Existing law, as amended by the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, Proposition 69, approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, requires an additional penalty of $1 for every $10 or part thereof to be levied in each county upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, as specified. The act requires the county board of supervisors to establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund, into which the collected penalties are to be deposited. The act specifies the purposes for which funds in the countys DNA Identification Fund may be used, including to reimburse local sheriff, police, district attorney, and regional state crime laboratories for expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples, as specified. The act provides for its amendment by the Legislature if the amendments further the act and are consistent with its purposes to enhance the use of DNA identification evidence for the purpose of accurate and expeditious crime solving and exonerating the innocent. Existing law requires that the funds deposited, along with any interest accrued, is to be held by the county treasurer separate from any funds subject to transfer or division, as specified. Under existing law, deposits to the fund may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year when the surcharge is collected or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

This bill would instead authorize deposits to the fund through and including January 1, 2028, or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

Existing law, as amended by the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, Proposition 69, approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, requires an additional penalty of $1 for every $10 or part thereof to be levied in each county upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, as specified. The act requires the county board of supervisors to establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund, into which the collected penalties are to be deposited. The act specifies the purposes for which funds in the countys DNA Identification Fund may be used, including to reimburse local sheriff, police, district attorney, and regional state crime laboratories for expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples, as specified. The act provides for its amendment by the Legislature if the amendments further the act and are consistent with its purposes to enhance the use of DNA identification evidence for the purpose of accurate and expeditious crime solving and exonerating the innocent. Existing law requires that the funds deposited, along with any interest accrued, is to be held by the county treasurer separate from any funds subject to transfer or division, as specified. Under existing law, deposits to the fund may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year when the surcharge is collected or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

This bill would instead authorize deposits to the fund through and including January 1, 2028, or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

Existing law, as amended by the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, Proposition 69, approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, requires an additional penalty of $1 for every $10 or part thereof to be levied in each county upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, as specified. The act requires the county board of supervisors to establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund, into which the collected penalties are to be deposited. The act specifies the purposes for which funds in the countys DNA Identification Fund may be used, including to reimburse local sheriff, police, district attorney, and regional state crime laboratories for expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples, as specified. The act provides for its amendment by the Legislature if the amendments further the act and are consistent with its purposes to enhance the use of DNA identification evidence for the purpose of accurate and expeditious crime solving and exonerating the innocent. Existing law requires that the funds deposited, along with any interest accrued, is to be held by the county treasurer separate from any funds subject to transfer or division, as specified. Under existing law, deposits to the fund may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year when the surcharge is collected or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

This bill would instead authorize deposits to the fund through and including January 1, 2030, 2028, or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

Existing law, as amended by the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, Proposition 69, approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, requires an additional penalty of $1 for every $10 or part thereof to be levied in each county upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, as specified. The act requires the county board of supervisors to establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund, into which the collected penalties are to be deposited. The act specifies the purposes for which funds in the countys DNA Identification Fund may be used, including to reimburse local sheriff, police, district attorney, and regional state crime laboratories for expenditures and administrative costs made or incurred in connection with the processing, analysis, tracking, and storage of DNA crime scene samples, as specified. The act provides for its amendment by the Legislature if the amendments further the act and are consistent with its purposes to enhance the use of DNA identification evidence for the purpose of accurate and expeditious crime solving and exonerating the innocent. Existing law requires that the funds deposited, along with any interest accrued, is to be held by the county treasurer separate from any funds subject to transfer or division, as specified. Under existing law, deposits to the fund may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year when the surcharge is collected or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

This bill would remove that limitation on deposits to the fund, thereby extending the authority to make those deposits indefinitely. instead authorize deposits to the fund through and including January 1, 2030, or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

Existing law requires each law enforcement agency that has investigated a case involving the collection of sexual assault kit evidence from a victim to, within 120 days of collection, create an information record for the kit in the Department of Justices SAFE-T database and to report specified information to the department. Existing law requires a public DNA laboratory, if the laboratory has not conducted testing after 120 days following the submission of sexual assault kit biological evidence for processing, to provide the reasons for the status of that testing in the appropriate field in that database.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 3042

Author:(Stephanie Nguyen)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2028 to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (hereinafter "Prop. 69"), or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects, as specified.

Senate Amendments

Change the proposed sunset date from January 1, 2030, to January 1, 2028.

COMMENTS

As passed by the Assembly, this bill, extended the sunset date from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030 to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (hereinafter "Prop. 69"), or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects, as specified.

