BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1682
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1682 (Portantino) - As Amended: May 2, 2012
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill increases, from two to five years, the time frame in
which DNA evidence (rape kits) must be tested in order to
preserve the statute of limitations in sex offense cases.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown annual GF costs to the extent this bill results in
convictions and state prison terms that would not otherwise be
achieved within the timeframe required by current law. For
example, if this bill results in just two annual convictions
with an average of four years served, the annual cost would be
about $400,000 in four years.
2)Unknown nonreimbursable local costs and unknown GF costs to
the Department of Justice (which analyzes rape kits for 47
counties), potentially in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to the extent this bill allows state and local crime
labs to analyze DNA evidence that might otherwise have not
been tested due to the two-year time limitation.
A few years ago the state and L.A. County had a large backlog
of untested rape kits. That known backlog no longer exists.
Absent a backlog, there should be no significant costs. Should
this backlog reappear, or if a backlog exists in other
counties, this bill would result in additional costs for
analysis of kits that would otherwise not occur.
At a cost of about $2,500 per rape kit analysis, every 100
kits tested represents a cost of about $250,000.
AB 1682
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, considering the
considerable rape kit testing backlogs of several years ago in
L.A. and at DOJ crime labs (there are no known backlogs now),
this statute of limitations extension is necessary in case
other counties fall behind, are behind now, or just need
additional time. The author contends this bill will ensure
all rape kits are processed and all biological evidence
collected in connection with the offense is analyzed for DNA
type and entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
2)Current law allows a criminal complaint to be filed within one
year of the date on which the identity of the suspect is
conclusively established by DNA testing if the following
conditions are met:
a) The alleged offense is a registerable sex offense, and
b) The offense was committed before Jan. 1, 2001 and DNA
evidence is analyzed no later than Jan 1, 2004; or the
offense was committed after Jan. 1, 2001 and DNA is
analyzed no later than two years from the date of the
offense.
This bill changes the two years to five.
3)Absent crime lab backlogs, the need for this bill is
prospective, should backlogs develop.
4)Statutes of limitations for sex offenses depend on
circumstances and offense. A criminal complaint may be filed
within one year of the date of a report to law enforcement by
any person who, while under the age of 18, was the victim of
rape, sodomy, child molestation, forcible oral copulation,
continuous sexual abuse of a child, sexual penetration and
fleeing the state with the intent to avoid prosecution for a
specified sex offense. However, the existing statute of
limitations must have expired, the crime must have involved
substantial sexual conduct and there must be independent
evidence to corroborate the victim's allegations. If the
victim is 21 years of age or older at the time of the report,
the independent evidence must clearly and convincingly
corroborate the victim's allegations. A criminal complaint
may also be filed for the above-mentioned sex offenses any
AB 1682
Page 3
time before the victim's 28th birthday when the offense is
alleged to have occurred when the victim was under the age of
18. Also any prosecution for a felony registerable sex offense
may begin 10 years after the date of commission.
5)The rationale for statutes of limitations . Statutes of
limitations ensure that prosecutions are based upon reasonably
fresh evidence, as over time memories fade, witnesses die or
move, and physical evidence becomes more difficult to obtain.
Statutes of limitations also encourage law enforcement
officials to investigate suspected criminal activity in a
timely fashion. In short, the possibility of erroneous
conviction or acquittal is minimized when prosecution is
prompt.
6)Prior Legislation .
AB 383 (Lieu), 2009, was identical to this bill. It passed off
of this committee's Suspense File and was held in the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
AB 718 (Fuller), 2007-08, would have deleted the time frame in
which DNA evidence must be tested after it is collected in
order to preserve the statute of limitations in sex offense
cases, as specified. AB 718 was held on this committee's
Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081