BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1060
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1060 (Roger Hernandez) - As Amended: April 28, 2011
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 5-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Creates special maritime criminal jurisdiction extending to
crimes against persons on board a ship outside of California
under specified circumstances, including:
a) When the suspect is either a California resident or a
resident of a state that consents to California
jurisdiction.
b) When the ship master or flag-state official turns a
suspect over to state law enforcement.
c) When the state where the crime occurred asks California
to exercise jurisdiction.
d) When the crime occurs during a voyage where the majority
of passengers embarked and intended to disembark in
California.
e) When the crime constitutes an attempt or a conspiracy to
cause a substantial effect in California that is an element
of the charged offense.
f) When the crime committed is one with respect to which
all states could exercise criminal jurisdiction under
international law or treaty.
2)Provides that if a crime is punishable under California law,
it is punishable in the same way under the special criminal
maritime jurisdiction.
3)Creates an affirmative defense when an act was authorized by
the ship's master or an officer of the flag state in accord
with the laws of that state and international law.
AB 1060
Page 2
4)Requires state law enforcement officers and prosecutors not to
interfere with federal jurisdiction, the flag state, or a
state in whose territory the crime occurs.
5)Creates a series of enforcement limitations on this
jurisdiction.
6)Encourages local law enforcement to enter into agreements with
the Coast Guard and FBI.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, potentially significant annual state trial court GF
costs to the extent special maritime jurisdiction results in
additional court time and trials. For example, 10 trials
averaging two weeks, would cost in the range of $400,000.
2)Unknown, annual GF costs to the extent the special
jurisdiction results in additional convictions and state
prison commitments. Four felony convictions could result in
annual GF costs of almost $200,000.
3)Unknown nonreimbursable local law enforcement costs.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The authors' intent is to provide justice for
crimes against persons that occur on cruise ships outside
California's three-mile-off-the-coast jurisdiction. The author
contends that the federal government does not make these
crimes a priority.
According to the author, "victims of crimes at sea are not
getting justice they deserve. Only a startling few of the
cases that are reported are actually ever prosecuted mainly
because these crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI,
who gives little priority to robberies and sex crimes on
cruise ships. In 2008 for example, the FBI released data that
indicates that there were only six sentences for any crime
that was committed at sea."
As noted by the Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis,
this bill appears to be modeled on a statute that creates a
special maritime criminal jurisdiction for Florida, which was
upheld by the Florida Supreme Court when tested over an
AB 1060
Page 3
attempted sexual battery and burglary 100 miles off the
Florida coast. The cruise ship originated in Florida and
returned there.
2)L.A. County currently has an MOU with the federal government
for this purpose.
3)Prior Legislation . SB 1582 (Simitian), 2008, required
operators of large passenger vessels operating in California
to have an ocean range on board to monitor compliance with
specified laws. SB 1582 failed passage in Assembly Public
Safety.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081