BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1079 (Glazer) - DNA evidence: CODIS Hit Outcome Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: March 28, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 25, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1079 would establish the CODIS Hit Outcome Project
(CHOP) database, to be managed and administered by the
Department of Justice (DOJ). This bill would require every city,
county, or state laboratory participating in CODIS to enter
specified data into the CHOP database, and would require each
law enforcement agency responsible for the investigation or
prosecution of a case involving a DNA database match to a
California offender to report to DOJ the status or outcome of
that investigative lead.
Fiscal
Impact:
CHOP administration : One-time minor costs (Special Fund*) to
the DOJ to develop the reporting schedule and instructions for
DNA laboratories and law enforcement agencies. Ongoing
workload to manage and administer the database is estimated to
SB 1079 (Glazer) Page 1 of
?
be minor and absorbable.
Local agency data reporting : Potentially significant one-time
and ongoing costs (Local Fund** and/or General Fund),
potentially in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars
annually to local law enforcement agencies for data reporting
requirements, which are unspecified in the bill. There are
currently 482 cities and 58 counties in California. The bill
specifies local agencies are to be reimbursed for the costs of
reporting, however it is unclear what entity is responsible
for reimbursing agencies, and from what fund the reimbursement
is to be paid. To the extent local agency expenditures qualify
as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim
reimbursement of those costs (General Fund).
California Highway Patrol (CHP) : Minor, absorbable impact
(Special Fund***).
CDCR : No fiscal impact, as the DNA samples collected by the
CDCR are not tested in-house but sent to DOJ laboratories for
processing/testing.
*State DNA Identification Fund
**County DNA Identification Fund
***Motor Vehicle Account
Background: Existing law provides that the 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 with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation 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 (PC) § 295 (g).)
Under existing law, the DOJ DNA Laboratory is required to
establish procedures for entering data bank and database
information. (PC 298 § (b)(6).) The DOJ Bureau of Forensic
Services (BFS) provides DNA typing support to law enforcement
agencies throughout the state for the DNA Data Bank. Seventeen
local crime laboratories and seven BFS Laboratories or sections
are participants in the California DNA Data Bank Program
(CAL-DNA) and the National DNA Index System (NDIS) as part of
the CODIS.
SB 1079 (Glazer) Page 2 of
?
According to its most recent quarterly report of the DOJ
Proposition 69 DNA Data Bank Program (Fourth Quarter 2015), over
2.5 million DNA samples have been received and logged since the
inception of the program, with 29,245 submissions for the most
recent quarter (October-December 2015). The report additionally
noted nearly 43,000 DNA profiles uploaded to CODIS for the same
quarter. Finally, the report indicated over 45,000 hits since
inception of the program, leading to over 53,000 investigations
aided.
( https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/bfs/quarterlyrpt-q
4-2015.pdf)
Pursuant to the implementation provisions of Proposition 69, the
DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act
(November 2004), existing law levies an additional penalty of $1
for every $10, or part of $10, in each county upon every fine or
penalty imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal
offenses, including Vehicle Code violations. (GC 76104.6.) Funds
are deposited into each county's DNA Identification Fund, and
the counties transfer 25 percent of the amounts collected in the
county's DNA Identification Fund each year to the Controller for
credit to the state's DNA Identification Fund.
The remaining 75 percent of funds collected in a county's DNA
Identification Fund are to be used for specified purposes,
including to reimburse local sheriff, police, district attorney,
and regional or state crime laboratories for expenditures and
administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene
samples from cases in which DNA evidence would be useful in
identifying or prosecuting suspects, including the procurement
of equipment and software for the processing, analysis,
tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples from unsolved
cases.
In addition to the penalty assessment described above, existing
law levies an additional state-only penalty of $4 for every $10,
or part of $10, in each county upon every fine or penalty
imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses,
and funds are similarly deposited into each county's DNA
Identification Fund. Existing law requires 100 percent of these
SB 1079 (Glazer) Page 3 of
?
funds, including any interest earned, to be transferred to the
state Controller for deposit into the state's DNA Identification
Fund, to be used to fund DOJ forensic laboratories operations,
including the operation of the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime
and Innocence Protection Act, and to facilitate compliance with
provisions of law limiting the disclosure of DNA data. (GC §
76104.7.)
Proposed Law:
This bill would establish the CODIS Hit Outcome Project (CHOP)
database, to be managed and administered by the DOJ.
Specifically, this bill:
Establishes definitions for purposes of the project, and
defines "CODIS" to mean the California Combined DNA Index
System.
