BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2009|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2009
Author: Logue (R)
Amended: 6/16/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/29/10
AYES: Leno, Cogdill, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 4/8/10 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : County penalties: funding for DNA analysis:
expedited
processing
SOURCE : Yuba County Board of Supervisors
DIGEST : This bill permits county board of supervisors to
authorize the use of excess funds from the states DNA
Identification Fund to reimburse law enforcement and
district attorneys for use of an independent laboratory,
other than the Department of Justice, to expedite the
analysis of samples.
ANALYSIS : Existing law specifies that Department of
Justice (DOJ) laboratories accredited by the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), any certifying body
approved by the ASCLD/LAB or any law enforcement crime
CONTINUED
AB 2009
Page
2
laboratory designated by DOJ accredited by the ASCLD/LAB,
or any certifying body approved by them are authorized to
analyze crime scene samples and other samples of known and
unknown origin and to compare and check the forensic
identification profiles, including DNA profiles, of these
samples against available DNA and forensic identification
data banks in order to establish identity and origin of
samples for identification purposes. (Section 297(a)(1) of
the Penal Code [PEN])
Existing law provides that a biological sample obtained
from a suspect in a criminal investigation for the
commission of any crime may be analyzed for forensic
profiles, including DNA profiles, as specified, and then
compared by the DOJ in and between as many cases and
investigations as necessary. (PEN Section 297(b)(1))
Existing law states that the law enforcement agency
submitting a specimen sample or print impression to the DNA
Laboratory of DOJ or law enforcement crime laboratory, as
specified, shall inform the DOJ Laboratory within two years
whether the person remains a suspect in a criminal
investigation and states that upon written notification
from a law enforcement agency, as specified, the DOJ DNA
Laboratory shall remove the suspect sample from its data
bank files. However, any identification, warrant, arrest,
or prosecution based upon a data bank match shall not be
invalidated or dismissed due to a failure to purge files.
(PEN Section 297(b)(2))
Existing law states that nothing in this section shall
preclude local law enforcement DNA laboratories from
maintaining local forensic databases or performing forensic
analyses, including DNA profiling, independently from the
DOJ DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank
Program. (PEN Section 297(d))
Existing law provides that specimens, samples and print
impressions shall be collected from specified persons for
present and past qualifying offenses of record, including
collection from any adult person following arrest for a
felony offense, as specified. (PEN Section 296.1(a)(1))
Existing law states that every adult person arrested for a
AB 2009
Page
3
felony offense, as specified, shall provide a buccal swab
sample and thumb and palm print impressions and any blood
or other specimens immediately following arrest, or during
the booking or intake or reception center process as soon
as administratively practicable after arrest, but in any
case prior to release on bail or pending trial or any
physical release from custody. (PEN Section
296.1(a)(1)(A))
Existing law provides that if the person did not have
specimens, samples, and prints taken immediately following
arrest or during booking, the court shall order the person
to report within five calendar days to a county jail
facility or other designated facility to provide the
specimens. (PEN Section 296.1(a)(1)(B))
Existing law states that specified persons who are on
probation or parole for any felony or misdemeanor offense,
as specified, shall provide buccal swab samples under
specified conditions. (PEN Section 296.1(a)(3))
Existing law requires persons who are parole violators or
otherwise returned to custody shall provide buccal swab
samples, thumb and palm print impressions, and any other
blood or specimen required, under specified conditions.
(PEN Section 296.1(a)(4))
Existing law states that such samples and specimens shall
be collected from persons accepted into California from
other jurisdictions under the interstate compacts (PEN
Section 11175) or other reciprocal agreements with any
state, federal agency or other provision of law. (PEN
Section 296.1(a)(5))
Existing law states that except as otherwise provided in
this section, for the purpose of implementing the DNA
Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,
there shall be levied an additional penalty of $1 for every
$10, or part of $10, in each county upon every fine,
penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts
for all criminal offenses, including all offenses
involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local
ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Section
76104.6(a)(1) of the Government Code [GOV])
AB 2009
Page
4
Existing law states that the penalty imposed by this
section shall be collected together with and in the same
manner as specified sections. These moneys shall be taken
from fines and forfeitures deposited with the county
treasurer prior to any divisions as specified. The board
of supervisors shall establish in the county treasury a DNA
Identification Fund into which shall be deposited the
collected moneys pursuant to this section. The moneys of
the fund shall be allocated. (GOV Section 76104.6(a)(2))
Existing law states that this additional penalty does not
apply to the following: (1) any restitution fine, (2)
specified penalties authorized under the Penal Code, (3)
specified parking offenses, and (4) the state surcharge
authorized by the Penal Code (GOV Section 76104.6(a)(3)).
Existing law provides that the fund moneys described,
together with any interest earned thereon, shall be held by
the county treasurer separate from any funds subject to
transfer or division pursuant to PEN Section 1463.