According to the Author

"Proposition 69, the 'DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,' was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to improve public safety. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. This additional funding has been instrumental in the success of the state's DNA database program. In the 20 years since the measure was passed, the state has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes, many of which were sexual assault crimes."

Arguments in Support

According to the California Department of Justice, "Proposition 69, also known as the "DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act," was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to solve crimes. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. In the two decades since Prop. 69 was passed, DOJ has received more than $74 million from the fund and has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes. By contrast, the state's underfunded DNA database program recorded only 1,108 hits from 1984 to 2004.

"While the numbers illustrate the benefit of these funds on public safety, Prop. 69 included a sunset date of 20 years that is set to expire this year. Fortunately, Prop. 69 included a provision allowing the legislature to amend it so long as the changes are consistent with the purposes of the proposition. By eliminating the sunset date, AB 3042 will establish a permanent, steady source of revenue from an already established criminal fine – completely separate and apart from the General Fund -- that will allow crime labs to continue this critical investigative work. This funding has been instrumental in the success of the state's DNA database program, bringing closure to thousands of victims and their families. But the work is not done. AB 3042 will help the DOJ and local crime labs continue to bring justice to victims and to exonerate the innocent."

Arguments in Opposition

None Submitted.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Potential ongoing revenue (DNA Identification Fund) from Proposition 69 criminal penalties, likely in the low millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2028, with revenue likely continuing to decline over time due to decreasing collection of criminal fines and fees.
2. Cost pressures (General Fund) to continue backfilling the DNA Identification Fund, in the tens of millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2028. The 2023-24 Budget included $46.1 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the DNA Identification Fund, plus $7.3 million one-time for equipment purchase and replacement. The Governor's 2024-25 proposed budget includes another $46.1 million General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0-7

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Luz Rivas

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004714

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 3042

Author: Stephanie Nguyen (D)

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: County penalties

SOURCE: Office of the Attorney General

DIGEST:

The purpose of this bill is to extend the sunset date from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2028 to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (hereinafter "Prop. 69"), or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Mandates a state penalty be assessed on any person convicted of a crime of an amount of $10 for every $10 assessed by the court, with some exceptions. (Penal Code § 1464 (a)(1).)

1. Requires pursuant to Proposition 69, that each person be levied a fine of an additional $1 for every $10 assessed for any criminal offenses, including vehicle code violations. (Gov. Code § 76104.6 (a)(1).)
2. States any deposit into the Prop. 69 account may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year in which the surcharge is collected, or longer if and as necessary to make payments upon any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the projects, as specified. (Gov. Code § 76104.6 (b)(1).)
3. States that on the last day of each calendar quarter of the year, the county treasurer shall transfer funds in the county’s DNA Identification Fund to the State Controller for credit to the state’s DNA Identification Fund, as specified.
   
   1. In the first two calendar years following the effective date of this section, 70 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon.
      
   2. In the third calendar year following the effective date of this section, 50 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon.
      
   3. In the fourth calendar year following the effective date of this section and in each calendar year thereafter, 25 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon. (Pen. Code, § 76104.6 (b)(2).)
      
4. Requires the state’s DNA Identification Fund be administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and funds in the state’s DNA Identification Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be used by the Attorney General (AG) only to support DNA testing in the state and to offset the impacts of increased testing.
5. Provides that to ensure expeditious and economical processing of offender DNA specimens and samples for inclusion in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the state’s DNA Database and Data Bank Program, the DOJ DNA Laboratory is authorized to contract with other laboratories, whether public or private, including law enforcement laboratories, that have the capability of fully analyzing offender specimens or samples within 60 days of receipt, for the anonymous analysis of specimens and samples for forensic identification testing, as specified. (Pen. Code § 298.3 (a).)
6. States that in addition to the $10 on every $10 assessed for any criminal offense for deposit in the DNA Identification fund, an additional state-only penalty of $4 for every $10, or part of $10, in each county on every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts. (Gov. Code § 76104.7 (a).)
7. Requires the following persons to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis:
   
8. Any person, including any juvenile, who is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any felony offense, or is found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony offense, or any juvenile who is adjudicated under Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for committing any felony offense.
9. Any adult person who is arrested for or charged with any of the following felony offenses:
   
   • 1. Any felony offense for which a person is required to register as a sex offender, or attempt to commit any felony offense described in sex offender registration provisions, or any felony offense that imposes on a person the duty to register in California as a sex offender.
        
