BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 239
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2011
Counsel: Milena Nelson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 239 (Ammiano) - As Amended: April 27, 2011
SUMMARY : Requires the Crime Laboratory Review Task Force
(CLRTF) reconvene to prepare a supplemental report, to be
submitted to the Legislature by July 1, 2013, that includes a
recommendations regarding the composition of a statewide body to
oversee crime laboratories, as specified. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires CLRTF to reconvene to prepare a supplemental report
that includes recommendations regarding the composition of a
statewide body to oversee crime laboratories.
2)Provides that the oversight body shall perform the following
tasks:
a) Implement federal legislation or guidelines imposed
directly on crime laboratories or imposed indirectly as a
requirement for receiving a grant;
b) Oversee investigations into acts of misconduct or
negligence committed by any employee or contractor of a
crime laboratory;
c) Collect data generated by investigations in order to
determine the root causes of crime;
d) Identify systemic failures and make recommendations for
preventing future problems;
e) Study methods to facilitate communication between
laboratories and stakeholders and draft guidelines for
disclosure and discovery of crime laboratory documents;
and,
f) Make recommendations to the Legislature and local
governmental entities regarding the allocation of resources
AB 239
Page 2
to crime laboratories throughout the state to ensure that
taxpayers' funds are maximized and distributed in a more
equitable manner.
3)States that the reporting requirements, as specified, are to
be inoperative by July 1, 2017 and that the report shall be
submitted to the Legislature in compliance with provisions of
the Government Code, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to
establish and chair the CLRTF, comprising of representatives
from DOJ, the California Association of Crime Laboratory
Directors; the California Association of Criminalists; the
International Association for Identification; the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors; the Department of the
California Highway Patrol; the California State Sheriffs'
Association, from a department with a crime laboratory; the
California District Attorneys Association, from an office with
a crime laboratory; the California Police Chiefs Association,
from a department with a crime laboratory; the California
Peace Officers' Association; the California Public Defenders
Association; a private criminal defense attorney organization;
the Judicial Council, to be appointed by the Chief Justice;
the Office of the Speaker of the Assembly; the Office of the
President pro Tempore of the Senate; and two representatives
to be appointed by the Governor. �Penal Code Section 11062(a)
and (b).]
2)Requires the CLRTF to review and make recommendations as to
best configure, fund, and improve the delivery of state and
local crime laboratory services in the future. To the extent
feasible, the review and recommendations shall include, but
are not limited to, the following issues �Penal Code Section
11062(c)]:
a) With respect to organization and management of crime
laboratory services, consideration of whether the existing
mix of state and local crime laboratories is the most
effective and efficient means to meet California's future
needs; whether laboratories should be further consolidated,
and who should have oversight; if some management for some
laboratories should be transferred; whether all
laboratories should provide similar services; and how other
AB 239
Page 3
states have addressed similar issues;
b) With respect to staff and training, consideration of how
to address recruiting and retention problems of laboratory
staff; whether educational and training opportunities are
adequate to supply the needs of fully trained forensic
criminalists in the future; whether continuing education is
available to ensure that forensic science personnel are up
to date in their field of expertise; if crime laboratory
personnel should be certified and if so, the appropriate
agency to assume this responsibility; and the future
educational role if any for the University of California or
the California State University;
c) With respect to funding, consideration of whether the
current method of funding laboratories is predictable,
stable, and adequate to meet future growth demands and to
provide timely and accurate testing results and the
adequacy of salary structures to attract and retain
competent analyst and examiners; and,
d) With respect to performance standards and equipment,
consideration of whether workload demands are being
prioritized properly and whether there are important
workload issues not being addressed; if existing
laboratories have necessary capabilities, staffing and
equipment; and if statewide standards should be developed
for the accreditation of forensic laboratories, including
minimum staffing levels, and if so, a determination
regarding what entity should serve as the sanctioning body.
3)Requires the CLRTF to seek input from specialized law
enforcement disciplines, other state and local agencies,
relevant advocacy groups, and the public. The final report
also shall include a complete inventory of existing California
crime laboratories. This inventory shall contain sufficient
details on staffing, workload, budget, major instrumentation,
and organizational placement within the controlling agency.
�Penal Code Section 11062(d).]
