BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 322|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 322
Author: Portantino (D), et al.
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/5/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-13, 6/1/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Forensic evidence: rape kits: pilot project
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill creates a pilot project, commencing
July 1, 2012, in 10 counties to have the Department of
Justice test all rape kits collected after the start date
of the pilot project in those counties to determine if such
testing increases their arrest rates in rape cases. The
provisions of this bill sunset on January 1, 2016.
ANALYSIS : Existing law states that upon request of a
sexual assault victim the law enforcement agency
investigating a violation of specified violent sex offenses
may inform the victim of the status of the DNA testing of
CONTINUED
AB 322
Page
2
the rape kit evidence or other crime scene evidence from
the victim's case. The law enforcement agency may, at its
discretion, require that the victim's request be in
writing. The law enforcement agency may respond to the
victim's request with either an oral or written
communication, or by electronic mail, if an electronic mail
address is available. Nothing in this subdivision requires
that the law enforcement agency communicate with the victim
or the victim's designee regarding the status of DNA
testing absent a specific request from the victim or the
victim's designee. (Penal Code Section 680(c)(1))
Existing law provides that subject to the commitment of
sufficient resources to respond to requests for
information, sexual assault victims have the following
rights (Penal Code Section 680(c)(2)(A) to (C)):
The right to be informed whether or not a DNA profile of
the assailant was obtained from the testing of the rape
kit evidence or other crime scene evidence from their
case.
The right to be informed whether or not the DNA profile
of the assailant developed from the rape kit evidence or
other crime scene evidence has been entered into the DOJ
Data Bank of case evidence.
The right to be informed whether or not there is a match
between the DNA profile of the assailant developed from
the rape kit evidence or other crime scene evidence and a
DNA profile contained in the DOJ Convicted Offender DNA
Data Base, provided that disclosure would not impede or
compromise an ongoing investigation.
Existing law states this law is intended to encourage law
enforcement agencies to notify victims of information which
is in their possession. It is not intended to affect the
manner of or frequency with which DOJ provides this
information to law enforcement agencies. (Penal Code
Section 680(c)(3))
Existing law provides that if the law enforcement agency
elects not to analyze DNA evidence within the time limits
established by provisions of law related to the statute of
CONTINUED
AB 322
Page
3
limitations, a victim of a sexual assault offense, as
specified, where the identity of the perpetrator is in
issue, must be informed, either orally or in writing, of
that fact by the law enforcement agency. (Penal Code
Section 680(d))
Existing law states legislative intent that a law
enforcement agency responsible for providing information,
as specified, does so in a timely manner and, upon request
of the victim or the victim's designee, advises the victim
or the victim's designee of any significant changes in the
information of which the law enforcement agency is aware.
In order to be entitled to receive notice under this
section, the victim or the victim's designee shall keep
appropriate authorities informed of the name, address,
telephone number, and electronic mail address of the person
to whom the information should be provided, and any changes
of the name, address, telephone number, and electronic mail
address, if an electronic mailing address is available.
(Penal Code Section 680(h))
Existing law provides a criminal complaint may be filed
within one year of the date on which the identity of the
suspect is conclusively established by DNA testing if both
of the following conditions are met:
The crime is one that is described in the sex offense
registration statute.
The offense was committed prior to January 1, 2001, and
biological evidence collected in connection with the
offense is analyzed for DNA type no later than January 1,
2004; or the offense was committed on or after January 1,
2001, and biological evidence collected in connection
with the offense is analyzed for DNA type no later than
two years from the date of the offense. (Penal Code
Section 803(g)(1)(A)(B))
Existing law provides that a criminal complaint may be
filed within one year after a report to a law enforcement
agency that a person was the victim of a sexual offense
while under the age of 18 years. To file such a complaint,
the applicable limitation period must have expired and the
alleged crime must have involved substantial sexual conduct
CONTINUED
AB 322
Page
4
corroborated by evidence, as specified. (Penal Code
Section 803(g)(1) and (h)(1))
This bill provides that DOJ shall establish a pilot project
in 10 California counties to open and test all rape kits in
those counties.
