BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                            Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair


          SB 1193 (Evans) - Destruction of seized marijuana: standards and  
          procedures.
          
          Amended: May 14, 2014           Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
          Urgency: No                     Mandate: Yes
          Hearing Date: May 19, 2014      Consultant: Jolie Onodera
          
          This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
           
          
          Bill Summary: SB 1193 would reduce the storage and sample-size  
          requirements for growing or harvested marijuana that has been  
          seized by law enforcement agencies, and would require a 30-day  
          retention period of a two-pound sample and five representative  
          samples, prior to destruction, as specified. This bill would  
          also codify the practice of compensation to a defendant found to  
          be in lawful possession of marijuana, as specified, who was  
          acquitted or whose case was dismissed.

          Fiscal Impact: 
              Significant ongoing cost savings to local law enforcement  
              (Local) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) for reduced  
              long-term retention and storage costs, offset to a minor  
              degree by increased costs for the destruction of slightly  
              more marijuana, the local costs of which would be  
              non-reimbursable (Local). 
              Potential minor state and state-reimbursable local costs  
              (General Fund) to retain the required samples of marijuana  
              for 30 days from the date of seizure to allow counsel to  
              examine the evidence. 
              Potential state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for  
              mandated compensation to defendants who were acquitted or  
              whose cases were dismissed for lawful possession of  
              marijuana that was subsequently damaged or destroyed after  
              seizure. This provision could also result in future cost  
              savings to the state in avoided causes of action that  
              otherwise would have been filed. 

          Background: Existing law provides that controlled substances and  
          devices or paraphernalia for using controlled substances that  
          are possessed in violation of relevant statutes may be seized by  
          law enforcement officers. The seized controlled substances are  








          SB 1193 (Evans)
          Page 1


          required to be destroyed upon a defendant's conviction, or in  
          cases without trial, dismissal, or conviction, the seized  
          property is to be destroyed unless the court finds that the  
          defendant lawfully possessed the property. (HSC �� 11472, 11473,  
          11473.5)

          Under existing law, an order for destruction of controlled  
          substances and associated instruments and paraphernalia may be  
          carried out by a police or sheriff's agency, the Department of  
          Justice (DOJ), Highway Patrol (CHP), or Department of Alcoholic  
          Beverage Control (ABC). (HSC � 11474)

          Existing law, as an exception to other statutes concerning  
          seizure and destruction of controlled substances, provides that  
          law enforcement may, without a court order, destroy seized  
          controlled substances in excess of 10 pounds, subsequent to all  
          of the following requirements being met:

           At least five random samples are taken and preserved in  
            addition to the 10 pounds required to be retained.
           In the case of marijuana, at least one 10-pound sample and  
            five representative samples consisting of leaves or buds are  
            retained for evidence.
           Photographs of the material to be destroyed are taken.
           The gross weight of the entire material is determined.
           The chief law enforcement officer has determined that it is  
            not reasonably possible to keep all of the material or to  
            store it in another place.
           Within 30 days of destruction of the material, an affidavit  
            must be filed with the court demonstrating compliance with the  
            above provisions. (HSC � 11479)

          This bill seeks to reduce the storage requirements for marijuana  
          imposed on law enforcement agencies to a more manageable  
          quantity, while clarifying a defendant's right to return of, or  
          compensation for, lawfully possessed marijuana under specified  
          circumstances.  

          Proposed Law: This bill would reduce the amount of growing or  
          harvested marijuana that has been seized by a law enforcement  
          agency that must be retained for evidence from at least 10  
          pounds to at least two pounds. In addition, this bill:
             Reduces the required representative sample size of growing  
             or harvested marijuana from one 10-pound sample, to one  








          SB 1193 (Evans)
          Page 2


             two-pound sample. 
             Requires counsel for the defendant to have 30 days from the  
             date the growing or harvested marijuana was seized to examine  
             the two-pound sample and five representative samples prior to  
             destruction if criminal proceedings are pending, as  
             specified.
             Provides for the following in a criminal prosecution in  
             which the defendant is acquitted or the case is dismissed:
                  o         Any marijuana, instrument, or paraphernalia  
                    seized in the case that was lawfully possessed by the  
                    defendant must be returned to the defendant.
                  o         If any marijuana, instrument, or paraphernalia  
                    was damaged or destroyed, the defendant must receive  
                    reasonable compensation for the damage or loss.
                  o         A claim must be presented not later than six  
                    months after acquittal or dismissal.

          Staff Comments: By reducing the marijuana storage and  
          sample-size requirements imposed on law enforcement agencies,  
          the provisions of this bill could potentially result in  
          significant cost savings to both state and local agencies in the  
          form of reduced needs for retention space, storage, and security  
          costs. Any offsetting costs for the destruction of more material  
          are estimated to be minor, and the costs to local law  
          enforcement for destruction would be non-reimbursable, as the  
          destruction of seized material pursuant to these provisions is  
          authorized but not mandated.
          
          The provision of this bill requiring counsel for the defendant  
          to be provided with 30 days from the date of seizure to examine  
          the two-pound sample and five representative samples prior to  
          destruction imposes a state-mandated local program, the costs of  
          which could be reimbursable by the state. The costs to law  
          enforcement to retain the samples for 30 days post seizure is  
          estimated to be minor, and any potential costs incurred by the  
          local agency would be considered against the offsetting cost  
          savings experienced by the local agency through the reduced  
          evidential storage requirements of this measure in the event a  
          claim for reimbursement is filed with the Commission on State  
          Mandates.

          This bill provides for compensation to a defendant for any  
          marijuana, instrument, or paraphernalia under specified  
          circumstances. As drafted, this mandate could be triggered with  








          SB 1193 (Evans)
          Page 3


          or without an order of the court specifying this reimbursement.  
          To the extent a court order is not required, the local costs,  
          which could be significant, associated with this mandated  
          activity could be determined to be state-reimbursable. 
          To the extent the provisions of this measure would avert the  
          potential costs of future government claims actions for return  
          of lawfully owned property could potentially result in net cost  
          savings to the state.
            
          Recommended amendments: This bill provides for the compensation  
          to a defendant in a criminal prosecution in which the defendant  
          is acquitted or the case is dismissed if any marijuana,  
          instrument, or paraphernalia was damaged or destroyed. For  
          clarity and to reduce potential state-reimbursable costs, staff  
          recommends the following amendments to HSC � 11473.5:

          (b) In a criminal prosecution in which the defendant was  
          acquitted or the case dismissed based on a defense or protection  
          provided under Section 11362.5 or Article 2.5 (commencing with  
          Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6,  upon the order of the court,  the  
          following shall apply:

          (1) Any marijuana, instrument, or paraphernalia seized in the  
          case that was lawfully possessed by the defendant shall be  
          returned to him or her.

          (2) If any marijuana, instrument, or paraphernalia  seized in the  
          case that was lawfully possessed by the defendant  was damaged or  
          destroyed, the defendant shall receive reasonable compensation  
          for the damage or loss.

          (3) A claim pursuant to this subdivision shall be presented not  
          later than six months after acquittal or dismissal in the case.