BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1010
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1010 (Mitchell) - As Amended: June 11, 2014
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill equalizes penalties for possession for sale of cocaine
base and possession for sale of powder cocaine. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Changes the penalty for possession for sale of cocaine base
from three, four, or five years, to two, three, or four years
of incarceration. (The penalties for simple possession or
straight sales are currently the same: two, three or four
years, and three, four or five years.)
2)Prohibits granting probation to a person convicted of
possession for sale of 28.5 grams or more of cocaine base, or
57 grams or more of a substance containing at least 5 grams of
cocaine base, rather than 14.25 grams, unless the court finds
unusual circumstances demonstrating that probation promotes
justice.
3)Authorizes seizure and forfeiture of a vehicle, boat or
airplane used as an instrumentality of drug commerce involving
cocaine base weighing 28.5 grams or more, or 57 grams or more
of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine base,
rather than 14.25 grams.
4)States legislative findings and declarations that powder
cocaine and cocaine base are "two forms of the same drug, the
effects of which on the human body are so similar that to mete
out unequal punishment for the same crime?is wholly and
cruelly unjust."
FISCAL EFFECT
SB 1010
Page 2
1)Significant ongoing GF savings, potentially up to $4.5
million, based on a six-month difference in time served in
state prison for 160 persons convicted of possession for sale
of cocaine base with a specified prior offense (the average
number of commitments over the past two years), assuming full
per capita prison costs.
2)Significant ongoing local, non-reimbursable incarceration
savings, potentially in the range of $6.5 million, based on
the 1,200 persons committed to state prison for possession for
sale of cocaine base in 2010 and 2011, prior to realignment,
and the 320 persons committed to state prison
post-realignment, in 2012 and 2013, assuming a per capita cost
of $30,000.
3)Incarceration savings would be offset to an unknown degree by
increased non-reimbursable probation costs, as a result of
authorizing probation for possession for sale of cocaine base
at the same volume threshold as cocaine powder. For order of
magnitude purposes, every 100 additional probation cases would
offset incarceration savings by about $500,000.
4)Unknown, likely minor, decrease in state and local asset
forfeiture revenue to the extent increasing the volume
threshold for forfeiture reduces state and local asset
forfeitures. For order of magnitude purposes, state and local
law enforcement share about $25 million per year in asset
forfeitures, with a greater amount, in the range of $35
million annually, shared with the state through federal asset
forfeiture.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to address what she and
proponents contend is a significant sentencing disparity with
racial overtones.
According to the author, "SB 1010 will correct the groundless
disparity in sentencing, probation and asset forfeiture
guidelines for possession of crack cocaine for sale versus the
same crime involving powder cocaine that has resulted in a
pattern of racial discrimination in sentencing and
incarceration in California.
SB 1010
Page 3
"Crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug.
Scientific reports, including a major study published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, demonstrate that
they have essentially identical effects on the human body.
Powder cocaine can be injected or snorted. Crack cocaine can
be injected or smoked, and is a product derived when cocaine
powder is processed with an alkali, typically common baking
soda. Gram for gram, there is less active drug in crack
cocaine than in powder cocaine.
"Whatever their intended goal, disparate sentencing guidelines
for two forms of the same drug has resulted in a pattern of
institutional racism, with longer prison sentences given to
people of color who are more likely than whites to be arrested
and incarcerated for cocaine base offenses compared to powder
cocaine offenses, despite comparable rates of usage and sales
across racial and ethnic groups.
2)California state prison incarceration for cocaine base
disproportionate in terms of ethnicity. According to
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation data on the
number of inmates imprisoned for possession for sale of powder
cocaine and for possession for sale of cocaine base, from FY
2005-06 through 2009-10, African Americans were imprisoned for
possession of cocaine base for sale at a rate 43.25 times that
for Caucasians.
(For a full analysis of rates of use and incarceration, see
the June 17 Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis.)
3)Support . The American Civil Liberties Union states, "SB 1010
will correct the groundless disparity in sentencing, probation
and asset forfeiture guidelines for possession for sale of
crack cocaine versus the same crime involving powder cocaine
that has resulted in a pattern of racial discrimination in
sentencing and incarceration in California. Moreover, the
nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that, by
equalizing the penalty, the state and local governments would
save millions of dollars annually."
4)Opposition . The California Narcotics Officers' Association
states, "Senate Bill 1010 will lower penalties for trafficking
in cocaine base to the level that currently exists for powder
cocaine trafficking. Although we agree with you that there is
no rational basis for having different levels of punishment
SB 1010
Page 4
for trafficking in the same product, we must respectfully
disagree with the remedy that is embodied in Senate Bill 1010:
the reduction of penalties for drug traffickers dealing in
cocaine base.
"We believe that the preferable approach is to raise the
penalties for powder cocaine trafficking to the same level
that currently exists for trafficking in cocaine base.
Candidly, the damages done to individuals, families and
neighborhoods by virtue of cocaine trafficking are severe.
Although we support equalizing the penalty structures, we do
not believe that drug traffickers - who visit real harm on
communities - should be the beneficiaries of legislation that
equalizes the penalty structure."
1)Prior Legislation . Legislation by Assemblymember Dymally in
2004, 2005 and 2008 to address this issue passed Assembly
Public Safety Committee and this committee but was never taken
up on the floor.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081