Existing law defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Various law enforcement agencies and district attorney offices throughout California have established cold case units to investigate unsolved murders.

This bill would require an applicable law enforcement agency to review the casefile regarding an open unsolved murder upon written application by a designated person to determine if a reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads, as specified. The bill would define an open unsolved murder as a murder committed more than one year prior to the date of the application for case review, that was investigated by a law enforcement agency, was committed after January 1, 1990, where all probative investigative leads have been exhausted, and for which no suspect has been identified. If the review determines a reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads, this bill would require a reinvestigation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a reinvestigation from being conducted by a person who previously investigated the homicide at issue, as specified, and would allow only one reinvestigation from being undertaken at any one time with respect to the same victim.

By imposing new duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2913

Author:(Gipson) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a law enforcement agency (LEA) to review, upon request, any unsolved murder investigation case file to determine whether reinvestigation of the case would result in probative investigative leads.

Specifically, among other provisions, this bill:

1. Requires, upon request by a designated person, an LEA to review an open unsolved homicide case file to determine if a reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads.
   
2. Requires the LEA’s review to include, among other tasks, an analysis of the investigative steps that may have been missed in the initial investigation; an assessment of whether witnesses should be interviewed or re-interviewed; and an examination of physical evidence.
   
3. Specifies that a person performing the case review may not be a person that previously investigated the murder.
   
4. Specifies mandatory communications from the LEA to the requesting party, including confirming receipt of their request, providing notice of their rights, providing notice if the LEA extends its case review deadline, and consulting with the requesting party and providing them with periodic updates during the case file review and reinvestigation.
   
5. Requires an LEA to conduct a reinvestigation of a case if the LEA’s review of a case file indicates that reinvestigation of the case would result in probative investigative leads.
   
6. Specifies timelines for future reviews if an LEA decides not to conduct a reinvestigation or its reinvestigation does not result in identification of a suspect.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Likely reimbursable workload costs (local funds, General Fund), possibly in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually, for LEAs to conduct the required reinvestigations and other duties added by this bill. Actual workload will depend on the number of open cases, the number of requests for reinvestigation, and the amount of time needed to handle each request. If 50 LEAs statewide must each hire an additional peace officer due to increased workload, at an average salary of $100,000, total annual costs would be about $5 million. LEAs may incur additional costs in processing and testing evidence during reinvestigations. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

This legislation is essential for the countless families that have lost a loved one to unlawful violence…California law does not contain uniform rights for families of homicide victims to request review of open unsolved homicide cases. Currently, when a family member of a murder victim reaches out to law enforcement to inquire about an open unsolved case, there is no uniform process for law enforcement to respond to and engage with those inquiries. There is no requirement that law enforcement review the case file to determine whether additional investigation might uncover new probative leads. There is also no requirement to reopen a case file for reinvestigation if a review of the initial investigation findings by a person other than the initial investigator determines that reinvestigation is warranted.

1. Background. Generally, under existing state law, an LEA has discretion over when and how to investigate open criminal cases, and members of the public are not entitled to access investigative files and information while an investigation is ongoing. According to the Department of Justice’s most recent data, California’s homicide clearance rate in 2022 was 58.7%, meaning that 41.3% of homicide cases remained open and unsolved that year.

This bill establishes a framework for required review and reinvestigation of an unsolved murder case upon request by a victim’s family member or similarly situated person. As described above, if such a request is made about a case that is more than a year old, an LEA must review the case file to determine whether reinvestigating the case would lead to any probative investigative leads. If so, the agency must undertake a reinvestigation of the case. The bill also requires the agency to engage in ongoing communication with the requesting party, including discussion of the evidence in the case.

As discussed in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, there are a number of practical challenges posed by this bill. In pertinent part for this committee, the bill will add significant workload to LEAs with open murder cases. Many agencies will need to hire additional officers to handle these duties, particularly smaller agencies that do not already employ multiple homicide detectives who can provide the “fresh eyes” reviews required by the bill. These costs will be paid from the General Fund if the Commission on State Mandates determines these are reimbursable expenses.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2913

Author:(Gipson) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024

SUMMARY:

Requires a law enforcement agency (“LEA”), as specified, to perform a review of any open homicide investigation case file, upon written application by a designated person, as defined, to determine if reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads. Specifically, this bill:

1. States any LEA must review an open unsolved homicide case file to determine if a reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads, when requested pursuant to a written application by a designated person, as specified.
   