4)Requires the CLRTF to submit a final report of its findings to
the Department of Finance and the Budget and Public Safety
Committees of both houses of the Legislature. �Penal Code
Section 11062(f).]
AB 239
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "In 2010, San
Francisco's criminal laboratory was hit with a scandal
involving stolen drug evidence, contaminated DNA samples,
destroyed records, and sample switching. This scandal alone
prompted hundreds of narcotics cases to be thrown out or not
charged because of possible evidence tampering, and the review
of over 1,400 more for possible dismissal.
"While the charges of misconduct are shocking, they are not
unique to San Francisco. In recent years, laboratories in
Santa Clara and the Central Valley have had similar problems
of stolen drug evidence, and misconduct. These cases raise
serious red flags about the management, and integrity of
criminal laboratories, which not only effects public's
perception of the criminal justice system, but also the
numerous people who potentially might be wrongfully convicted
due to serious neglect.
"In a 2007 bi-partisan effort, the Legislature created the CLRTF
to review and make recommendations as to how to improve the
delivery of state and local crime laboratory services for the
future (Pen. Code, � 1106(c)). In November 2009, the CLRTF
issued an initial report that called for the creation of a
state oversight or advisory body to review forensic science
and crime laboratory issues, and that the specifics of this
proposal, including the composition and functions of this
body, would be described in a supplemental report published in
one year of the initial report. Despite the growing problems
in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Joaquin Counties' crime
labs, the CLRTF voted to terminate itself, and consequently a
follow up report was never produced.
"According to the CLRTF's initial report, states across the
nation, as many as 16 such as New York, Texas, Washington
State, have created an entity charged with some degree of
oversight responsibility over crime laboratories. While the
scope of these entities ranges from make up to the purpose,
they all are concerned about the challenges facing crime
laboratories, and believe that crime laboratory oversight is
essential in creating high quality forensics testing and just
AB 239
Page 5
criminal justice system. California must follow in suit.
"Criminal laboratories play an integral role in the criminal
justice system, however cases of serious misconduct, neglect,
and poor practices cast doubt and mistrust in criminal cases
and the justice system. AB 239 seeks to address the critical
need of statewide crime laboratory oversight in California to
ensure that all criminal cases are handled fairly and
appropriately."
2)Background : According to background provided by the author,
"In October of 2007, AB 1079 was signed into law and Penal
Code Section 11062, which established the CLRTF, was enacted.
This legislation established a task force, the purpose of
which was to examine existing public crime laboratories in the
State of California and make recommendations regarding 'how
best to configure, fund, and improve the delivery of state and
local crime laboratory services in the future.' The
legislation listed some of the specific issues the task force
was to address. These recommendations were due on or before
July 1, 2009.
"This task force met over a period of approximately two years
and in November of 2009, issued a report entitled, An
Examination of Forensic Science in California. This report is
publically available at
ag.ca.gov/publications/crime_labs_report.pdf. In this report,
the CLRTF described its findings and recommendations. One of
the recommendations made by the CLRTF was for the State of
California to establish state-wide oversight over public crime
laboratories. In addition, during the pendency of the CLRTF,
the National Academy of Science issued its report,
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States - A Path
Forward. This report in conjunction with a number of crime
lab scandals that have occurred in this state and others, made
it clear that the recommendation made by the CLRTF regarding
oversight should be adopted and legislation should accordingly
be drafted to establish such an entity in this state.
"The report stated, '(t)he call for a unified statewide
perspective on forensic science issues is a product of the
various concerns expressed elsewhere in this report. While
some laboratory shortcomings identified by the Task Force can
be addressed locally by individual laboratories, others would
be most effectively studied, and corrected, by means of
AB 239
Page 6
inter-jurisdiction coordination and advocacy at a state
government level. Thus, the creation of a statewide entity
concerned with the timely delivery of reliable forensic
science should be considered.'
"At or about the time the CLRTF issued its report, a request was
made to grant permission to the CLRTF to continue beyond the
expiration date set by the legislation in order for the CLRTF
to prepare a report that would specifically address the
functions and composition of a state-wide oversight body. The
request was granted and the task met three additional times.
However, for a number of reasons the CLRTF did not complete
the task of preparing this supplemental report.