     2. Murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.
        
     3. Commencing on January 1 of the fifth year following enactment of the act that added this subparagraph, as amended, any adult person arrested or charged with any felony offense. (Penal Code § 296 (a)(1).)
10. States that whenever the DNA Laboratory of the DOJ notifies the CDCR or any law enforcement agency that a biological specimen or sample, or print impression is not usable for any reason, the person who provided the original specimen, sample, or print impression shall submit to collection of additional specimens, samples, or print impressions. CDCR or other responsible law enforcement agency shall collect additional specimens, samples, and print impressions from these persons as necessary, and transmit these specimens, samples, and print impressions to the appropriate agencies of the DOJ. (Penal Code 296.2 (a).)

This bill extends the sunset on the DNA Identification Fund until January 1, 2028.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Potential ongoing revenue (DNA Identification Fund) from Proposition 69 criminal penalties, likely in the low millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2028, with revenue likely continuing to decline over time due to decreasing collection of criminal fines and fees.
   
2. Cost pressures (General Fund) to continue backfilling the DNA Identification Fund, in the tens of millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2030. The 2023-24 Budget included $46.1 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the DNA Identification Fund, plus $7.3 million one-time for equipment purchase and replacement. The Governor’s 2024-25 proposed budget includes another $46.1 million General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund. (See staff comments.)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/24)

Office of the Attorney General (source)

California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
County of Kern
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
San Diego County Sheriff's Department

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

8/19/24 12:46:40

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 3042 (Stephanie Nguyen) - County penalties

Bill Summary:

AB 3042 would extend the sunset date to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• Potential ongoing revenue (DNA Identification Fund) from Proposition 69 criminal penalties, likely in the low millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2028, with revenue likely continuing to decline over time due to decreasing collection of criminal fines and fees.
  
• Cost pressures (General Fund) to continue backfilling the DNA Identification Fund, in the tens of millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2028. The 2023-24 Budget included $46.1 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the DNA Identification Fund, plus $7.3 million one-time for equipment purchase and replacement. The Governor’s 2024-25 proposed budget includes another $46.1 million General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund.

Committee Amendments:

The committee amendments extend the sunset until January 1, 2028 instead of January 1, 2030.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 3042 (Stephanie Nguyen) - County penalties

Bill Summary:

AB 3042 would extend the sunset date from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030 to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects.

Fiscal Impact:

• Potential ongoing revenue (DNA Identification Fund) from Proposition 69 criminal penalties, likely in the low millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2030, with revenue likely continuing to decline over time due to decreasing collection of criminal fines and fees.
  
• Cost pressures (General Fund) to continue backfilling the DNA Identification Fund, in the tens of millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2030. The 2023-24 Budget included $46.1 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the DNA Identification Fund, plus $7.3 million one-time for equipment purchase and replacement. The Governor’s 2024-25 proposed budget includes another $46.1 million General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund. (See staff comments.)

Background:

The DNA Identification Fund was created pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), which expanded the collection and use of DNA samples taken from criminal defendants. Under Proposition 69, courts are required to levy an additional penalty – $1 on every $10 of base fine assessed – for criminal and traffic offenses. These penalty funds are transferred into the DNA Identification Fund, which finances the Bureau of Forensic Services (BFS) within the Department of Justice (DOJ). BFS operates state and regional crime laboratories that provide services to law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, including DNA testing, drug analysis, and crime scene investigative support, generally provided at no cost to the local agencies.

Proposed Law:

This bill would authorize deposits to the fund through and including January 1, 2030, or longer if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the specified projects.

Staff Comments:

In recent years, the Legislature has passed a number of bills that reduced or eliminated fines and fees associated with criminal convictions. Although these efforts may alleviate debt for people convicted of low-level offenses, they have also resulted in diminishing fine and fee revenue that has historically been used to fund other programs. According to the LAO, criminal fee and fine revenue deposited into the DNA Identification Fund has declined steadily in the past ten years, from $69 million in FY 2013-14 to $34 million in 2022-23. To maintain BFS service levels, the state has provided limited-term General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund since FY 2016-17.

This bill eliminates the sunset on the statute that authorizes a county to transfer Proposition 69 penalty revenue into the DNA Identification Fund. By authorizing ongoing county transfer of this revenue, the bill maintains the current structure and operation of the Proposition 69 penalty and the DNA Identification Fund indefinitely. Because revenue from criminal fines and fees is expected to continue to decline, this will likely result in ongoing cost pressures to the General Fund to continue providing backfill in the tens of millions of dollars annually to the DNA Identification Fund, with General Fund backfill potentially continuing to increase over time unless a longer-term solution is implemented.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 3042 Hearing Date: June 18, 2024

Subject: County penalties

HISTORY

Source: Office of the Attorney General

Prior Legislation: AB 1869 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 92, Statutes of 2020

SB 824 (Committee on Budget) held Assembly Floor 2020

SB 144 (Mitchell) held Assembly Public Safety 2019

Proposition 69, passed November 2004

Support: California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors; California District Attorneys Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; San Diego County Sheriff's Department

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 73 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to extend the sunset date from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030 to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (hereinafter "Prop. 69"), or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects, as specified.