2. Requires a LEA case file review to include all of the following:
   
   1. An analysis of the investigative steps or follow-up steps that may have been missed in the initial investigation;
      
   2. An assessment of whether witnesses should be interviewed or re-interviewed;
      
   3. An examination of physical evidence to see if all appropriate forensic testing and analysis was performed in the first instance or if additional testing might produce information relevant to the investigation; and
      
   4. An update of the case file to bring it up to current investigative standards to the extent doing so would help develop probative leads.
      
3. Mandates any person performing the case review may not be a person that previously investigated the murder.
   
4. Requires the applicable LEA to confirm receipt of a request to perform a case review and provide the applicant notice of their rights.
   
5. States that only one case review may be undertaken at any one time with respect to the same open unsolved murder victim.
   
6. Mandates if more than one investigative agency is involved in a homicide investigation, each investigative agency shall coordinates its case file review such that there is only one case file review at a time.
   
7. States no later than 90 days after the receipt of the written application for a case review, the applicant agency is required to conclude its case file review and reach a conclusion whether reinvestigation is warranted.
   
8. Provides that a LEA may extend the 90 day time limit for a period not to exceed 45 days if the LEA makes a finding that the number of case files to be reviewed makes it impracticable to comply with said limits without unreasonably taking resources from other law enforcement activities.
9. States for cases wherein the 90-day time limit is extended, the LEA shall provide notice and an extension of its reasoning to the designated person who filed the written application.
   
10. Mandates each LEA develop a written application for a designated person to request a case file for review.
    
11. Requires each agency to assign a person or a department responsible for receiving and processing applications for case file reviews and ensuring that the agency meets all deadlines and obligations generated by the application receipt.
    
12. Requires any LEA to conduct a reinvestigation of the open unsolved murder at issue if the review of the case file determines a reinvestigation of an open unsolved murder would result in probative investigative leads.
    
13. Provides that a reinvestigation must include analyzing all evidence regarding the open unsolved murder at issue for the purpose of developing probative investigative leads as to the suspect or suspects.
    
14. States the applicable agency shall consult with the designated person who filed the written application and provide them with periodic updates during the case file review and reinvestigation.
    
15. Requires the LEA to meet with the designated person and discuss the evidence to explain to the designated person who filed the written application the agency’s decision on whether or not to engage in a reinvestigation at the conclusion of the case file review.
    
16. States if a case file is completed and the conclusion is not to conduct a investigation, no additional case file review shall be undertaken for a period of five years, unless there is newly discovered, materially significant evidence.
    
17. Provides that a LEA may continue an investigation absent a designated person’s application for a new case file review.
    
18. States if a reinvestigation is done and a suspect is not identified at its conclusion, no additional case file review or reinvestigation needs to be conducted for a period of five years, unless there is newly discovered, materially significant new evidence.
    
19. Defines the following terms:
    
    1. “Agency” means any LEA in California.
       
    2. “Applicable Agency” means any LEA that is investigating or has investigated the murder of the victim.
       
    3. “Designated person” means any immediate family member or similarly situated person, or their designed legal representative who is a member in good standing with the State Bar of California.
       
    4. “Immediate family member” means a parent, parent-in-law, legal guardian, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, sibling, spouse, child, or stepchild of a murder victim or any person who exercised in loco parentis over a victim under 18 years of age.
       
    5. “Murder” is defined as any violation of Penal Code section 187.
       
    6. “Open unsolved murder” means a murder that meets the following requirements:
       
       1. The murder was committed more than a year prior to the date of the application for a case review by a designated person, as specified.
          
       2. All probative investigative leads have been exhausted.
          
       3. No suspect has been identified;
          
       4. The Murder was committed after January 1, 1990.
          
    7. “Victim” means the person against whom an open homicide murder was committed.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)
   
2. States the definition of murder does not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
   
   1. Any action that complies with the former Therapeutic Abortion Act or the Reproductive Privacy Act;
      
   2. The action was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the person pregnant with the fetus or where the pregnant person’s death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
      
   3. It was an act or omission by the person pregnant with the fetus or was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the person pregnant with the fetus.
      