Deposits to the fund may continue through and including the
20th year after the initial calendar year in which the
surcharge is collected, or longer if and as necessary to
make payments upon any lease or leaseback arrangement
utilized to finance any of the projects specified herein.
(GOV Section 76104.6(b)(1))
Existing law states that on the last day of each calendar
quarter of the year specified in this subdivision, the
county treasurer shall transfer fund moneys in the county's
DNA Identification Fund to the State Controller for credit
to the state's DNA Identification Fund, which is hereby
established in the State Treasury, as follows (GOV Section
76104.6(b)(2)):
1. In the first two calendar years following the effective
date of this section, 70 percent of the amounts
collected, including interest earned thereon.
2. In the third calendar year following the effective date
of this section, 50 percent of the amounts collected,
including interest earned thereon.
AB 2009
Page
5
3. In the fourth calendar year following the effective date
of this section and in each calendar year thereafter, 25
percent of the amounts collected, including interest
earned thereon.
Existing law provides that funds remaining in the county's
DNA Identification Fund shall be used only to reimburse
local sheriff or other law enforcement agencies to collect
DNA specimens, samples, and print impressions pursuant to
this chapter; for expenditures and administrative costs
made or incurred to comply with specified requirements,
including the procurement of equipment and software
integral to confirming that a person qualifies for entry
into DOJ's DNA Database and Data Bank Program; and to local
sheriff, police, district attorney, and regional 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. (GOV Section 76104.6(b)(3))
Existing law provides that the state's DNA Identification
Fund shall be administered by the DOJ. Funds in the
state's DNA Identification Fund, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, shall be used by the Attorney General (AG)
only to support DNA testing California and to offset the
impacts of increased testing and shall be allocated as
follows (GOV Section 76104.6(b)(4)):
1. Of the amount transferred, as specified, 90 percent to
the DOJ DNA Laboratory, first, to comply with the
requirements of PEN Section 298.3 and, second, for
expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred
in connection with the processing, analysis, tracking,
and storage of DNA specimens and samples including the
procurement of equipment and software for the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA
samples and specimens obtained pursuant to the DNA and
Forensic Identification Database and Databank Act, as
amended, and 10 percent to DOJ's Information Bureau
Criminal History Unit for expenditures and
AB 2009
Page
6
administrative costs that have been approved by the
Chief of DOJ's Bureau of Forensic Services made or
incurred to update equipment and software to facilitate
compliance with the requirements of PEN Section
299.5(e). (GOV Section 76104.6(b)(4)(A))
2. Of the amount transferred, as specified, funds shall be
allocated by the DOJ DNA Laboratory, first, to comply
with the requirements of PEN Section 298.3 and, second,
for expenditures and administrative costs made or
incurred in connection with the processing, analysis,
tracking, and storage of DNA specimens and samples
including the procurement of equipment and software for
the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA
samples and specimens obtained pursuant to the DNA and
Forensic Identification Database and Databank Act, as
amended. (GOV Section 76104.6(b)(4)(B))
3. Of the amount transferred, as specified, funds shall be
allocated by DOJ to the DNA Laboratory to comply with
the requirements of PEN Section 298.3 and for
expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred
in connection with the processing, analysis, tracking,
and storage of DNA specimens and samples including the
procurement of equipment and software for the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA
samples and specimens obtained pursuant to the DNA and
Forensic Identification Database and Databank Act, as
amended. (GOV Section 76104.6(b)(4)(C))
Existing law states that on or before April 1, in the year
following adoption of this section, and annually
thereafter, the board of supervisors of each county shall
submit a report to the Legislature and DOJ. The report
shall include the total amount of fines collected and
allocated pursuant to this section, and the amounts
expended by the county for each program authorized, as
specified. DOJ shall make the reports publicly available
on DOJ's Web site. (GOV Section 76104.6(c))
Existing law provides that all requirements imposed on DOJ
pursuant to the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and
Innocence Protection Act are contingent upon the
availability of funding and are limited by revenue, on a
AB 2009
Page
7
fiscal year basis, received by DOJ pursuant to this section
and any additional appropriation approved by the
Legislature for purposes related to implementing this bill.
