BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
3
2
9
SB 329 (Correa)
As Introduced February 15, 2011
Hearing date: January 10, 2012
Government Code
MK:mc
COUNTY PENALTIES: FORENSIC LABORATORIES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 434 (Logue) - Chapter 195, Stats. 2011
AB 855 (Ma) - currently in Senate Public Safety
AB 2009 (Logue) - 2010 vetoed
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY ASSESSMENT BE LEVIED ON THOSE WHO PAY
THEIR VEHICLE CODE FINES LATE WITH THE MONEY GOING TO SUPPLEMENT THE
FUNDS FOR DNA TESTING?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create an additional penalty
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 2
assessment to supplement funding for the DNA Fingerprint,
Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act to be imposed on
people who pay their fines for Vehicle Code moving violations
late.
Existing law provides for an additional "state penalty" of
$10 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon every fine,
penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts
for criminal offenses including all offenses, except parking
offenses, involving the Vehicle Code. Of the money
collected, 70 percent is transmitted to the state and 30
percent remains with the county. The state portion of the
money collected from the penalty is distributed in specified
percentages among the: Fish and Game Preservation Fund (0.33
percent); Restitution Fund (32.02 percent); Peace Officers
Training Fund (23.99 percent); Driver Training Penalty
Assessment Fund (25.70 percent); Corrections Training Fund
(7.88 percent); Local Public Prosecutors and Public
Defenders Fund (0.78 percent, not to exceed $850,000 per
year); Victim-Witness Assistance Fund (8.64 percent); and
the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund (0.66 percent). (Penal Code
� 1464.)
Existing law provides for an additional county penalty
assessment of $7 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon
every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by
the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses
involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local
ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code except
parking offenses. The money collected shall be placed in
any of the following funds if established by a County Board
of Supervisors: Courthouse Construction Fund; a Criminal
Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated Fingerprint
Identification Fund; Emergency Medical Services Fund; DNA
Identification Fund. (Government Code � 76000 et seq.)
Existing law , as part of the 2002-03 Budget Act, the
Legislature imposed what was to be a temporary state
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 3
surcharge of 20 percent on every base fine collected by the
court. All money collected shall be deposited in the
General Fund. This section was made permanent in the 2007
Budget. (Penal Code � 1465.7.)
Existing law established the "State Court Facilities
Construction Fund" and added a state court construction
penalty assessment in an amount up to $5 for every $10 or
fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture
imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses.
The variation in the amount is dependent on the amount
collected by the county for deposit into the local
Courthouse Construction Fund established pursuant to
Government Code Section 76100. As a result, the penalty
assessment ranges from $0.00 for every $10 in two counties
to the full $5 for every $10 in nine counties. This
provision took effect on January 1, 2003. (Government Code
� 70372.)
Existing law provides for a flat fee of $30 on every
conviction for a criminal offense to ensure adequate funding
for court security. (Penal Code � 1465.8.)
Existing law creates an additional penalty assessment of $2
on every $10 to support emergency medical services.
(Government Code � 76000.5.)
Existing law , established by Prop 69, Nov. 2004, levies a $1
penalty assessment on every $10 in fines and forfeitures
resulting from criminal and traffic offenses and dedicates
these revenues to state and local governments for DNA
databank implementation purposes - the state will receive
70% of these funds in the first two years, 50% in the third
year and 25% annually thereafter. The remainder will go to
local governments. (Government Code
� 76104.6.)
Existing law states that the penalty imposed by this section
shall be collected together with and in the same manner as
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 4
specified sections. These moneys shall be taken from fines and
forfeitures deposited with the county treasurer prior to any
divisions, as specified. The board of supervisors shall
establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund into
which shall be deposited the collected moneys pursuant to this
section. The moneys of the fund shall be allocated.
(Government Code � 76104.6(a)(2).)
Existing law states that this additional penalty does not apply
to the following:
any restitution fine;
specified penalties authorized under the Penal Code;
specified parking offenses; and,
the state surcharge authorized by the Penal Code.
(Government Code � 76104.6(a)(3).)
Existing law provides that the fund moneys described, together
with any interest earned thereon, shall be held by the county
treasurer separate from any funds subject to transfer or
division pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463. Deposits to the
fund may continue through and including the 20th year after the
initial calendar year in which the surcharge is collected, or
longer if and as necessary to make payments upon any lease or
leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the projects
specified herein. (Government Code � 76104.6(b)(1).)
Existing law states that on the last day of each calendar
quarter of the year specified in this subdivision, the county
treasurer shall transfer fund moneys in the county's DNA
Identification Fund to the State Controller for credit to the
state's DNA Identification Fund, which is hereby established in
the State Treasury, as follows (Government Code �
76104.6(b)(2)):
In the first two calendar years following the effective
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 5
date of this section, 70% of the amounts collected,
including interest earned thereon;
In the third calendar year following the effective date
of this section, 50% of the amounts collected, including
interest earned thereon; and,
In the fourth calendar year following the effective date
of this section and in each calendar year thereafter, 25%
of the amounts collected, including interest earned
thereon.