Existing law mandates a state penalty be assessed on any person convicted of a crime of an amount of $10 for every $10 assessed by the court, with some exceptions. (Penal Code § 1464 (a)(1).)

Existing law requires pursuant to Proposition 69, that each person be levied a fine of an additional $1 for every $10 assessed for any criminal offenses, including vehicle code violations. (Gov. Code § 76104.6 (a)(1).)

Existing law states any deposit into the Prop. 69 account may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year in which the surcharge is collected, or longer if and as necessary to make payments upon any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the projects, as specified. (Gov. Code § 76104.6 (b)(1).)

Existing law states that on the last day of each calendar quarter of the year, the county treasurer shall transfer funds in the county’s DNA Identification Fund to the State Controller for credit to the state’s DNA Identification Fund, as specified.

• 1. In the first two calendar years following the effective date of this section, 70 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon.
     
  2. In the third calendar year following the effective date of this section, 50 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon.
     
  3. In the fourth calendar year following the effective date of this section and in each calendar year thereafter, 25 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon. (Pen. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (b)(2).)
     

Existing law requires the state’s DNA Identification Fund be administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and funds in the state’s DNA Identification Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be used by the Attorney General (AG) only to support DNA testing in the state and to offset the impacts of increased testing.

Existing law provides that to ensure expeditious and economical processing of offender DNA specimens and samples for inclusion in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the state’s DNA Database and Data Bank Program, the DOJ DNA Laboratory is authorized to contract with other laboratories, whether public or private, including law enforcement laboratories, that have the capability of fully analyzing offender specimens or samples within 60 days of receipt, for the anonymous analysis of specimens and samples for forensic identification testing, as specified. (Pen. Code § 298.3 (a).)

Existing law states that in addition to the $10 on every $10 assessed for any criminal offense for deposit in the DNA Identification fund, an additional state-only penalty of $4 for every $10, or part of $10, in each county on every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts. (Gov. Code § 76104.7 (a).)

Existing law requires the following persons to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis:

1. Any person, including any juvenile, who is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any felony offense, or is found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony offense, or any juvenile who is adjudicated under Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for committing any felony offense.
2. Any adult person who is arrested for or charged with any of the following felony offenses:
   
   • 1. Any felony offense for which a person is required to register as a sex offender, or attempt to commit any felony offense described in sex offender registration provisions, or any felony offense that imposes on a person the duty to register in California as a sex offender.
        
     2. Murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.
        
     3. Commencing on January 1 of the fifth year following enactment of the act that added this subparagraph, as amended, any adult person arrested or charged with any felony offense. (Penal Code § 296 (a)(1).)

Existing law states that whenever the DNA Laboratory of the DOJ notifies the CDCR or any law enforcement agency that a biological specimen or sample, or print impression is not usable for any reason, the person who provided the original specimen, sample, or print impression shall submit to collection of additional specimens, samples, or print impressions. CDCR or other responsible law enforcement agency shall collect additional specimens, samples, and print impressions from these persons as necessary, and transmit these specimens, samples, and print impressions to the appropriate agencies of the DOJ. (Penal Code 296.2 (a).)

This bill extends the sunset on the DNA Identification Fund until January 1, 2030.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Proposition 69, the “DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,” was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to improve public safety. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples.

In the 20 years since the measure was passed, the state has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes, many of which were sexual assault crimes. By contrast, the program, which was underfunded and limited, recorded only 1,108 hits between 1984 and 2004. Currently, the fund generates approximately $12 million annually for state and local labs.

AB 3042 extends the sunset date for Prop 69 funding for five years, to maintain this steady source of revenue outside of the General Fund that supports DNA testing programs at both state and local levels.

Retaining this key funding source will not only aid in exonerating the innocent but also support public safety in our communities for generations to come.

2. DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act

The DNA Identification Fund was adopted by the voters in 2004 as Prop. 69. In the early 2000s, the rise of DNA technology made it an attractive component to a criminal prosecution – it theoretically eliminates all other suspects that are not guilty; and conclusively identifies the suspect that is guilty. Furthermore, after multiple instances of states including Georgia, Texas, and Illinois nearly executing or actually executing innocent people that were exonerated by DNA, DNA became a literal life saver and acted as a form of protection against wrongful conviction.^[1] Prop. 69 requires felony arrestees to have their DNA taken at the time of arrest and, ideally, uploaded into the CODIS.