3. Defines “express malice” as any time when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature. (Pen. Code, § 188, subd. (a)(1).)
   
4. Defines “implied malice” as when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. (Pen. Code, § 188, subd. (a)(2).)
   
5. States that if it is shown that the killing resulted from an intentional act with express or implied malice, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite that awareness is included within the definition of malice. (Pen. Code, § 188, subd. (b).)
   
6. States that the Public Records Act does not require disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the California Office of Emergency Management (Cal OES), and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. (Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a).)
   
7. Establishes in Cal OES, a program of financial assistance to provide for statewide programs of education, training, and research for local public prosecutors and public defenders and all funds made available to Cal OES for the programming offered to prosecutors and public defenders shall be administered and distributed by the Director of Cal OES. (Pen. Code, § 11501.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 2913, the California Homicide Victims’ Families’ Right Act, would create a procedure for family members of homicide victims to request that law enforcement conduct a review of an open unsolved homicide case file to determine whether a full reinvestigation would result in new, probative investigative leads. This legislation is essential for the countless families that have lost a loved one to unlawful violence.”

“California law does not contain uniform rights for families of homicide victims to request review of open unsolved homicide cases. Currently, when a family member of a murder victim reaches out to law enforcement to inquire about an open unsolved case, there is no uniform process for law enforcement to respond to and engage with those inquiries. There is no requirement that law enforcement review the case file to determine whether additional investigation might uncover new probative leads. There is also no requirement to reopen a case file for reinvestigation if a review of the initial investigation findings by a person other than the initial investigator determines that reinvestigation is warranted.

“Solving gun crimes can be an important part of preventing gun violence, particularly retaliatory gun violence, and it can help provide closure to victims’ families. The absence of uniform statewide rights for families of homicide victims can harm communities and may be an exacerbating factor in case clearance rate disparities around the state. Many of California’s cities that are being hit the hardest by increases in gun violence also have homicide clearance rates well below the state average. Grieving families often want more information about the status of their loved one’s case, but there is no uniform process around the state for families to request further review of an unsolved case.

“AB 2913 also brings a critical component of communication between law enforcement and homicide victims’ family members by requiring that the agency consult with the family member who requests a case file review, provide periodic updates to them, and meet with them to discuss the evidence and decision regarding whether to conduct a full reinvestigation. While communication touchpoints and transparency may be routine in some jurisdictions, there is no assurance they will occur in areas where there is mistrust between law enforcement and the community. This bill seeks to improve inequities in case clearance rates and the experiences of grieving families.

1. Requirements of Disclosure of Law Enforcement Investigation Records: Enacted in 1968, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) grants public access to public records held by state and local agencies. (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.)

“Modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.), the [CPRA] was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of state and local agencies. [Citation.] Such ‘access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business,’ the Legislature declared, ‘is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.’”

(Castañares v. Superior Court (City of Chula Vista) (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 295, 304, citing Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU of Southern California) (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 290

The CPRA generally prohibits disclosure of police investigation records unless the investigation is closed. (See Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a); former Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (f).) A closed investigation is not the same as an investigation that may be slow or even cold. A closed investigation often means the suspect was identified and the police have passed that information on to the district attorney or the suspect was arrested and tried to resolution.

The CPRA police records provision requires LEAs to provide certain information derived from investigative records and permits the withholding of information wherein disclosure: (a) would endanger the safety of a witness or other person, (b) would endanger the successful completion of an investigation, or (c) reflects the analysis or conclusions of investigating officers. (Williams v. Superior Court [Freedom Newspapers, Inc.] (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 349.)

This bill does not require disclosure of police investigative records, but it does require the police to provide details about the investigation as part of the rights granted to the designated person. As a general matter, that may include the “analysis or conclusions of investigating officers.” Therefore, it is unclear what effect, if any, this bill would have on the CPRA exemption for police investigation files.