Existing law provides that funds remaining in the county's DNA
Identification Fund shall be used only to reimburse local
sheriff or other law enforcement agencies to collect DNA
specimens, samples, and print impressions pursuant to this
chapter, for expenditures and administrative costs made or
incurred to comply with specified requirements, including the
procurement of equipment and software integral to confirming
that a person qualifies for entry into DOJ's DNA Database and
Data Bank Program; and to local sheriff, police, district
attorney, and regional state crime laboratories for expenditures
and administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene
samples from cases in which DNA evidence would be useful in
identifying or prosecuting suspects, including the procurement
of equipment and software for the processing, analysis,
tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples from unsolved
cases. (Government Code � 76104.6(b)(3).)
Existing law provides that the state's DNA Identification Fund
shall be administered by the DOJ. Funds in the state's DNA
Identification Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall
be used by the Attorney General (AG) only to support DNA testing
California and to offset the impacts of increased testing and
shall be allocated as follows (Government Code � 76104.6(b)(4)):
Of the amount transferred, as specified, 90% to the
Department of Justice's DNA Laboratory, first, to comply
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 6
with the requirements of Penal Code Section 298.3 and,
second, for expenditures and administrative costs made or
incurred in connection with the processing, analysis,
tracking, and storage of DNA specimens and samples
including the procurement of equipment and software for the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA samples
and specimens obtained pursuant to the DNA and Forensic
Identification Database and Databank Act, as amended, and
10% to DOJ's Information Bureau Criminal History Unit for
expenditures and administrative costs that have been
approved by the Chief of DOJ's Bureau of Forensic Services
made or incurred to update equipment and software to
facilitate compliance with the requirements of Penal Code
Section 299.5(e). (Government Code � 76104.6(b)(4)(A).)
Of the amount transferred, as specified, funds shall be
allocated by the Department of Justice's DNA Laboratory,
first, to comply with the requirements of Penal Code
Section 298.3 and, second, for expenditures and
administrative costs made or incurred in connection with
the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA
specimens and samples including the procurement of
equipment and software for the processing, analysis,
tracking, and storage of DNA samples and specimens obtained
pursuant to the DNA and Forensic Identification Database
and Databank Act, as amended. (Government Code �
76104.6(b)(4)(B).)
Of the amount transferred, as specified, funds shall be
allocated by DOJ to the DNA Laboratory to comply with the
requirements of Penal Code Section 298.3 and for
expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred in
connection with the processing, analysis, tracking, and
storage of DNA specimens and samples including the
procurement of equipment and software for the processing,
analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA samples and
specimens obtained pursuant to the DNA and Forensic
Identification Database and Databank Act, as amended.
(Government Code
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 7
� 76104.6(b)(4)(C).)
Existing law states that on or before April 1 in the year
following adoption of this section, and annually thereafter, the
board of supervisors of each county shall submit a report to the
Legislature and DOJ. The report shall include the total amount
of fines collected and allocated pursuant to this section, and
the amounts expended by the county for each program authorized,
as specified. DOJ shall make the reports publicly available on
DOJ's Web site. (Government Code � 76104.6(c).)
Existing law provides that all requirements imposed on DOJ
pursuant to the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence
Protection Act are contingent upon the availability of funding
and are limited by revenue, on a fiscal year basis, received by
DOJ pursuant to this section and any additional appropriation
approved by the Legislature for purposes related to implementing
this measure. (Government Code � 76104.6(d).)
Existing law states that upon approval of the DNA Fingerprint,
Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, the Legislature
shall loan DOJ's General Fund in the amount of $7 million for
purposes of implementing that Act. This loan shall be repaid
with interest calculated at the rate earned by the Pooled Money
Investment Account at the time the loan is made. Principal and
interest on the loan shall be repaid in full no later than four
years from the date the loan was made and shall be repaid from
revenue generated pursuant to this section. (Government Code
� 76104.6(e).)
Existing law specifies that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Controller may use the state's DNA Identification
Fund, created as specified, for loans to the General Fund as
provided in Sections 16310 and 16381. Any such loan shall be
repaid from the General Fund with interest computed at 110% of
the Pooled Money Investment Account rate, with the interest
commencing to accrue on the date the loan is made from the fund.
This subdivision does not authorize any transfer that will
interfere with the carrying out of the object for which the
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 8
state's DNA Identification Fund was created. (Government Code �
76104.6(f).)
