BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2457 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bloom |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 16, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Autopsy: Electronic Image Systems
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 1196 (Runner) -- Chapter 45, Statutes of
2008
Support: California State Coroners' Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow coroners to use an
electronic imaging system during an autopsy, unless there is a
reasonable suspicion to believe the death was caused by a
criminal act, as specified.
Existing law requires coroners to determine the manner,
circumstances and cause of death in the following circumstances:
Violent, sudden or unusual deaths;
AB 2457 (Bloom ) PageB
of?
Unattended deaths;
When the deceased was not attended by a physician, or
registered nurse who is part of a hospice care
interdisciplinary team, in the 20 days before death;
When the death is related to known or suspected
self-induced or criminal abortion;
Known or suspected homicide, suicide or accidental
poisoning;
Deaths suspected as a result of an accident or injury
either old or recent;
Drowning, fire, hanging, gunshot, stabbing, cutting,
exposure, starvation, acute alcoholism, drug addiction,
strangulation, aspiration, or sudden infant death syndrome;
Deaths in whole or in part occasioned by criminal means;
Deaths associated with a known or alleged rape or crime
against nature;
Deaths in prison or while under sentence;
Deaths known or suspected as due to contagious disease
and constituting a public hazard;
Deaths from occupational diseases or occupational
hazards;
Deaths of patients in state mental hospitals operated by
the State Department of State Hospitals;
Deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the
developmentally disabled operated by the State Department
of Development Services;
Deaths where a reasonable ground exists to suspect the
death was caused by the criminal act of another; and
Deaths reported for inquiry by physicians and other
persons having knowledge of the death.
(Government Code § 27491.)
Existing law requires the coroner or medical examiner to sign
the certificate of death when they perform a mandatory inquiry.
(Government Code § 27491(a).)
Existing law allows the coroner or medical examiner discretion
when determining the extent of the inquiry required to determine
the manner, circumstances and cause of death. (Government Code
§ 27491(b).)
Existing law requires the coroner or medical examiner to conduct
an autopsy at the request of the surviving spouse or other
AB 2457 (Bloom ) PageC
of?
specified persons when an autopsy has not already been
performed. (Government Code § 27520(a).)
Existing law allows the coroner or medical examiner discretion
to conduct an autopsy at the request of the surviving spouse or
other specified persons when an autopsy has already been
performed. (Government Code § 27520(b).)
Existing law specifies that the cost of autopsies requested by
the surviving spouse or other specified persons are borne by the
requestor. (Government Code § 27520(c).)
Existing law requires that discretionary autopsies include the
following:
All available finger and palm prints;
Dental examination;
Collection of tissue including hair sample and DNA
sample, if necessary;
Notation and photographs of significant marks, scars,
tattoos and personal effects;
Notation of observations pertinent to the time of death;
and
Documentation of the location of the remains.
(Government Code § 27521(a) and (b).)
Existing law allows for the use of full body X-rays in
conducting a discretionary autopsy. (Government Code § 27521
(c).)
This bill, except as specified, would authorize a coroner,
medical examiner, or other agency required to perform an autopsy
in a death under those prescribed conditions to use an
electronic image system, including, but not limited to, an X-ray
computed tomography scanning system, to fulfill specified
postmortem examination or autopsy requirements.
This bill states that a coroner cannot use an electronic imaging
system to conduct an autopsy in any investigation where the
circumstances surrounding the death afford a reasonable basis to
suspect that the death was caused by or related to the criminal
act of another and it is necessary to collect evidence for
presentation in a court of law. If the results of an autopsy
AB 2457 (Bloom ) PageD
of?
performed using electronic imaging provides the basis to suspect
that the death was caused by or related to the criminal act of
another, and it is necessary to collect evidence for
presentation in a court of law, then a dissection autopsy shall
be performed in order to determine the cause and manner of
death.
The bill would allow an autopsy to be conducted using an X-ray
computed tomography scanning system without regard to the
existence of a properly-executed certificate of religious
belief.
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
AB 2457 (Bloom ) PageE
of?
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:
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 Legislation
According to the author:
Existing law requires coroners to perform post mortem
dissection in certain cases prescribed by law or in cases
where the autopsy on a decedent is requested by specified
relatives. Current law also provides a coroner with certain
discretionary authority to perform an autopsy during a
postmortem examination. The legislation would allow the
AB 2457 (Bloom ) PageF
of?
coroner, if he/she deems it adequate, to perform digital
imaging in lieu of a full autopsy.
In 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
authorized the purchase of a digital imaging device to be used
by the Los Angeles Medical Examiner-Coroner in cases where an
autopsy is needed or mandated by law.
A digital imaging device can be used in cases where, at the
request of the family of the deceased, the device be used
instead of an autopsy through dissection. AB 2457 would
specify that digital imaging can be used, at the discretion of
the coroner or medical examiner, to perform an autopsy in
California.
AB 2457 would add subsection (d) to Government Code 27521 to
authorize the use of an electronic imaging system, including,
but not limited to, an X-ray computed tomography scanning
system, to fulfill the requirements of a discretionary
postmortem examination.
2. Electronic Imaging Systems for Autopsies
Electronic imaging systems, such as computer tomography (CT),
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and X-ray computed tomography
scanning have been used increasingly in recent years to assist
coroners and medical examiners performing autopsies. In certain
cases, these systems can help the coroner determine the cause of
death without performing a post-mortem dissection of the
deceased. This can be especially helpful in cases where the
deceased or the deceased's surviving spouse or next of kin have
religious objections to the post mortem dissections common in
traditional autopsies. This bill would allow coroners and
medical examiners to use these electronic imaging systems during
the performance of an autopsy requested by a surviving spouse or
next of kin.
This bill would also allow coroners, medical examiners and other
agencies tasked with performing an autopsy to utilize electronic
imaging systems to assist in the performance of a mandatory
inquest. Existing law requires coroners and others to perform
an autopsy when there is reason to believe the death was caused
by a criminal act, either by another or by the deceased. This
bill would not allow electronic imaging systems to be the sole
AB 2457 (Bloom ) PageG
of?
method by which these mandatory autopsies are performed, but
would allow them to be used during these autopsies. There are
two reasons for this: (1) electronic imaging systems as a
method for performing autopsies have not been ruled admissible
as evidence by any court of law;<1> and (2) the current
electronic imaging system technology has been shown to be
unreliable in determining certain causes of death.
-- END -
---------------------------
<1> For scientific evidence and expert testimony, the court will
conduct either a Daubert or Frye style hearing -depending on
whether the case is before federal or state court, respectively)
to determine the reliability of the particular type of evidence
before the court. (see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.
(1993) 509 U.S. 579; People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587.) To
date, no federal or California court has ruled on the
admissibility of autopsies performed using an electronic imaging
system.