This bill provides that the 10 counties chosen for
inclusion are counties with an arrest rate of less than 12
percent for the crime of forcible rape as reported to the
Office of the Attorney General (AG) for the reporting
periods of 2007-09.
This bill provides that the following counties shall be
included for the pilot project: Alpine, Amador, Colusa, El
Dorado, Napa, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Tehama, and Tuolumne.
This bill provides that DOJ shall, in cooperation with each
pilot project county, establish a process regarding the
collection, storage and testing of raped kits collected in
the pilot project county. It is the intent of the
Legislature that all rape kits that are collected in the
county after a date established by DOJ, shall be sent to a
forensic laboratory of the department for analysis and
testing. DOJ shall test every rape kit collected by a
pilot project county during the period of the pilot
project.
This bill provides that the purpose of this pilot project
is to determine whether counties with the lowest arrest
rates in California for the crime of forcible rape can
bring justice to victims by increasing their arrest rates
by having all rape kits that are collected in the county,
during the period of the pilot project, tested for evidence
of crime.
This bill provides the effectiveness of the pilot project
shall be measured by examining county statistics submitted
to the AG pursuant to existing law that requires the
reporting of the number of forcible rapes committed in that
county and the number of arrests for forcible rape
committed in that county.
This bill provides that the pilot project shall be
CONTINUED
AB 322
Page
5
inoperative on the earlier date of either July 1, 2015, or
the date when all rape kits collected in the counties
participating in the pilot project during the period of
July1, 2012, to December 31, 2014, inclusive, are counted.
The DOJ shall test all rape kits collected by a pilot
project county during the pilot project.
The provisions of the bill sunset on January 1, 2016.
This bill contains legislative findings and declarations.
Prior Legislation
AB 558 (Portantino), 2009-10 Session, passed the Senate
(33-0) on
August 11, 2010, but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 1017 (Portantino), 2009-10 Session, passed the Senate
(34-0) on September 2, 2009, but was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Pilot project rape $155 to $310 annually to
DOJ Special*
kit testing through June 2015
New convictions Unknown; potentially
significant General
state incarceration costs of $50
per
year per felony conviction
* DNA Identification Fund
NOTE: The DOJ has indicated that they are doing this
CONTINUED
AB 322
Page
6
already and this pilot project is not going to cost
them extra money.
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/1/11)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Californians Aware
City of West Hollywood
Crime Victims United of California
Hollywood NOW
Junior League of California State Public Affairs Committee
Junior League of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/7/11)
Alameda County Sheriff's Office
California Association of Crime Lab Directors
California Law Enforcement Association of Records
Supervisors, Inc.
California Peace Officers' Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Department of Finance
Kern County Sheriff's Office
Mono County Sheriff's Office
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Yolo County Sheriff's Office
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees states, "Currently,
California has an arrest rate of only 23.6% of reported
rapes. New York City has a remarkably higher arrest rate
of 70% because they test every rape kit that is collected.
By California law, when a rape kit is taken, each local law
enforcement agency must fill out an Office of Criminal
Justice Planning form 923. In many cases, rape kits are
conducted, but instead of being sent to the laboratory,
they are kept in evidence lockers indefinitely. The
failure to test rape kits in California directly explains
why our arrest rate on rape cases is so low."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California State Sheriffs'
CONTINUED
AB 322
Page
7
Association states, "We recognize and share your intent to
ensure that rape kits are analyzed and processed in order
to identify and convict offenders of these heinous crimes.
However, doing so by requiring law enforcement agencies to
provide statistics to DOJ would place significant cost
burdens on these agencies in terms of resources and
personnel and consequently, and would inadvertently hamper
our ability to process these kits. The focus should be on
building the capacity and resources for processing these
kits rather than using very limited resources to fulfill
reporting requirements."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-13, 6/1/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Conway, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman,
Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Jones, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Norby, Pan,
Perea, Portantino, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Donnelly, Beth Gaines,
Grove, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Morrell, Nestande, Olsen,
Silva, Valadao
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Garrick, Gorell, Halderman,
Jeffries, V. Manuel P�rez
RJG:mw 9/7/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED