BILL ANALYSIS
AB 937
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 937 (Smyth) - As Amended: April 2, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill creates a lifetime registration requirement for
persons convicted of specified offenses involving destructive
devices. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires any person required to so register, who is discharged
or paroled from jail, prison, camp, the Department of Juvenile
Facilities (DJF), probation, or any other penal institution,
be informed of the duty to register and sign a Department of
Justice (DOJ) form, as specified.
2)Requires persons adjudicated as a ward of the juvenile court
for specified destructive device offenses to register until
age 25, or until records are sealed, whichever comes first.
3)Specifies registration consists of a statement signed by the
offender, providing the information required by the DOJ, as
well as fingerprints and a photograph. Within three days
thereafter, the registering law enforcement agency must
electronically forward the statement, fingerprints, and
photograph to the DOJ.
4)Makes it a misdemeanor to violate registration requirements,
punishable by a term of not less than 90 days or more than one
year in a county jail.
5)Includes the following offenses as destructive device (defined
in Penal Code Sec 12301 and including virtually any explosive
material) offenses requiring registration:
Possession or use of weapons of mass destruction
AB 937
Page 2
Possession of specified restricted biological agents.
Possession of a destructive device on a vessel, aircraft or
other transport for hire.
Possession of destructive devices in specified places,
including schools, churches, public buildings, and any
other public place.
Possession of a destructive device with intent to
intimidate, inure or destroy.
Sale of destructive devices.
Explosion of a destructive device with intent to kill, or
causing death or injury.
Possession of materials to construct a destructive device.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF start-up costs of about $1 million for DOJ
hardware, software, programming and operating expenses and
equipment to administer a destructive devices crime registry.
2) Moderate ongoing costs, likely less than $100,000, for
program maintenance and support.
3)Minor reimbursable mandated local costs for implementing a new
registry system. Local costs would be minimal as the number of
registrants would not be significant.
4)Minor nonreimbursable local costs for increased incarceration
and probation as a result of violating registration
requirements.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, tracking offenders with
destructive device convictions is an important tool for law
enforcement to protect the public from potential terrorists.
The author states, "The difficulty for law enforcement to
effectively substantiate the whereabouts and closely monitor
the activities of an extremely dangerous criminal subset poses
serious public safety risks and significantly endangers the
communities of California to WMD's, explosives and destructive
device initiated attacks. The potential consequences would be
catastrophic in their scope and magnitude, resulting in
large-scale loss of life and substantial infrastructure
property damage. Moreover, law enforcement's ability to
maintain regional stability would be undermined, and when
AB 937
Page 3
coupled with the potentially disastrous economic ramifications
that such a colossal event would produce, the very foundations
of our communities and our current way of life would be
immeasurably jeopardized."
2)Current law.
a) Provides that any person who recklessly or maliciously
possesses any destructive device in a public place is
guilty of a felony, punishable by 2, 4, or 6 years in state
prison.
b) Provides for the following penalties for exploding or
igniting any destructive device:
i) If there is bodily injury, 5, 7, or 9 years in state
prison.
ii) With the intent to commit murder, life in prison.
iii) Causing the death of any person, life in prison
without possibility of parole.
c) Requires lifetime registration for persons convicted of
specified sex offenses.
d) Requires lifetime registration for persons convicted of
specified arson offenses.
3)Frequency of Bombing Offenses that Would Require Registration .
DOJ data indicates the number of arrests and convictions for
those convicted of possessing, carrying, placing, selling,
igniting or attempting to ignite any destructive device has
not changed significantly since the last time an effort was
made to require registration for destructive devices (2002).
2005: 236 arrests; 73 convictions.
2006: 212 arrests; 84 convictions.
2007: 220 arrests; 81 convictions.
The majority of arrests and convictions were for possession in
or near specified places, possession with the intent to injure
or destroy property, possession of materials with the intent
to manufacture.
Proponents of this bill contend registration will help law
enforcement in terrorism-related cases. Based on the DOJ data,
AB 937
Page 4
however, there were no convictions for possession or use of
weapons of mass destruction, possession of specified
restricted biological agents, possession of a destructive
device on a vessel, aircraft or other transport for hire, or
exploding or attempting to explode a destructive device with
the intent to commit murder.
4)Is there a need for a destructive device registration
requirement ? Registration requirements are generally based on
the premise that persons convicted of certain offenses are
more likely to recidivate and that the ability of law
enforcement to prevent certain crimes will be improve if
repeat offenders are tracked. No evidence has been offered to
suggest bombers are likely to recidivate to the extent sex
offenders and arsonists do, or that there are a sufficient
number of persons in these categories to warrant the cost of
the registration system.
5)Opponents , including the ACLU, contend that destructive device
offenders are not analogous to arsonists and sex offenders.
The ACLU writes, "We have consistently opposed registration
laws because they impose penalties for which individuals have
already been penalized by the criminal justice system. We do
not perceive a sufficient rationale to justify creating a new
system of registration laws for these offenders. We are aware
of little, if any, evidence that indicates that the persons
convicted of these crimes exhibit the type of compulsive
behavior that is used to justify sex offender registration
laws."
"We do not perceive a sufficient rationale to justify creating
a new system for registration laws for these offenders. We are
aware of little, if any, evidence that indicates that persons
convicted of crimes related to destructive devices exhibit the
type of compulsive behavior that is used to justify sex
offender registration laws."
6)Prior legislation AB 2661 (Pavley, 2002) was almost identical
to this measure and was held on this committee's Suspense
File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081