Prop. 69 set up a funding mechanism that required assessing penalties on criminal and traffic offenses and transferring those funds between state and local agencies for DNA testing. Government Code section 76104.6 requires each county to submit an annual report to the Legislature and the DOJ on the total amount of penalty assessments they collected, allocated, and expended for authorized programs to implement Prop. 69. The DNA Identification Fund is used for a variety of purposes on both the state and county levels, including law enforcement collection and analysis of DNA specimens, and to reimburse local law enforcement for processing, tracking, and storing DNA samples that may be tested by the state or a private lab. (See Gov. Code, § 76104.6 (b)(3).)

Civil Rights advocates objected at the time to the enactment of Proposition 69, and filed suit arguing it constituted an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and was overbroad. The ACLU, in particular, filed suit alleging Prop. 69 is an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.^[2] The California Supreme Court held in People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 690-91, that Prop. 69’s collection requirement were constitutionally valid because of the safeguards built into the law. In its decision, the Court held:

Safeguards against the wrongful use or disclosure of sensitive information may minimize the privacy intrusion when the government accesses personal information, including sensitive medical information. The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act makes the misuse of a DNA sample a felony, punishable by years of imprisonment and criminal fines. (See Pen. Code, § 299.5.)

In assessing whether the demand for a sample of an arrestee's DNA was reasonable under California Constitution, article I, section 13, we agree that it may be appropriate to consider not only the minimal nature of the physical intrusion associated with a buccal swab, but the arrestee's reasonable expectations about what would happen to the sample after collection. But in so analyzing the arrestee's choice, we cannot ignore the safeguards built into the DNA Act: the limited nature of the information stored in databases on an arrestee (specifically, a numerical profile describing noncoding parts of the arrestee's DNA); the legal protections against possible misuse of the profile or the sample (including felony sanctions for knowing improper use or dissemination); and the availability of procedures for removing the profile from the database and destroying the sample should the basis for the arrestee's inclusion dissipate. We have no record before us to show that these legal protections would have been violated or proved unworkable had defendant chosen to comply with the requirement to provide a DNA sample on booking. …To be sure, as explained above, defendant was entitled to the full scope of constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, despite his arrest on evident probable cause. And had he later found himself in a position to seek expungement of his sample and profile and found the statutory procedures inadequate, he would have been entitled to challenge the retention of his information on that basis.” (Buza, supra, at 692.)

3. DNA Identification Fund

For the purpose of implementing Prop. 69, there is levied an additional penalty by the courts in each county which will be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established by Section 1464 of the Penal Code, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The penalty amounts will be collected by the counties and deposited into a DNA Identification Fund, established within each county treasury.

This money, along with any interest earned, is held by the county treasurer until transferred to the State Controller for credit to the DNA Identification Fund. (Gov. Code, § 76104.6 (b)(2); Gov. Code, § 76104.7 (b).) The DNA Identification Fund was created within the State Treasury to deposit the penalties collected to be used by the AG only to support DNA testing in the state and to offset the impacts of increased testing. Its scope is further expanded to fund the operations of all of the DOJ forensic laboratories.

Government Code section 16346 states that in the absence of language that either eliminates the 20 year sunset or extends it, or no other successor fund is identified, any remaining balance and existing obligations in this fund upon abolishment shall be transferred to the General Fund. If this bill or any related bills are not signed into law, the fund would simply be deposited into the GF. As explained below, the Budget process has used the GF to backfill the DNA Identification Fund because it is increasingly unstable. (See Department of Finance, Manual of State Funds, April 2021, DNA Identification Fund, No. 3086.)^[3]

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (“LAO”), the Governor’s 2023-24 Budget included $54.9 million from the GF in 2023-24 (decreasing to $47.6 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26) to maintain existing service levels. In addition, the budget includes a $10 million increase in DNA Identification Fund expenditure authority annually for three years to restore historical expenditure levels from the fund. (This was reduced in prior years when the budget partially addressed the fund’s insolvency by temporarily redirecting General Fund support from another DOJ program to support BFS instead.)

