BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2499 (Maienschein) - Sexual assault evidence kits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 27, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2499 would require the Department of Justice (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.
Fiscal
Impact:
Process development : One-time minor costs of less than
$50,000 (General Fund) to the DOJ to develop a process by
which victims may inquire regarding status of their sexual
assault evidence kits.
Process implementation : Unknown; potential future costs in
excess of $100,000 (General Fund) in programming costs to
enable victims to securely access the SAFE-T database, or
alternatively, to support DOJ staffing to accept and process
inquiries from victims and query the SAFE-T database
internally to respond to requests. Potential costs would be
dependent on the process established, which is undetermined at
this time but required to be established by July 1, 2018.
AB 2499 (Maienschein) Page 1 of
?
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.
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.
AB 2499 (Maienschein) Page 2 of
?
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
the percentage of rape kit biological samples that are analyzed
for the perpetrator's DNA profile, as well as the reason that
untested rape kit samples are not analyzed. 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."
This bill seeks to provide sexual assault victims with a means
to inquire and receive information on the status of their sexual
assault evidence kits.
Proposed Law:
This bill requires the DOJ, on or before July 1, 2018, and in
consultation with law enforcement agencies and crime victims
groups, to establish a process by which victims of sexual
assault may inquire regarding the location and information
regarding their sexual assault evidence kits.
Related
Legislation: AB 1848 (Chiu) 2016 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. This bill is scheduled to be heard today by this
Committee.
AB 2499 (Maienschein) Page 3 of
?
Staff
Comments: The DOJ has indicated minor one-time costs to develop
a process by which victims may inquire regarding status of their
sexual assault evidence kits. The costs to implement the
process, however, cannot be determined at this time, and would
be dependent on the process developed by the DOJ in consultation
with law enforcement agencies and crime victims groups.
To the extent the process established enables victims to
securely access the SAFE-T database to obtain information on the
status of their sexual assault evidence kits, the DOJ could
incur one-time programming costs in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars (General Fund). Alternatively, to the extent a process
is established that requires DOJ staff to accept and process
requests from victims, which are then handled internally to
query the SAFE-T database,
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 in an uncodified section of the bill.
-- END --