BILL ANALYSIS
SB 408
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 408 (Padilla) - As Amended: January 26, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill clarifies the definition of body armor, for purposes
of prosecuting persons with a prior conviction for a violent
felony who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing body
armor, by deleting the current definition of body armor in this
section, defined as "ballistic resistance to the penetration of
the test ammunition for which a complete armor is certified,"
and defining body armor as armor made from any bullet resistant
material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for
the wearer.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential for minor state incarceration costs, to the extent
this clarification results in additional state prison
commitments. Over the past two years, eight persons have been
committed to state prison for this offense. It is unlikely this
measure will significantly increase these figures.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Current law makes it a felony, punishable by 16
months, 2, or 3 years in state prison for any person with a
conviction for a violent felony to purchase or possess body
armor. Current law, however, does not explicitly define body
armor but references a definition in the California Code of
Regulations (CCR). Proponents (law enforcement) contend this
definition can be problematic because the relevant CCR Section
establishes a standard intended for use by police agencies
buying body armor, not for prosecution.
SB 408
Page 2
Proponents cite two appellate court decisions:
a) A February 2008 California Fourth District Appellate
Court opinion that overturned a conviction for possession
of body armor by a person convicted of a violent felony due
to lack of evidence that the body armor was certified to
"provide ballistic resistance to the penetration of test
ammunition." Certification requires testing of the armor,
which has to meet the body armor standards defined in the
CCR.
b) A December 2009 California Second District Court of
Appeal held Penal Code Section 12370 is unconstitutionally
vague and that statute is therefore invalid. The basis of
the decision was that "only an expert would know if any
particular protective body vest was proscribed by section
12370."
According to the author, "I'm carrying SB 408 to once again
make it illegal for violent felons to own bullet-proof vests
and body armor. This bill has strong support throughout the
law enforcement community who believe that this is a
significant tool in protecting the safety of peace officers in
the line of duty."
2)Support . According to the L.A. D.A.'s Office, "SB 408 corrects
the constitutional defect and restores this vital public
safety protection.
"Unless this bill is adopted by the Legislature and signed
into law, it will be legal for violent felons to possess and
wear body armor in California. We believe that there is a very
real possibility that a peace officer or member of the public
will be killed or seriously injured unless the ban on body
armor for violent felons is reinstated."
3)Related Legislation . AB 960 (V. M. Perez) is similar and
pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee. The authors
have agreed on SB 408 as the vehicle for the fix, and Mr.
Perez is a co-author of SB 408.
SB 408
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081