The proposed amount consists of $46.1 million annually for three years to backfill a decline in criminal fine and fee revenue deposited into the DNA Identification Fund used to support the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Bureau of Forensic Services (“BFS”) Division. BFS provides criminal laboratory services, such as DNA testing, alcohol and controlled substances analysis, and on-site crime scene investigation support. Ten regional laboratories provide services at no charge for local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in 46 counties that do not have access to those services. BFS also assists the 12 counties and 8 cities that operate their own laboratories where BFS offers services their laboratories lack. Local agencies also contract with providers or other government laboratories for services. Additionally, BFS operates the state’s DNA laboratory as well as the state’s criminalistics training institute. (LAO, 2023-24 Budget (February 23, 2023) DOJ Budget Proposals.) ^[4]

This bill extends the sunset on the fund until January 2030.

The DNA Identification Fund has been underfunded for at least the last four years. Over the past several years, the Legislature has taken steps to reduce the cycle of criminal justice debtors by reducing or eliminating fines and fees based on criminal convictions. It may make more sense to fund these programs through GF allocation rather than by low or no income members of the community who cannot pay exorbitant fines. It lead to catastrophic consequences for people in the community and did not generate much money. Does it make more sense to simply deposit the funds into the GF and continue to allocate moneys for BSF as a general fund appropriation?

4. Penalty Assessments

As explained above, Prop. 69 is funded via penalty assessments on criminal convictions. Government Code section 76104.6, subdivision (a) states:

For the purpose of implementing the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, there shall be levied an additional penalty of one dollar for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof in each county which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts otherwise levied against a criminal defendant, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, except parking offenses…. These moneys shall be taken from fines and forfeitures deposited with the county treasurer….The board of supervisors shall establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund into which shall be deposited the collected moneys pursuant to this section.

In the past several years, numerous changes to the law have eliminated penalty assessments on convictions because it creates a cycle of poverty for historically marginalized communities. Currently, penalty assessments may amount to thousands of dollars and ultimately act as a bar to services, and may even result in a violation of probation, resulting in jail time. Fines are assessed as follows:

For a base fine of $1,000:

The total amount would obviously increase depending on the amount of the base fine. Penalty assessments more than triples the total fine. If the Legislature and prosecutors have deemed DNA testing important, should the Legislature consider creating a permanent funding source that is not predicated on steadily declining fines and fees but allocations from the GF? Additionally, as explained above, the DNA Identification Fund is steadily declining and requires backfill from the GF. Does it make more sense to simply fund DNA testing directly, rather than through specified county transfers based on penalty assessments?

5. Argument in Support

The County of Los Angeles supports this bill stating:

These penalty funds play a crucial role in supporting the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Crime Laboratory. More specifically, these funds are used by the Biology Section within the Crime Lab for the testing of DNA evidence pertinent to criminal cases involving murder, sexual assault, and other violent offenses. The testing conducted provides pivotal evidence necessary in determining the innocence or guilt of individuals.

Without this bill, the impending sunset would imperil the operations of the Biology Section within the Crime Lab, potentially leading to its closure.

-- END –

1. See Death Penalty Information Center, Executed but Possibly Innocent, located at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent ↑

2. See ACLU of Northern California (2004) DNA Dragnet Includes Victims of Identity theft and Domestic Violence, press release, located at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-challenges-california-law-permitting-government-seizure-dna-samples-innocent last visited March 22, 2024. ↑

3. Located at https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2024-25/#/FundIndex, last visited March 19, 2024. ↑

4. Located at https://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4701, last visited March 19, 2024. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 3042

Author:(Stephanie Nguyen)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030 to collect and deposit funds into the DNA Identification Fund pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (hereinafter "Prop. 69"), or a longer period of time if necessary to make payments on any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any specific projects, as specified.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

1. DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act: The DNA Identification Fund was adopted by the voters in 2004 as Prop. 69. In the early 2000s, the rise of DNA technology made it an attractive component to a criminal prosecution – it theoretically eliminates all other suspects that are not guilty; and conclusively identifies the suspect that is guilty. Furthermore, after multiple instances of states including Georgia, Texas, and Illinois nearly executing or actually executing innocent people that were exonerated by DNA, DNA became a literal life saver and acted as a form of protection against wrongful conviction.^[1] Prop. 69 requires felony arrestees to have their DNA taken at the time of arrest and, ideally, uploaded into the CODIS.

Prop. 69 set up a funding mechanism that required assessing penalties on criminal and traffic offenses and transferring those funds between state and local agencies for DNA testing. Government Code section 76104.6 requires each county to submit an annual report to the Legislature and the DOJ on the total amount of penalty assessments they collected, allocated, and expended for authorized programs to implement Prop. 69. The DNA Identification Fund is used for a variety of purposes on both the state and county levels, including law enforcement collection and analysis of DNA specimens, and to reimburse local law enforcement for processing, tracking, and storing DNA samples that may be tested by the state or a private lab. (See Government Code Section (GOV) 76104.6, subd. (b)(3).)

