AB 322
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 322 (Portantino) – As Amended: April 26, 2011
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote:
Urgency: No
Reimbursable:
State Mandated Local Program: Yes
5-2
Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires local law enforcement to report information regarding the processing of rape
kit evidence to DOJ, and establishes timeframes for evidence processing. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires that by July 1 of each year, from 2013 to 2017, local law enforcement agencies
must report the following information to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
a) The number of rape kits received during the preceding calendar year and the number of
kits for which the identity of the assailant is unknown.
b) The number of kits tested during the preceding calendar year and the number of kits for
which the identity of the assailant is unknown.
c) The number of rape kits submitted for analysis that remain untested and, of that figure,
the number of kits for which the identity of the assailant is unknown.
d) The number of untested rape kits in its possession as of January 1 of the reporting year.
2) Requires law enforcement agencies that collect a rape kit after July 1, 2012 to submit that kit
for testing within 30 business days.
3) Requires DOJ to establish a timeframe for local law enforcement agencies to submit rape kits
collected before July 1, 2012, in order to complete analysis by January 1, 2014.
4) Requires all rape kits submitted to a forensic laboratory after July 1, 2012 to be analyzed
within six months if sufficient staffing and resources are available.
5) Requires DOJ, by January 1, 2014, to submit to the governor and the Legislature an
assessment of, and plan for, testing rape kits pursuant to the requirements of this bill.
6) Requires every law enforcement agency to provide written notice to the DOJ, By July 1,
2013, stating the number of rape kits in custody that have not been submitted for analysis.
7) Requires, by January 1, 2014, arrangements between local law enforcement and DOJ to
ensure all rape kits collected prior to July 1, 2012 have been tested.
FISCAL EFFECT
1) Significant ongoing GF and special fund (DNA Fund) costs, likely in the range of $3 million,
to DOJ to clear rape kit testing backlogs. (DOJ crime labs service 47 of the state's 58
AB 322
Page 2
counties.) Preliminary estimates indicate there may be about 1,000 rape kits that would need
to be expedited pursuant to this bill, at about $2,500 per kit. L.A. County, however, projects
it will clear its backlog by this summer, so ongoing costs could be considerably less.
2) Significant annual state-reimbursable local law enforcement costs, likely in the range of $2
million, for statistical compilation and reporting, and for expedited kit testing.
3) Unknown annual GF costs to the extent this bill results in convictions and state prison terms
that would not otherwise be achieved without the testing required by this bill. If this bill
results in just two annual convictions with an average of four years served, the annual cost
would be about $350,000 in four years.
COMMENTS
1) Rationale. According to proponents, one of the biggest problems facing the criminal justice
system today is the substantial backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples and biological evidence
from crime scenes, especially in sexual assault cases. A 2009 L.A. City Auditor's report
revealed thousands of rape kits awaiting DNA processing in LAPD evidence lockers. Timely
analysis of these samples and placement into a DNA database can avert tragic results.
The author contends that disclosure of how many rape kits have been collected, tested,
shelved or destroyed will pressure law enforcement agencies to process backlogs.
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 January 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.
3) Opposition. The State Sheriffs Association and the Law Enforcement Association of Records
Supervisors, while supporting the goal of this measure, contend that the cost of compliance
may simply be prohibitive.
"We recognize and share your intent to ensure that rape kits are analyzed and processed in
order to identify and convict offenders of these heinous crimes. However, doing so by
requiring law enforcement agencies to provide statistics to DOJ would place significant cost
burdens on these agencies in terms of resources and personnel and consequently, would
inadvertently hamper our abilities to process these kits. It is for these reasons that the
Governor vetoed AB 558, a similar version of this bill last year.
"Local law enforcement agencies are grappling with significant budget cuts over the last
several years while trying to maintain critical services. Adding an additional reporting
requirement would divert limited resources away from providing current services.
"The additional costs associated with this new requirement would be detrimental to the
provision of critical services we currently provide."
AB 322
Page 3
4) This bill appears to reduce law enforcement discretion to address priority cases. By
mandating specific testing timelines, this bill reduces law enforcement's discretion to
prioritize the most pressing DNA cases, which include murder and kidnapping. For example,
not all rape cases require expedited DNA analysis. DOJ has noted that less than five percent
of sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers, meaning the suspect is often known. As this
bill makes no distinction between cases for which expedited DNA analysis is crucial, state
and local crime labs would be required to expedite cases that may push more urgent cases
down in the queue.
5) Prior Legislation. AB 558 (Portantino), 2010, which contained the reporting requirements of
AB 322, was vetoed. Gov. Schwarzenegger stated,
"Unfortunately, while this measure is well-intended, it continues to ignore the precarious
fiscal conditions of California's crime laboratories. Indeed, as noted by the California Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force in its 2009 report, DNA, fingerprints, and firearms testing
have been identified as areas where requests often exceed staffing capabilities. The Task
Force also noted that in order toeliminate the backlog for DNA testing, an additional 282
analysts would have to be funded. Unfortunately, AB 558 will not provide any additional
funding or staffing for crime laboratories and will instead divert resources away from testing
to sending reports to the Department of Justice. In this time of fiscal crisis, I cannot condone
this shift in priorities."
AB 1017 (Portantino), 2009-10, received a similar veto message.
Analysis Prepared by:
Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081