(GOV Section 76104.6(d))
Existing law states that upon approval of the DNA
Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,
the Legislature shall loan DOJ's General Fund in the amount
of $7 million for purposes of implementing that act. This
loan shall be repaid with interest calculated at the rate
earned by the Pooled Money Investment Account at the time
the loan is made. Principal and interest on the loan shall
be repaid in full no later than four years from the date
the loan was made and shall be repaid from revenue
generated pursuant to this section. (GOV Section
76104.6(e))
Existing law specifies that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Controller may use the state's DNA
Identification Fund, created as specified, for loans to the
General Fund as provided in Sections 16310 and 16381. Any
such loan shall be repaid from the General Fund with
interest computed at 110 percent of the Pooled Money
Investment Account rate, with the interest commencing to
accrue on the date the loan is made from the fund. This
subdivision does not authorize any transfer that will
interfere with the carrying out of the object for which the
state's DNA Identification Fund was created. (GOV Section
76104.6(f))
This bill provides that funds remaining in the county's DNA
Identification Fund may also be used, if authorized by a
resolution of the county board of supervisors, to reimburse
a local sheriff, police, district attorney, or regional
state crime laboratory for expenditures and administrative
costs made or incurred for utilizing a laboratory that
meets state and federal requirements, including the Federal
Bureau of Investigation Quality Assurance Standards, and
that is accredited by an organization approved by the
National DNA Index System Procedures Board for the
processing and analysis of forensic identification samples
and testimony related to the analysis in order to expedite
the analysis of crime scene samples in order to expedite
and proceed with a pending criminal action or investigation
AB 2009
Page
8
within that county.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/1/10)
Yuba County Board of Supervisors (source)
California State Association of Counties
Peace Officers Research Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"The backlog of submittals to the DNA labs is
significant. Unless the case is a high-profile homicide,
counties may have to wait over a year for a DNA result.
Private lab work can produce results in two weeks.
"Yuba County cites two examples of slow DNA work at the
State labs. First, there was a rape case with an offense
date of June 6, 2008. The biological samples were first
submitted to DOJ in August of 2008. The final DNA
analysis report was provided to us November 16th, 2009.
"A second case - a stranger rape - involved a female
Beale AFB airman as the victim. The offense date was
January 20, 2008. The biological samples were submitted
to DOJ on January 25th, 2008. The final DNA analysis was
completed on February 4th, 2009. This was an expedited
analysis, with the Yuba County DA office checking with
the lab every month, as the victim was scheduled to be
deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan. The County managed to
delay the deployment, but doing so strained relationships
with the Air Force. The suspect turned out to be a cable
TV installer whose job put him in the homes of cable
subscribers.
"The County would like to make some of the funds
generated from Proposition 69 and placed in the County's
trust fund available to pay for the costs of DNA analysis
and testimony through a private lab.
"The County is not trying to impact funding that goes to
AB 2009
Page
9
the State lab under the program - and in fact the Yuba
proposal would not in any way affect the portion of the
monies collected which go to the state. The proposal
would only free up balances otherwise unusable at the
local level.
"If statute was changed to allow funds generated under
Prop. 69 to be used for private labs, case turnaround
could be in as little as 2 weeks. The fund balance in
Yuba is growing significantly. At the end of CY 2005 it
was $1,045; CY 2006 was $28,350; CY 2007 was $83,169; and
CY 2008 was $148,777. At the rate the fund balance
increases, there will likely be over $200,000 at the end
of this calendar year.
"Proposition 69 enacted in 2004 created two different
local funds. Government Code section 76104.5 created a
discretionary fund that a County Board of Supervisors
could adopt that would be payable for certain DNA related
technology purchased or leased at the county level (this
fund was not adopted in Yuba). GC 76104.6 created a
mandatory fund that collected $1 for every $10 of
criminal fines, a portion of which goes back to the state
for DNA related programs with the remainder placed in a
county trust fund. That trust fund reimburses local law
enforcement for the costs related to DNA collection or
the purchase of items for local crime labs.
" DNA forensic work in criminal cases is currently done in
one of three ways for DA ' s offices throughout the state:
1) by county crime labs with DNA capability (for example,
Sacramento has its own crime lab for their work); 2) by
the state labs (for those of counties, like Yuba, using
their services); and 3) by private labs which meet the
certification standards for doing such forensic work.
"Yuba County currently use s the DOJ labs for all forensic
work - everything from alcohol results in drunk driving
cases, hard drug analysis, fingerprint and toolmark work,
and DNA. Some of this work is done under a contract that
sets reimbursement rates (for instance, certain
toxicology analysis), but the County is not obliged to
use DOJ for any of this work. The County can contract
with a private lab for this work. In fact, a number of
AB 2009
Page
10
counties contract with private labs right now for the
forensic work on drunk driving cases - Yuba prefers using
DOJ and ha s a great working relationship with them.
" In the case of DNA work, a County can direct that the
evidence be sent to a private lab and not use DOJ at all.
This is not unusual. Some counties are already doing
this with DNA evidence as they have the funds to do so.
With current restrictions on funding, Yuba County does
not have such funds.
"There are several private labs meeting quality assurance
standards currently offering these services. In fact,
DOJ at one point was actually contracting with a private
lab to do advanced DNA analysis for them - one of these
cases was a Yuba case and they used a lab outside
California to do the work. "
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De
La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines,
Galgiani, Garrick, Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Hill, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Norby, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Gilmore, Harkey, Huber, Logue, Ma,
V. Manuel Perez, John A. Perez, Vacancy
RJG:mw 7/1/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****