,000) to a County DNA
Identification Fund.
Existing law provides that for the purpose of implement the DNA
Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act
(Proposition 69) as approved by the voters at the November 2,
2004, statewide general election, there shall be levied an
addition penalty of $1 for every $10 or part of $10 in each
county upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed by the
courts for all criminal offenses including Vehicle Code
offenses. (Government Code § 76104.6)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code §14251 (a).)
Existing law state 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 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. (Penal Code § 4251 (b).)
Existing law 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.
(Penal Code § 14250 (a)(1).)
Existing law 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
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
3 of ?
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. (Penal
Code, §14250 (a)(2).)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code §14250 (a)(3).)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code §14250
(a)(4).)
Existing law requires that DOJ shall develop standards and
guidelines for 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. (Penal Code §14250
(b).)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code §14250 (d).)
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
4 of ?
Existing law 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.
(Penal Code §14250 (e).)
This bill appropriates fifteen-million-dollars ($15,000,000)
from the General Fund to the Controller for apportionment to
counties based on a county's proportionate contribution to the
state's DNA Identification Fund in the most recent calendar year
for which information is available on January 1, 2017
This bill provides that these funds shall be deposited into a
county treasury DNA Identification Fund by the county treasurer,
who shall clearly distinguish moneys collected under this
section from money collected pursuant to Government Code Section
76104.6 and shall be dispersed upon a resolution by the board of
supervisors the object of which shall be to assist the county
sheriff, district attorney and other local law enforcement
agencies with the investigation of cases.
This bill 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 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
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
5 of ?
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.
This bill requires the district attorney to publicize, as
specified, when an investigation using these funds results in a
solved case.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
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
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
6 of ?
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:
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:
California voters in November 2004 passed Proposition 69,
the "DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence
Protection Act," to expand and modify state law regarding
the collection and use of criminal offender DNA samples and
palm print impressions. The initiative gives the Attorney
General's Office, California Department of Justice, and many
other state and local agencies the responsibility of
implementing the new law.
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
7 of ?
As part of this new allocation of responsibility, the
Proposition included an additional penalty of $1 per every
$10 of every criminal fine (including traffic violations),
to reimburse county and state agencies for the cost of
collection and to assist crime labs with analysis of DNA
evidence.<1> However, no funds were specifically allocated
to assist with the DNA investigatory process. This money is
split between the state and counties, but the fund has
decreased in recent years. According to the County DNA
Identification Fund Annual Reports, in 2054 counties were
allocated roughly $12.5 million for the DNA Identification
fund, down from $17.5million in 2011. This drop in funding
comes at a critical juncture, as legislation in recent years
has put increased pressure on the fund.
For example, AB 1517 (Skinner, 2014), amended Penal Code
Section 680 to decrease the timelines for law enforcement
agencies and crime labs to perform and process DNA testing
of rape kit evidence.<2> This mandate to actually utilize
the DNA evidence procured during the commission of these
crimes is a laudable one, and certainly in the best interest
of the public safety at large. But as the Senate
Appropriations Committee noted in its analysis, these public
safety directives result in significant non-reimbursable
costs to local crime labs to meet the testing timeframes and
to local law enforcement agencies to meet these new
turnaround time requirements for submittal of evidence to
crime labs.
Additionally, as DNA evidence has become a more central part
of criminal investigations, and the technology has evolved
to be more accessible and conclusive, more DNA is being
submitted to crime labs, which is resulting in more cold
hits. However, there isn't funding to support this increase
in cold hit follow-up for these serious crimes. According
to figures provided by the DOJ, in 2004 when Prop. 69 was
passed, there was an average of 50 DNA cold hits per month.
-------------------------
<1>
http://oag.ca.gov/bfs/prop69
<2>
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1517
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
8 of ?
Today, an average of 450 DNA cold hits occurs each month.
This bill would add Section 14252 to the Penal Code to
appropriate $15,000,000 from the General Fund to the State
Controller for apportionment to counties throughout the
state. The Controller would distribute funds to counties
proportionately based on their contributions to the state's
DNA Identification Fund the previous year.<3> This funding
is meant to assist county sheriffs, district attorneys, and
other local law enforcement agencies investigate cold cases.
AB 2440 would require the district attorney to publicize, as
specified, when an investigation using these funds results
in a solved case.
The legislation would describe "cold cases" as unsolved
serious or violent cases where biological evidence exists,
and more than three years has elapsed since the commission
of the crime.
2. $15,000,000 for DNA Identification
This bill would $15,000,000 from the General Fund to the
Controller for distribution to counties to assist law
enforcement with investigations using DNA. The money is to be
distributed based on the amount a county contributes to the
state's DNA Identification Fund.
The California Police Chiefs Association supports this bill
stating:
As DNA evidence has become increasingly central part of
criminal investigations, and the technology has evolved
to be more accessible and conclusive, greater amounts
of DNA is being submitted to crime labs, which is
resulting in more cold hits. However, there isn't
funding to support this increase in cold hit follow-up
for these serious crimes. According to figures provided
by the Department of Justice, in 2004 when Prop. 69 was
-----------------------
<3>
https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/bfs/2015-dna-fund-report.pdf
AB 2440 (Gatto ) Page
9 of ?
passed, there was an average of 50 DNA cold hits per
month. Today, an average of 450 DNA cold hits occur
each month. AB 2440 will assist law enforcement in
investigating these cases.
-- END -