BILL ANALYSIS
AB 558
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 558 (Portantino) - As Amended: October 26, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
Requires that by July 1 of each year, from 2012 to 2016, each
local law enforcement agency responsible for taking or
processing rape kit evidence shall report the following
information to the Department of Justice (DOJ):
1)The number of rape kits received during the preceding calendar
year and the number of kits for which the identity of the
assailant is unknown and the number of rape kits for which the
identity of the assailant is contested.
2)The number of rape kits tested during the preceding calendar
year and, of that figure, the number of kits for which the
identity of the assailant is unknown and the number of kits
for which the identity of the assailant is contested.
3)The number of rape kits law enforcement has requested be
tested and, of that figure, the number of kits for which the
identity of the assailant is unknown and the number of kits
for which the identity of the assailant is contested.
4)The number of rape kits law enforcement has requested be
tested that remain untested and, of that figure, the number of
kits for which the identity of the assailant is unknown and
the number of kits for which the identity of the assailant is
contested.
5)The number of untested rape kits in its possession as of
January 1 of the reporting year.
6)The number of rape kits destroyed during the preceding
AB 558
Page 2
calendar year.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor reimbursable local costs.
2)Negligible, if any, GF costs to DOJ, as this bill does not
require DOJ to do anything with the information it receives
from local agencies.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to proponents, one of the biggest
problems facing the criminal justice system today is the
substantial backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples and biological
evidence from crime scenes, especially in sexual assault
cases. A recent L.A. City Auditor's report revealed thousands
of rape kits awaiting DNA processing in LAPD evidence lockers.
Timely analysis of these samples and placement into a DNA
database can avert tragic results. Currently, there are more
than 10,000 sexual assault rape kits awaiting DNA processing
in Los Angeles County alone.
According to the author, "Last year, it was discovered that
law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles City and County had
thousands of rape kits in their evidence freezers that had not
been tested. There were even some kits that had been held in
excess of the 10-year statute of limitations for the crime of
rape. Since that time, both the City and County of Los Angeles
have committed themselves to opening and testing of every rape
kit in their evidence rooms."
The author contends that disclosure of how many rape kits have
been collected, tested, shelved or destroyed will pressure law
enforcement agencies to process backlogs.
2)Current law allows a criminal complaint to be filed within one
year of the date on which the identity of the suspect is
conclusively established by DNA testing if the following
conditions are met: a) The alleged offense is a registerable
sex offense, and b) The offense was committed before Jan. 1,
2001 and DNA evidence is analyzed no later than January 1,
2004; or the offense was committed after Jan. 1, 2001 and DNA
is analyzed no later than two years from the date of the
offense.
AB 558
Page 3
3)Prior Legislation . This bill is identical to AB 1017
(Portantino), which was vetoed in 2009. The governor's veto
stated:
"I strongly support efforts to ensure that rape kits are
analyzed and processed in a timely manner in order to identify
and prosecute sex offenders. However, requiring law
enforcement agencies to provide backlog statistics to the DOJ
would place significant cost burdens on these agencies and
would divert scarce resources away from processing these kits.
In addition, this measure does not require the DOJ to do
anything with the reports received. Assuming that the DOJ
would have to administer, collect, and manage these records,
this could impose additional cost pressures on the DOJ. Since
this measure would create additional state costs that cannot
be accommodated in a time of fiscal crisis, I am returning
this bill without my signature."
Curiously, the veto is based on the Department of Finance's
analysis, which stated, "no significant cost impact as a
result of this bill" and "minimal impact on the DNA laboratory
workload."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081