BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 6, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1193 (Evans) - As Amended: August 4, 2014
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill reduces the sample size law enforcement must maintain
as evidence in criminal cases related to possession or
cultivation of marijuana from 10 pounds and five samples to two
pounds and five samples.
This bill also provides for the return of seized marijuana
and/or paraphernalia that was lawfully possessed when a medical
marijuana case is dismissed or a defendant acquitted, upon order
of the court, and specifies a claim must be presented within six
months of acquittal or dismissal, pursuant to existing claims
law. (Current law generally specifies that a claim must be
presented within six months of the accrual of the cause of
action, which is defined as when a defendant is served with the
complaint giving rise to the defendant's claim for indemnity
against the public entity.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown state and local prospective savings to the extent
reducing the amount of marijuana that must be retained as
evidence reduces the need for storage space expansion.
2)Unknown, likely minor, local compensation costs to the extent
this bill results in compensatory claims for destroyed
materials that would not otherwise be eligible for claims
under current law.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The stated intent of the author and sponsor, the
SB 1193
Page 2
Peace Officer Research Association of CA (PORAC), is to
provide storage space relief to law enforcement agencies by
reducing the required amount of marijuana product that must be
retained for evidentiary purposes.
According to the author, "Many sheriffs' departments,
especially those in rural Northern California counties, are
finding the "ten pound" requirement burdensome in two ways.
First, the storage space alone can be troublesome and
expensive. Most evidence lockers were not built to contain
such large quantities of cannabis and sometimes outdoor
storage facilities are being considered, adding an additional
risk and cost to the agency. Second, and most importantly,
the peace officers working in these evidence facilities are
subject to unknown pesticides and chemicals being used to
sustain what may be an illegal grow. Further, after a short
period of time, much of the crop can begin to spoil and
mildew, causing additional health risks."
This bill also clarifies law and practice regarding the return
of marijuana to a qualified patient. The author cites several
cases (see the Assembly Public Safety analysis) in which
government entities were required to return or compensate
patients for seized medical marijuana. Current law provides
that all controlled substances or associated paraphernalia
seized as a result of a case that ended with a conviction,
shall be destroyed. In a case that ends without a conviction,
the seized material shall be destroyed - unless the court
finds the defendant lawfully possessed the property.
This bill specifies that any lawfully possessed material at
issue in a medical marijuana case that ends without a
conviction shall be returned to the defendant. If materials
are destroyed, the defendant may submit a claim, pursuant to
current law.
2)August 4 amendments attempt to address concerns of the State
Sheriffs Association, the Police Chiefs Association and the
Judicial Council by cross-referencing current claims law, to
demonstrate the author's proposal is akin to existing law.
3)Opposition . The State Sheriffs Association and the Police
Chiefs Association opposed the previous version of the bill,
based on concerns that codification and/or expansion of claim
eligibility could require potentially costly local
SB 1193
Page 3
indemnification.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081