BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1037 Hearing Date: April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Allen |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 13, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Return of Firearms: Special Procedures
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: Unknown
Opposition:<1>American Civil Liberties Union; California
Association of Federal Firearms Licensees; California
Public Defenders' Association; The California
Sportsman's Lobby; Firearms Policy Coalition; Gun
Owners of California; National Rifle Association of
America; Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California;
Safari Club International
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to increase the statute of
limitations on selling or supplying a firearm to a prohibited
person, selling a firearm to a minor and, selling a firearm to a
straw purchaser, as specified.
---------------------------
<1> All opposition was to previous versions of this legislation.
SB 1037 (Allen ) PageB
of?
Existing law prescribes the statute of limitations for filing
various criminal complaints. (Penal Code § 803.)
Existing law provides that no person, corporation, or firm shall
knowingly sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control
of a firearm to any person prohibited from possessing a firearm,
as specified. (Penal Code §27500(a).)
Existing law provides that no person, corporation, or dealer
shall sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a
firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer has
cause to believe is a person prohibited from possessing a
firearm, as specified. (Penal Code § 27500(b).)
Existing law states that no person licensed under Sections 26700
to 26915, inclusive, shall sell, supply, deliver, or give
possession or control of a handgun to any person under the age
of 21 years, or any other firearm to a person under the age of
18 years. (Penal Code § 27510.)
Existing law states that no person, corporation, or dealer shall
sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person,
corporation, or dealer knows or has cause to believe is not the
actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who
is not the one actually being loaned the firearm, if the person,
corporation, or dealer, as specified. (Penal Code § 27515.)
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other statute
of limitation for filing a criminal complaint, the limitation of
time would not commence until one year after discovery of the
violation, but in no case longer than 5 years, for selling or
supplying a firearm to a prohibited person, selling a firearm to
a minor, selling a firearm to a straw purchaser, as specified.
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
SB 1037 (Allen ) PageC
of?
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:
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;
SB 1037 (Allen ) PageD
of?
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 law prohibits licensed dealers or any person
from providing guns to prohibited persons, children, and
people who intend to resell them illegally. This bill
allows law enforcement additional time to prosecute these
crimes by extending the statute of limitations from three
years to five, which aligns with the federal statute of
limitations for prosecution of similar crimes.
2. Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations requires commencement of a
prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission
of a crime. A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment
or information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to
superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal
Code § 804.) The failure of a prosecution to be commenced within
the applicable period of limitation is a complete defense to the
charge. The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and may be
raised as a defense at any time, before or after judgment.
People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13. The defense may only be
waived under limited circumstances. (See Cowan v. Superior Court
(1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.)
The Legislature enacted the current statutory scheme regarding
statutes of limitations for crimes in 1984 in response to a
report of the California Law Revision Commission:
The Commission identified various factors to be considered
SB 1037 (Allen ) PageE
of?
in drafting a limitations statute. These factors include:
(a) The staleness factor. A person accused of a crime
should be protected from having to face charges based on
possibly unreliable evidence and from losing access to the
evidentiary means to defend. (b) The repose factor. This
reflects society's lack of a desire to prosecute for crimes
committed in the distant past. (c) The motivation factor.
This aspect of the statute imposes a priority among crimes
for investigation and prosecution. (d) The seriousness
factor. The statute of limitations is a grant of amnesty to
a defendant; the more serious the crime, the less willing
society is to grant that amnesty. (e) The concealment
factor. Detection of certain concealed crimes may be quite
difficult and may require long investigations to identify
and prosecute the perpetrators.
The Commission concluded that a felony limitations statute
generally should be based on the seriousness of the crime.
Seriousness is easily determined based on classification of
a crime as felony or misdemeanor and the punishment
specified, and a scheme based on seriousness generally will
accommodate the other factors as well. Also, the
simplicity of a limitations period based on seriousness
provides predictability and promotes uniformity of
treatment.<2>
This legislation would provide that the statute of limitations
would not commence to run until one year from the date of
discovery, but in no case beyond five years, for violations of
Penal Code sections 27500 (selling or supplying firearm to
prohibited person), 27510 (selling firearm to minor), and 27515
(selling to a straw purchaser). This legislation, thus, could
increase the statute of limitations for misdemeanor violations
of these sections by four years, and felony violations by two
years.
3. Argument in Opposition
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California,
who is opposed, unless amended to the March 30, 2016 version of
this legislation:
---------------------------
<2> 1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses, Section 214 (3rd Ed.
2004), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports, pp.308-314
SB 1037 (Allen ) PageF
of?
SB 1037 would also amend the Penal Code section
establishing statute so limitations to provide that
the statute of limitations for a number of firearms
offenses would not begin to run until one year after
the date of discovery of the offense. This represents
a major departure in the treatment of statutes of
limitations in California and poses a substantial
threat to civil liberties. Current law allows the
statute of limitation to begin running after discovery
of the offense only for crimes which, by their very
nature, include an element of concealment, such as
fraud. SB 1037 would extend this concept, which is
predicated on the notion that the crime itself
contained an element of concealment, which therefore
caused the offense to go undiscovered, to offenses
where there is not concealment involved.
-- END -