BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1079 Hearing Date: April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Glazer |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 28, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: DNA Evidence: CODIS Hit Outcome Project
HISTORY
Source: Attorney General Kamala Harris
Prior Legislation:None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:Electronic Frontier Foundation
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require local law enforcement to
submit information regarding the outcome of investigative leads
provided by the DNA Database to a CODIS Hit Outcome Project
database to be managed and administered by the Department of
Justice.
Existing law provides that the Department of Justice (DOJ),
through its DNA Laboratory, is responsible for the management
and administration of the state's DNA and Forensic
Identification Database and Data Bank Program and for liaising
SB 1079 (Glazer ) Page
2 of ?
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the
state's participation in a national or international DNA
database and data bank program such as the Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS) that allows the storage and exchange of DNA
records submitted by state and local forensic DNA laboratories
nationwide. (Penal Code, § 295 (g).)
Existing law provides that DOJ can perform DNA analysis, other
forensic identification analysis, and examination of palm prints
pursuant to the Act only for identification purposes. (Penal
Code § 295.1 (a) & (b).)
Existing law provides that the DOJ DNA Laboratory is to serve as
a repository for blood specimens, buccal swab, and other
biological samples collected and is required to analyze
specimens and samples and store, compile, correlate, compare,
maintain, and use DNA and forensic identification profiles and
records related to the following:
Forensic casework and forensic unknowns;
Known and evidentiary specimens and samples from crime
scenes or criminal investigations;
Missing or unidentified persons;
Persons required to provide specimens, samples, and
print impressions;
Legally obtained samples; and
Anonymous DNA records used for training, research,
statistical analysis of populations, quality assurance, or
quality control. (Penal Code § 295.1(c))
Existing law specifies that the Director of Corrections, or the
Chief Administrative Officer of the detention facility, jail, or
other facility at which the blood specimens, buccal swab
samples, and thumb and palm print impressions were collected
send them promptly to the DOJ.(Penal Code § 298.)
Existing law requires the DNA Laboratory of DOJ to establish
procedures for entering data bank and database information.
(Penal Code § 298(b)(6).)
This bill declares that the CODIS Hit Outcome Project (CHOP)
shall be managed and administered by the Department of Justice.
This bill states that the CHOP database shall provide a
SB 1079 (Glazer ) Page
3 of ?
restricted-access repository for tracking the occurrence and
consequences of DNA database hits, such that information with
investigatory value may be shared among affected law enforcement
agencies and efficacy of the DNA database may be monitored and
reported upon by the state.
This bill states that every city, county or state laboratory in
California participation in CODIS shall, upon notification by
the DOJ that a CODIS hit has occurred, enter into the CHOP
database the data specified by the department.
This bill provides that on a schedule set forth by the
department, and pursuant to instructions published by the
department, each law enforcement agency within California
responsible for the investigation or prosecution of a case
involving a DNA database match to a California offender shall
report to the DOJ, through the CHOP database, the status or
outcome of that investigative lead.
This bill provides that a city, county and city and county shall
be reimbursed for the cost of submitting the required
information to the CHOP database.
This bill states that the CHOP database shall contain records of
indexed information related to DNA hits and case-to-case
matches, including but not limited to the identity of the
submitting crime laboratory, the investigating law enforcement
agency, a district attorney contact, and offender information,
including criminal charges and conviction information.
This bills states that the CHOP database shall not contain DNA
profiles.
This bill provides that information collected by the DOJ for the
CHOP database is investigatory in nature and shall be deemed
official information and subject to the disclosure protections
of Sections 1040 and 1041 of the Evidence Code.
This bill provides that nothing in this section shall require
DOJ or a local law enforcement agency to disclose any
information protected under Sections 1040 and 1041 of the
Evidence Code or Section 6245 of the Government Code.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
SB 1079 (Glazer ) Page
4 of ?
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
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,
SB 1079 (Glazer ) Page
5 of ?
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:
Several large counties regularly entered their data
into CHOP. However, local participation in CHOP is
currently optional. Only a fraction of CODIS hits have
been complete follow-up information, such as whether a
suspect identified by a DNA profile search has been
located; if the required reference sample has been
taken and sent to the laboratory; and further status on
pending investigations, filed charges, or ultimate
convictions. The absence of full participation makes
the information in CHOP incomplete and unreliable.
A lack of universal CHOP use makes it very difficult
for local agencies and DOJ to ensure that CODIS hit
information is being used to its full potential for
case investigation and prosecution.
SB 1079 (Glazer ) Page
6 of ?
2. California DNA Database
The profile derived from a DNA sample is uploaded into the
state's DNA databank, which is part of the national Combined DNA
Index System (CODIS), and can be accessed by local, state and
federal law enforcement agencies and officials. When a DNA
profile is uploaded, it is compared to profiles contained in the
Convicted Offender and Arrestee Indices; if there is a "hit,"
the laboratory conducts procedures to confirm the match and, if
confirmed, obtains the identity of the suspect. The uploaded
profile is also compared to crime scene profiles contained in
the Forensic Index; again, if there is a hit, the match is
confirmed by the laboratory. CODIS also performs weekly
searches of the entire system. In CODIS, the profile does not
include the name of the person from whom the DNA was collected
or any case-related information, but only a specimen
identification number, an identifier for the agency that
provided the sample, and the name of the personnel associated
with the analysis. CODIS is also the name of the related
computer software program. CODIS's national component is the
National DNA Index System (NDIS), the receptacle for all DNA
profiles submitted by federal, state, and local forensic
laboratories. DNA profiles typically originate at the Local DNA
Index System (LDIS), then migrate to the State DNA Index System
(SDIS), containing forensic profiles analyzed by local and state
laboratories, and then to NDIS.
3. CHOP Database
This bill creates the CHOP database in the DOJ. City, county
and state laboratories participating in CODIS will be required
to enter specified data into the CHOP database after they are
notified that a hit in the CODIS database has occurred. The
database shall contain information related to DNA hits and
case-to-case matches, including, but not limited to, the
identity of the submitting crime laboratory, the investigating
law enforcement agency, a district attorney contact, offender
information, investigative status and resulting criminal charges
and conviction information.
SB 1079 (Glazer ) Page
7 of ?
4. Investigatory in Nature
This bill provides that the information collected in the CHOP
data base to be investigatory in nature and official information
and therefore its disclosure will be limited under Evidence Code
Section 1040 and 1041 and Government Code Section 6254.
It is unclear why this data that is collected should be
considered investigatory. The CHOP database does not contain
any actual DNA information. The data could even be collected in
a manner that provides for no personal identifying information
of the person whose DNA resulted in a CODIS hit. Evidence Code
Sections 1040 and 1041 would give the DOJ the privilege to
disclose the information but contrary to the point of these
sections which is to keep information confidential when it is in
the public interest, the data in CHOP is information that is
clearly in the public interest to be disclosed. The public,
through the Legislature, press, defense bar, academic
institutions etcetera, has an interest in the effectiveness of
the DNA databank. It is in the public interest to know whether
taking DNA from a great number of people is valuable, whether
investment in state and local data banks is valuable and this
information should be able to be evaluated by people outside the
law enforcement community.
-- END -