Provides that the CHOP database is to provide a
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 the efficacy of the
state's DNA database may be monitored and reported upon by
the state.
Requires every city, county, or state laboratory in
California participating in CODIS to, upon notification by
the DOJ that a CODIS hit has occurred, enter into the CHOP
database the data specified by the DOJ.
Requires each law enforcement agency in the state
responsible for the investigation or prosecution of a case
involving a DNA database match to a California offender to,
on a schedule set forth by the DOJ, and pursuant to
instructions published by DOJ, report to DOJ through the
CHOP database, the status or outcome of that investigative
lead.
Provides that a city, county, or city and county shall
be reimbursed for the costs of complying with reporting
requirements on the status or outcome of such leads.
Provides that the CHOP database is to 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, offender
information, investigation status, and resulting criminal
charges and conviction information, if any.
SB 1079 (Glazer) Page 4 of
?
Specifies that the CHOP database shall not contain DNA
profiles.
Provides that information collected by DOJ pursuant to
the CHOP database is investigatory in nature, and shall be
deemed official information and subject to the disclosure
protections Evidence Code (EC) §§ 1040 and 1041.
Provides that nothing in the bill's provisions shall
require DOJ or a local law enforcement agency to disclose
any information protected under EC § 1040 or 1041, or
Section 6254 of the Government Code.
Staff
Comments: The DOJ has indicated any additional workload
generated by the provisions of this bill will be minor and
absorbable within existing resources.
The DOJ, through its DNA Laboratory currently manages and
administers the CHOP database. For FY 2015-16, the DOJ reported
an appropriation of $72.3 million of DNA Identification Funds,
of which $33.1 million was expended for BFS operations, the
CAL-DNA Data Bank Program, and data center and criminal history
database operations. The fund condition statement indicates the
DNA ID Fund is structurally imbalanced due to declining penalty
assessment revenues.
Based on the DOJ DNA Database and Data Bank Program Annual DNA
Identification Fund Report for CY 2014, the report reflected
$22.4 million in total funds collected by the counties, of which
$9.2 million was allocated to the state and $13.2 million was
allocated to the counties. The report indicated total county
expenditures of $13 million for administrative costs, collection
of samples, processing, analysis, tracking and storage of DNA
crime scene samples, equipment, software and other expenses.
By requiring law enforcement agencies to report to DOJ according
to a schedule and instructions published by the DOJ, this bill
creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the
Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the bill creates a
new program or a higher level of service on local agencies,
counties could claim reimbursement for those costs. Although the
bill specifies local agencies shall be reimbursed for the costs
of complying with reporting requirements to CHOP, it is not
specified by whom the agencies will be reimbursed or from what
SB 1079 (Glazer) Page 5 of
?
fund source. To the extent the CSM determines the DNA reporting
requirements do not constitute a higher level of service on
local agencies, funding could potentially be drawn from each
county's DNA Identification Fund.
It is estimated that all law enforcement entities, both local
and state, would be subject to the data reporting requirements
of this bill. There are currently 482 cities and 58 counties in
the State. While statewide costs cannot be estimated with
certainty, given the large number of local agencies and the lack
of specificity on the frequency, volume, and detail of the data
required to be reported, these activities could result in
significant ongoing costs. DOJ monthly reports reflect an
average of 640 monthly database hits and 11,000 DNA profiles
imported monthly into CODIS. On an annualized basis, over 7,700
hits could require additional reporting. To the extent local
agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate,
agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General
Fund). For context, the Commission on State Mandates' statewide
cost estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects
eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for
slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
The costs to individual agencies would vary widely and depend on
various factors, including but not limited to the volume of hits
triggering a reporting requirement, the schedule of reporting,
and the time/workload required to fulfill the reporting
requirements specified by DOJ instructions that have yet to be
developed. While the volume of workload based on the number of
hits may not be substantial, the workload required to track the
status or outcome of each hit could generate significant
workload. To the extent local agencies additionally require
system enhancements to track and report the required
information, the one-time and ongoing costs for maintenance and
operations could also be very significant.
Recommended
Amendments: As drafted, this bill requires each law enforcement
agency responsible for the investigation or prosecution of a
case involving a DNA database match to report to the DOJ,
however, the disclosure provisions of the bill apply only to DOJ
and local law enforcement agencies. As the CHP will also be
SB 1079 (Glazer) Page 6 of
?
required to report into the CHOP database, staff recommends an
amendment to extend the disclosure provisions covering local law
enforcement agencies and the DOJ to also include state law
enforcement agencies in California.
On page 3, in line 33, delete "local"
-- END --