1. Public Law 117-164: In 2021, despite massive gridlock in Congress, a fairly non-controversial bill was signed into law – the Homicide Victims’ Families’ Rights Act. (See 34 U.S.C. § 60901.) Public Law 1174-164 requires a federal LEA to review a cold case file upon written application by a designated person. This bill appears modeled on the federal law; although there are some important differences.

First, the federal law states any review must be of a “cold case.” (See 34 U.S.C. § 60901, subd. (a).) “Cold case” is defined in the law as: (a) committed more than three years prior to the application for case review; (b) previously investigated by federal law enforcement; (c) for which all probative investigative leads have been exhausted; and (d) for which no likely perpetrator has been identified. (See 34 U.S.C. § 60911, subd. (6)(A-D.) Second, the federal law contains an exception depending on the status of the case. Specifically, section 60901, subdivision (c) states:

“In any case in which a written application for review has been received under this Act by the agency, review shall be unnecessary where the case does not satisfy the criteria for a cold case murder. In such a case, the head of the agency shall issue a written certification, with a copy provided to the designed person that made the application under subsection (a), stating that final review is not necessary because all probative investigative leads have been exhausted or that a likely perpetrator will not be identified.”

This bill states that a person may demand a case review for any “open unsolved homicide” meaning: (a) the murder was committed more than one year prior to the date of the application for a case review; (b) the murder was previously investigated by an agency; (c) all probative investigative leads have been exhausted; (d) no suspect has been identified; and (e) the murder was committed after January 1, 1990. (See proposed Penal Code section 11484, subd. (f).)

It is not clear in this bill whether a designated person is entitled to the specifics of a case file or records from the case file. However, proposed section 11488, subdivision (a) requires the LEA to discuss the evidence with the designated person. As noted above, the CPRA prevents disclosure of police investigation records where it: (a) would endanger the safety of a witness or other person, (b) would endanger the successful completion of an investigation, or (c) reflects the analyses or conclusions of investigating officers. Presumably, the LEA could simply reject the application as a violation of the CPRA if the discussion resulting from a case review involved details from records that are not otherwise subject to disclosure. (See generally, Fredericks v. Superior Court [City of San Diego] (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 209, 217.)

1. Possible Unintended Consequences: This bill is laudable in its intent – but there may be unintended consequences that may require further amendments to avoid. Most certainly, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color face unprecedented failure rates in solving homicides. Indigenous women and girls and Trans women of color suffer the highest rates of homicide and one of the lowest solve rates.^[1] However, it is not clear from this bill how those homicides will receive more attention and resources in order to close those cases and bring a perpetrator to justice.

Furthermore, this bill allows a case review for any case that has not been solved in a year. That is a short period of time for most LEAs depending on the nature of the homicide. For instance, homicides that occur during the commission of other criminal activity often require cooperation from people that either have no incentive to speak to a LEA or have an affirmative motive not to cooperate with a LEA for a host of reasons. As a result, it may take time to gather enough information sufficient to prosecute a defendant for the homicide when the LEA or the District Attorney has sufficient leverage to get people to share what they know.

On the other hand, singular stranger homicides may be very difficult to solve and require days, weeks, even months of pain staking work to bring to a resolution. This bill requires a LEA to review a file after a year and where there is no “identified suspect.” However, in many cases, homicide detectives may have identified a “person of interest” who has become the focus of the investigation, but they do not yet have enough information to seek a search warrant or arrest warrant for the person. For instance, in the case of New York real estate mogul Robert Durst, he ultimately admitted he killed multiple people after many years of being the NYPD’s and LAPD’s top person of interest in the killing of Durst’s first wife, Kathleen McCormack Durst and friend Susan Berman.^[2] If this bill means to track the federal legislation, it should consider whether a review is only appropriate where there is no person of interest identified and only after several years. As noted above, the federal law allows a case review after three years.