"The original report prepared by the CLRTF in Chapter 6
describes in detail the functions an oversight body could
undertake in order to improve the functioning of crime labs in
this state. Thus, there is truly no need for further
discussions by the CLRTF regarding the functions and role an
oversight body would play. The original report provides the
Legislature with the necessary information on the issue of
functions.
"However, while the report provides a comprehensive description
of the functions a state-wide oversight body would provide
should such a body be established, it does not make a
recommendation regarding how such an oversight body would be
configured. It is essential the Legislature have all the
necessary information prior to drafting legislation that would
establish a state-wide crime laboratory oversight. Thus, the
Legislature should be provided information regarding the
optimum number of individuals who should serve on this entity
as well as the backgrounds and qualifications of those who
should sit.
"There is however, no reason for the CLRTF to make an additional
recommendation regarding the role of an oversight body as all
the necessary information is available in the original report
prepared by the CLRTF. The report sets out all possible
functions, as well as the reasons the CLRTF identified each
function listed.
"AB 239 as amended provides the CLRTF be reconvened for the sole
purpose of making recommendations how best configure a
state-wide oversight body whose responsibilities will include
AB 239
Page 7
but not be limited to" (a) implementing federal legislation
and/or guidelines imposed directly on crime labs or indirectly
as a requirement of accepting a grant, (b) oversee
investigations into acts of misconduct or negligence, (c)
collect data generated by investigations in order to determine
root causes, (d) identify systemic failures and make
recommendations for preventing future problems, (e) study
means to facilitate communication between labs and
stakeholders and draft guidelines for disclosure and discovery
of crime lab documents, and (f) make recommendations to the
Legislature and local government regarding the allocation of
resources to crime laboratories throughout the state to ensure
that taxpayers' funds are not wasted and are distributed in a
more equitable manner.
"Specifically, the legislation would require the CLRTF to make a
recommendation regarding the optimum number of individuals to
sit on a state-wide oversight body and a description of
background and training the individuals who sit should have."
3)Report by the California Commission on the Fair Administration
of Justice : The California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice was established by California State
Senate Resolution No. 44, "to study and review the
administration of criminal justice in California, determine
the extent to which that process has failed in the past,
examine safeguards and improvements, and recommend proposals
to further ensure that the administration of criminal justice
in California is fair, just, and accurate."
In a February 20, 2007 report, the Commission made a number of
recommendations to address the problem of DNA testing
backlogs, as well as other problems in California. These
included:
a) The DOJ should immediately ascertain the staffing levels
required for the State Laboratory to reduce the backlog in
DNA profiles to 30 days or less, both now and when the
future demands of Proposition 69 take effect.
b) Emergency budget appropriations should be immediately
introduced, to provide state funding to staff the State
Laboratory at the levels ascertained pursuant to the first
recommendation.
AB 239
Page 8
c) The California Attorney General should immediately
commence consultation with state and local public
laboratories, criminalists, law enforcement, prosecutor's
offices, public defenders and private defense lawyers,
victim representatives and judges to address the problems
of DNA forensic technology resources in California. The
following concerns should be urgently addressed:
i) Identify the nature and scope of current capacity
problems, backlogs of unprocessed evidence and systems
issues that impede utilization of DNA forensic technology
to its fullest potential;
ii) Identify the best practices that enhance collection
and timely processing of DNA evidence to meet the needs
of the criminal justice system;
iii) Make recommendations for eliminating the current
backlogs and preventing future backlogs of unprocessed
evidence in state and local public laboratories;
iv) Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the
current organization of resources in the State of
California, to determine what strategies and systems will
most effectively serve the needs of California;
v) Recommend strategies for training and educational
programs to address the shortages of trained personnel to
meet the staffing needs of crime labs;
vi) Assess the impact of 'cold hits' upon local
investigative, prosecution and defense resources; and,
vii) Report to the Legislature and the Governor regarding
the legislative or administrative steps that must be
taken to insure timely processing of evidence in
California's criminal justice system.
d) The Legislature and the Governor should provide adequate
support to quickly respond to the needs identified by the
Attorney General.
4)Prior Legislation : AB 1079 (Richardson), Chapter 405, Statutes
of 200, established the CLRTF.
AB 239
Page 9
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Public Defenders Association (Sponsor)
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744