This bill provides that for the purposes of providing
supplemental funding for the DNA Fingerprint Unsolved Crime and
Innocence Protection Act and clearing the backlog of DNA crime
scene samples from cases in which DNA evidence would be useful
in identifying or prosecuting suspects there shall be levied an
unspecified additional penalty in each county for late payment
of any fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed by the courts for any
violation of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance adopted
pursuant to the Vehicle Code that is committed by the driver of
a vehicle while it is in motion.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 9
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
According to the federal government's best estimates at
least 350,000 DNA samples from murder, rape and several
other crimes remain untested. This problem is
especially prevalent in California. Our state is
estimated to have the largest DNA backlog in the
country. Recent federal and state laws require law
enforcement to collect and test DNA samples for more
crimes than ever before, increasing the burden on law
enforcement. With limited staff and funding, law
enforcement is unable to process this overflow of DNA
kits. With the appropriate resources law enforcement
could process backlogged DNA kits, leading to the
conviction of hundreds, if not thousands of rapists and
murderers.
SB 329 would give law enforcement the support they need
to process DNA samples in California's backlog.
Specifically, the measure would require, for the
purpose of providing supplemental funding for the DNA
processing, an additional penalty to be levied in an
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 10
unspecified amount in each county for the late payment
of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed by the
courts for any violation of the Vehicle Code, or a
local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
The penalty proceeds would be deposited in each
county's and the state's DNA Identification Fund for
the purpose of DNA testing.
2. DNA Identification Fund
Proposition 69 was passed in November 2004 and made substantial
changes to the laws regarding the CAL-DNA Data Bank Program.
Among these changes is the requirement that all convicted felons
provide DNA samples. This requirement has created a significant
backlog in crime laboratories throughout California.
Proposition 69 also provides how accredited laboratories are
authorized to analyze crime scene samples. Proposition 69
included an assessment of one dollar for every ten dollars on
every fine, penalty or forfeiture. This fee was intended to pay
for the testing of the additional DNA samples collected because
of the Proposition. The money collected was to be placed in the
DNA Identification Fund.
Under current law, funds remaining in the county's DNA
Identification Fund shall be used only to reimburse local
sheriff or other law enforcement agencies to collect DNA
specimens, samples, and print impressions, as specified; for
expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred to comply
with specified requirements including the procurement of
equipment and software integral to confirming that a person
qualifies for entry into the Department of Justice DNA Database
and Data Bank Program; and to local sheriff, police, district
attorney, and regional state crime laboratories for expenditures
and administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the
processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene
samples from cases in which DNA evidence would be useful in
identifying or prosecuting suspects, including the procurement
of equipment and software for the processing, analysis,
tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples from unsolved
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 11
cases.
Because a number of counties have found that they have extra
money in their DNA Identification Fund, AB 434 (Logue) was
signed into law in 2011 to allow funds remaining in a county's
DNA Identification Fund to reimburse a regional state crime
laboratory for costs associated with the analysis and comparison
of crime scene DNA with forensic identification samples. A
prior bill, AB 2009 (Logue), which would also have allowed the
extra funds to also reimburse private labs for testing had been
vetoed in 2010. AB 434 was limited to reimbursement of public
labs.
(More)
3. DNA Backlog and Funds
While there has in the past been a backlog of rape kits and
other biological evidence that has needed testing, many of those
backlogs have been taken care of although there is a constant
influx of new cases in every county. As noted in Comment 2, in
many counties the issue is not one of money, but of the lack of
available staff to do the testing. In fact, Los Angeles County
had contracted with the DOJ lab to take care of their backlog
cases. El Dorado County has recently entered into an MOU with
DOJ to use money from their DNA Identification fund to fund a
position in the DOJ lab to help El Dorado County clear their
cases.
IF THE ISSUE IS ONE OF ABILITY TO FIND STAFF AND NOT MONEY IN
MOST COUNTIES, WHAT IS THE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY
ASSESSMENT?
4. Additional Penalty Assessment
Under existing law there are approximately 280% in penalty
assessments placed on any fines imposed by the court. This bill
would add an additional penalty assessment, of an amount not yet
specified in the bill, on any late payment on any moving
violation of the Vehicle Code. In part because of the existing
penalty assessments, the fines for Vehicle Code Violations can
be very high. Failure to pay a fine can result in a failure to
appear warrant being issued, an in ability to register a vehicle
in addition to interest being added to the fine. Adding an
additional penalty assessment on a fine that a person already is
having trouble paying would not appear to result in much revenue
being raised, and instead may actually result in a person facing
the choice of serving jail time or doing community service in
order to pay off the increasing fine.
SHOULD THIS BILL SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL PENALTY
ASSESSMENT?
SHOULD AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY ASSESSMENT BE PLACED ON THE FINE OF
(More)
SB 329 (Correa)
Page 13
A PERSON WHO ALREADY CAN'T PAY THEIR FINE?
5. Nexus Between Assessment of Vehicle Code Violations and DNA
Testing
The additional penalty assessment in this bill is placed on
those who pay their moving violations late. There is no nexus
between moving violations and testing DNA found at a crime
scene. If an additional penalty is to be imposed, shouldn't
there at least be some minimal connection between those who must
pay the fine and the purpose for which the money will be used?
SHOULD THERE BE A NEXUS BETWEEN THE PERSON WHO WILL BE REQUIRED
TO PAY A PENALTY ASSESSMENT AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE MONEY
WILL BE USED?
***************