Additionally, it is not clear how a LEA may respond if the designated person requesting a case review is a person of interest in the homicide – or at the very least has not been eliminated as a potential suspect. For instance, in many cases wherein a spouse is murdered, the other spouse is usually a person of interest that police seek to include or exclude early in the investigation. If a spouse is a person of interest, that person may seek a case review to determine how much progress law enforcement has made in solving the crime they themselves committed. Could that affect the integrity of the investigation if the spouse is ultimately arrested later? The author may wish to consider a more narrow approach that focuses on cases that are five or more years old and have clearly become cold cases. It may also make sense to instead fund more conviction integrity units and LEA cold case squads to reinvestigate cases that may benefit from newer scientific methods or more up to date investigation practices.

Also, this bill allows a designated person that is an “immediate family member or a similarly situated person” to request a case review. It is unclear whether who a “similarly situated person” is, but both this bill and the federal statute further define immediate family member. Therefore, “similarly situated person” may be interpreted as any person who had an immediate family member die by homicide since they are similarly situated in that respect. The author may wish to provide further detail on that language to ensure LEAs are not required to do case review for people who are not immediate family members, as defined.

1. Argument in Support: According to Everytown for Gun Safety: AB 2913 creates a straightforward process to improve homicide case clearance rates. AB 2913 allows a homicide victim’s family member to request a case file review of their loved one’s open unsolved homicide case in specific circumstances. The bill requires law enforcement to provide a “fresh set of eyes” to unsolved cases by ensuring that the person who conducts a case file review is not the same person who initially investigated the case. The review must include: an analysis of what investigative leads may have been missed in the initial investigation, an assessment of whether witnesses should be interviewed or re-interviewed, an examination of physical evidence to confirm all appropriate forensic testing and analysis was performed, and an update to the case file to bring it up to current investigative standards (to the extent doing so would help develop probative leads). If, and only if, the officer conducting a case file review determines that a reinvestigation of the open unsolved homicide case would result in probative investigative leads, the agency must conduct a full reinvestigation of the unsolved case.
   
   AB 2913 centers trauma-informed transparency and equitable access to justice. Facing barriers to getting basic information about the status of a loved one’s case compounds grief and sorrow. The lasting and damaging impact of grieving families’ negative interactions with law enforcement has been described in a U.C. Berkeley School of Law report based on in-depth interviews with family members of murder victims in Oakland, California. The report described “widespread awareness among community-based advocates that OPD is typically unresponsive to family members’ requests for information about an investigation” and cites the experience of many family members for whom “interaction with law enforcement was a frustrating, painful, or humiliating experience.” Additional research indicates that family members in unsolved cases may fear for their safety, lose faith in the legal system, and conclude that their loved one was not valued. 2 AB 2913 will increase transparency and communication between law enforcement and homicide victims’ family members by requiring that the law enforcement agency consult with the family member who requests a case file review.

The bill also requires law enforcement to provide the family member with periodic updates during the case file review process and, if applicable, during the reinvestigation of the unsolved case. Additionally, law enforcement agencies must meet with the family member who requested a case file review to discuss the evidence and explain the agency’s decision regarding whether to conduct a full reinvestigation. Notably, while building in these interaction points between law enforcement and the victims’ family, AB 2913 acknowledges that certain cases may require particular details to be excluded from those communication touchpoints. The bill specifically states that it does not require an agency to provide information that would (1) endanger the safety of any person, (2) unreasonably impede an ongoing investigation, (3) violate a court order, or (4) violate a legal obligation regarding privacy.

Solving gun crimes is an important component of preventing gun violence. By creating a process to review unsolved cases and improve clearance rates, AB 2913 activates an intervention point in the criminal justice process which may help break cycles of gun violence. Low case clearance rates are a unique feature of America’s gun violence crisis: homicides committed with guns take longer to solve and are solved less often. 4 Homicides involving firearms are 22.1% less likely to be solved than homicides with other weapons. 5 California’s statewide case clearance rate for homicides has been at or under 65% for the last decade, meaning that over ⅓ of homicides go unsolved statewide. 6 Many of California’s cities and counties with disproportionately high gun violence rates have homicide clearance rates below the state average. Research also consistently shows that when the victim of gun violence is Black, cases are less likely to be solved. This trend is true both at the individual and broader geographic levels. Areas with higher proportions of Black residents have lower homicide clearance rates than areas with higher proportions of white residents. In California, where Black people are twelve times more likely to die by gun homicide than white people, 10 there is an inequitable impact of law enforcement’s difficulty solving gun homicide cases. AB 2913 offers new tools to begin repairing these inequities by creating a uniform process for victims’ families to communicate with law enforcement investigators, provide information about unsolved cases, and ensure that the most up-to-date investigative methods have been used.

