BILL ANALYSIS
SB 408
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 408 (Padilla)
As Amended January 26, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :35-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Hagman, Beall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Gilmore, Hill, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Portantino, Skinner | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, De |
| | | |Leon, Hall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Deletes the existing definition of "body armor" and
instead defines "body armor" as "any bullet-resistant material
intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the
person wearing the armor" for purposes of the prohibition on
possession of body armor by persons convicted of a violent
felony.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that any person who wears a body vest in the
commission or attempted commission of a violent offense, as
defined, shall, in addition and consecutive to the punishment
prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or
she has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of
one, two, or five years. For purposes of this statute, "body
vest" means any bullet-resistant material intended to provide
ballistic and trauma protection for the wearer.
2)Provides that any person who has been convicted of a violent
felony, as defined, under the laws of the United States, the
State of California, or any other state, government, or
country, who purchases, owns, or possesses body armor, as
defined by Section 942 of Title 11 of the California Code of
Regulations, except as specified below, is guilty of a felony,
punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or
SB 408
Page 2
two or three years.
3)States that any person whose employment, livelihood, or safety
is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body
armor, who is subject to the prohibition on possession of body
armor due to a prior violent felony conviction, may file a
petition with the chief of police or county sheriff of the
jurisdiction in which he or she seeks to possess and use the
body armor for an exception to this prohibition. The chief of
police or sheriff may reduce or eliminate the prohibition,
impose conditions on reduction or elimination of the
prohibition, or otherwise grant relief from the prohibition as
he or she deems appropriate, based on the following:
a) A finding that the petitioner is likely to use body
armor in a safe and lawful manner; and,
b) A finding that the petitioner has a reasonable need for
this type of protection under the circumstances.
In making its decision, the chief of police or sheriff shall
consider the petitioner's continued employment, the interests
of justice, any relevant evidence, and the totality of the
circumstances. It is the intent of the Legislature that law
enforcement officials exercise broad discretion in fashioning
appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which
relief is warranted. However, this paragraph may not be
construed to require law enforcement officials to grant relief
to any particular petitioner. Relief from this prohibition
does not relieve any other person or entity from any liability
that might otherwise be imposed.
4)Defines "body armor," for purposes of Penal Code Section
12370, as "those parts of a complete armor that provide
ballistic resistance to the penetration of the test ammunition
for which a complete armor is certified."
5)Requires that before any body armor may be purchased for use
by state peace officers the Department of Justice (DOJ), after
consultation with the Department of the California Highway
Patrol, shall establish minimum ballistic performance
standards, and shall determine that the armor satisfies those
standards. Only body armor that meets state requirements for
acquisition or purchase shall be eligible for testing for
SB 408
Page 3
certification under the ballistic performance standards
established by DOJ; and only body armor that is certified as
acceptable by DOJ shall be purchased for use by state peace
officers.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, "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 : According to the author, "The James Guelff Act was
signed into law in 1998. This critically important public
safety measure prohibited violent felons from possessing body
armor. Passage of this law followed two horrific incidents:
"San Francisco police officer James Guelff was killed in 1994
during a gun battle with a car-jacking suspect wearing full body
armor. At the end of a 32- minute firefight involving 120
officers, the suspect was finally killed by a San Francisco
Police Department sniper.
"In 1997, in North Hollywood, two bank robbers covered from head
to toe in body armor were able to engage 350 Los Angeles Police
Department officers in an hour long gun battle. The body armor
the robbers were using could not be penetrated by the officers'
handguns or shotguns. The bullets simply bounced off of them.
It was not until additional officers arrived with higher caliber
guns that the suspects were finally stopped. Tragically, 11
police officers and 6 civilians were wounded.
"On December 17th, 2009 the California Second District Court of
Appeals ruled that the James Guelff Act was unconstitutionally
vague. They stated that the definition of body armor in the law
was too confusing for the average citizen to understand.
"SB 408 addresses the decision of the court by clarifying the
definition of body armor. The language in the bill is the same
as the definition used the section 12022.2 (b) of the Penal
Code.
"I'm carrying SB 408 to once again make it illegal for violent
SB 408
Page 4
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."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0004295