Civil Rights advocates objected at the time to the enactment of Proposition 69, and filed suit arguing it constituted an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and was overbroad. The ACLU, in particular, filed suit alleging Prop. 69 is an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.^[2] The California Supreme Court held in People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 690-91, that Prop. 69's collection requirement were constitutionally valid because of the safeguards built into the law. In its decision, the Court held:

"Safeguards against the wrongful use or disclosure of sensitive information may minimize the privacy intrusion when the government accesses personal information, including sensitive medical information. The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act makes the misuse of a DNA sample a felony, punishable by years of imprisonment and criminal fines. (See Penal Code Section (PEN) 299.5.)

In assessing whether the demand for a sample of an arrestee's DNA was reasonable under California Constitution, article I, section 13, we agree that it may be appropriate to consider not only the minimal nature of the physical intrusion associated with a buccal swab, but the arrestee's reasonable expectations about what would happen to the sample after collection. But in so analyzing the arrestee's choice, we cannot ignore the safeguards built into the DNA Act: the limited nature of the information stored in databases on an arrestee (specifically, a numerical profile describing noncoding parts of the arrestee's DNA); the legal protections against possible misuse of the profile or the sample (including felony sanctions for knowing improper use or dissemination); and the availability of procedures for removing the profile from the database and destroying the sample should the basis for the arrestee's inclusion dissipate. We have no record before us to show that these legal protections would have been violated or proved unworkable had defendant chosen to comply with the requirement to provide a DNA sample on booking. …To be sure, as explained above, defendant was entitled to the full scope of constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, despite his arrest on evident probable cause. And had he later found himself in a position to seek expungement of his sample and profile and found the statutory procedures inadequate, he would have been entitled to challenge the retention of his information on that basis.” (Buza, supra, at 692.)

Given that the legal challenges to Prop. 69 have mostly been exhausted, it may make sense to formalize the funding so as to ensure a steady stream of financing for DNA testing statewide.

1. DNA Identification Fund: For the purpose of implementing Prop. 69, there is levied an additional penalty by the courts in each county which will be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established by Section 1464 of the Penal Code, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The penalty amounts will be collected by the counties and deposited into a DNA Identification Fund, established within each county treasury.

This money, along with any interest earned, is held by the county treasurer until transferred to the State Controller for credit to the DNA Identification Fund. (GOV 76104.6, subd. (b)(2); GOV 76104.7, subd. (b).) The DNA Identification Fund was created within the State Treasury to deposit the penalties collected to be used by the AG only to support DNA testing in the state and to offset the impacts of increased testing. Its scope is further expanded to fund the operations of all of the DOJ forensic laboratories.

Government Code section 16346 states that in the absence of language that either eliminates the 20 year sunset or extends it, or no other successor fund is identified, any remaining balance and existing obligations in this fund upon abolishment shall be transferred to the General Fund. If this bill or any related bills are not signed into law, the fund would simply be deposited into the GF. As explained below, the Budget process has used the GF to backfill the DNA Identification Fund because it is increasingly unstable. (See Department of Finance, Manual of State Funds, April 2021, DNA Identification Fund, No. 3086.)^[3]

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office ("LAO"), the Governor's 2023-24 Budget included $54.9 million from the GF in 2023-24 (decreasing to $47.6 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26) to maintain existing service levels. In addition, the budget includes a $10 million increase in DNA Identification Fund expenditure authority annually for three years to restore historical expenditure levels from the fund. (This was reduced in prior years when the budget partially addressed the fund’s insolvency by temporarily redirecting General Fund support from another DOJ program to support BFS instead.)

"The proposed amount consists of $46.1 million annually for three years to backfill a decline in criminal fine and fee revenue deposited into the DNA Identification Fund used to support the Department of Justice ("DOJ") Bureau of Forensic Services ("BFS") Division. BFS provides criminal laboratory services, such as DNA testing, alcohol and controlled substances analysis, and on-site crime scene investigation support. Ten regional laboratories provide services at no charge for local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in 46 counties that do not have access to those services. BFS also assists the 12 counties and 8 cities that operate their own laboratories where BFS offers services their laboratories lack. Local agencies also contract with providers or other government laboratories for services. Additionally, BFS operates the state’s DNA laboratory as well as the state's criminalistics training institute. (LAO, 2023-24 Budget (February 23, 2023) DOJ Budget Proposals.) "^[4]

The DNA Identification Fund has been underfunded for at least the last four years. Over the past several years, the Legislature has taken steps to reduce the cycle of criminal justice debtors by reducing or eliminating fines and fees based on criminal convictions. As a general matter, it makes more sense to fund these programs through GF allocation rather than by low or no income members of the community who cannot pay exorbitant fines. It lead to catastrophic consequences for people in the community and did not generate much money. Does it make more sense to simply deposit the funds into the GF and continue to allocate moneys for BSF as a general fund appropriation?