The failure to solve cases, or to reliably interact with victims’ families, can exacerbate community mistrust in law enforcement. This mistrust, in turn, impedes law enforcements’ ability to solve gun crimes. Taking steps to improve homicide case clearance rates by solving more gun crimes can increase community trust in law enforcement and break cycles of gun violence, including retaliatory violence.

AB 2913 brings important pathways towards transparency and healing to grieving families in California, and will ensure open unsolved homicide cases receive robust and modernized investigation.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the Peace Officers Research Association (PORAC): AB 2913 would require an applicable law enforcement agency to review the casefile regarding an open unsolved murder upon written application by a designated person to determine if a reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads. The bill would define an open unsolved murder as a murder committed more than one year prior to the date of the application for case review, that was investigated by a law enforcement agency, was committed after January 1, 1990, where all probative investigative leads have been exhausted, and for which no suspect has been identified. If the review determines a reinvestigation would result in probative investigative leads, this bill will require a reinvestigation. AB 2913 would also prohibit a reinvestigation from being conducted by a person who previously investigated the homicide at issue and would allow only one reinvestigation to be undertaken at any one time with respect to the same victim.

PORAC is opposed to AB 2913 because Cold Case Unit managers are best positioned to allocate their investigative resources, prioritizing cases that can be solved with new tactics, training, and technology. This bill allows the public to reprioritize Cold Case work without any of that requisite knowledge.

Also, this bill’s definitions, requirements, parameters, and time frames are arbitrary, vague, and problematic. For example, it defines an open unsolved murder as “No suspect has been identified.” Frequently the family, the community, and the investigators “know” who did it, but the evidence is not at a point where anyone can be arrested.

AB 2913 does not understand the extensive amount of time and dedication applied to homicide cases. For example, in January 2024, San Diego Police made an arrest on an October 2021 case. That’s three years after the case was opened. Since the murder, the assigned Homicide team had worked on this case continuously.

Lastly, this bill will have many negative consequences. This bill requires meeting with the requestor and discussing evidence. That is an appalling concept that destroys the integrity of investigations. Many Cold Cases are solved because law enforcement was able to go back and obtain information from a suspect that was never made public. The investigation and arrest are credible only because information was protected. By discussing evidence, we are essentially torpedoing cases that future technology might allow us to solve!”

1. Related Legislation: AB 2944 (Waldron) authorizes the Governor to appoint a Red Ribbon Panel to address the murdered or missing indigenous persons (MMIP) crisis, and require the panel to produce and submit, by January 1, 2026, a study with recommendations to address the MMIP crisis to tribes, California’s federal elected officials, the Legislature, counties, cities, and federal, tribal, state, county, and local law enforcement agencies. AB 2944 is pending hearing in this committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. SB 16 (Skinner), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2021, expands the categories of police personnel records that are subject to disclosure under the CPRA and modifies existing provisions regarding the release of records subject to disclosure.
      
   2. SB 1421 (Skinner), Chapter 988, Statutes of 2018, permits inspection of specified peace and custodial officer records related to officer involved misconduct pursuant to the CPRA.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Equality California
Keyz 2 the Future
Lucas Frerichs – Yolo County Supervisor
March for Our Lives Action Fund
Moms Demand Action
Motivated 2 Help Others
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Youth Alive!

Opposition

California State Sheriffs Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)

Analysis Prepared by:

Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. See Sanctuary for Families (2023), “The Silent Epidemic of Femicide in the United States,” located at https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/#:~:text=Trans%20women%20and%20women%20of%20color%20face%20a%20disproportionate%20risk&text=For%20indigenous%20women%20and%20girls,for%2094%25%20of%20those%20homicides. ↑

2. McFadden, “Robert Durst, Real Estate Scion Convicted as Killer, Dies at 78,” New York Times, p. A1 (Jan. 11, 2022). ↑