1. Penalty Assessments: As explained above, Prop. 69 is funded via penalty assessments on criminal convictions. GOV 76104.6, subdivision (a) states:

For the purpose of implementing the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, there shall be levied an additional penalty of one dollar for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof in each county which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts otherwise levied against a criminal defendant, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, except parking offenses…. These moneys shall be taken from fines and forfeitures deposited with the county treasurer….The board of supervisors shall establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund into which shall be deposited the collected moneys pursuant to this section.

In the past several years, numerous changes to the law have eliminated penalty assessments on convictions because it creates a cycle of poverty for historically marginalized communities. Currently, penalty assessments may amount to thousands of dollars and ultimately act as a bar to services, and may even result in a violation of probation, resulting in jail time. Fines are assessed as follows:

For a base fine of $1,000:

The total amount would obviously increase depending on the amount of the base fine. Penalty assessments more than triples the total fine. Given the importance of DNA testing, should the Legislature consider creating a permanent funding source that is not predicated on steadily declining fines and fees but allocations from the GF? Additionally, as explained above, the DNA Identification Fund is steadily declining and requires backfill from the GF. Does it make more sense to simply fund DNA testing directly, rather than through specified county transfers based on penalty assessments?

According to the Author

"Proposition 69, the 'DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,' was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to improve public safety. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. This additional funding has been instrumental in the success of the state's DNA database program. In the 20 years since the measure was passed, the state has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes, many of which were sexual assault crimes."

Arguments in Support

According to the California Department of Justice, "Proposition 69, also known as the "DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act," was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to solve crimes. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. In the two decades since Prop. 69 was passed, DOJ has received more than $74 million from the fund and has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes. By contrast, the state’s underfunded DNA database program recorded only 1,108 hits from 1984 to 2004.

"While the numbers illustrate the benefit of these funds on public safety, Prop. 69 included a sunset date of 20 years that is set to expire this year. Fortunately, Prop. 69 included a provision allowing the legislature to amend it so long as the changes are consistent with the purposes of the proposition. By eliminating the sunset date, AB 3042 will establish a permanent, steady source of revenue from an already established criminal fine – completely separate and apart from the General Fund -- that will allow crime labs to continue this critical investigative work. This funding has been instrumental in the success of the state's DNA database program, bringing closure to thousands of victims and their families. But the work is not done. AB 3042 will help the DOJ and local crime labs continue to bring justice to victims and to exonerate the innocent."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1) Ongoing revenue (DNA Identification Fund) from Proposition 69 criminal penalties, likely in the low millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2030, with revenue likely continuing to decline over time due to decreasing collection of criminal fines and fees.

2) Cost pressures (General Fund) to continue backfilling the DNA Identification Fund, in the tens of millions of dollars annually until January 1, 2030. The fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 Budget included $46.1 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the DNA Identification Fund, plus $7.3 million one-time for equipment purchase and replacement. The Governor’s 2024-25 proposed budget includes another $46.1 million General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003194

1. See Death Penalty Information Center, Executed but Possibly Innocent, located at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent ↑

2. See ACLU of Northern California (2004) DNA Dragnet Includes Victims of Identity theft and Domestic Violence, press release, located at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-challenges-california-law-permitting-government-seizure-dna-samples-innocent last visited March 22, 2024. ↑

3. Located at https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2024-25/#/FundIndex, last visited March 19, 2024. ↑

4. Located at https://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4701, last visited March 19, 2024. ↑

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3042

Author:(Stephanie Nguyen) – As Amended Ver:March 4, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill eliminates the sunset on the statute that authorizes a county to transfer penalty funds levied pursuant to the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act (Proposition 69).

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing revenue (DNA Identification Fund) from Proposition 69 criminal penalties, likely in the low millions of dollars annually in the short term, with revenue possibly declining over time as described below.
2. Cost pressures (General Fund) to continue backfilling the DNA Identification Fund, in the tens of millions of dollars annually. The fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 Budget included $46.1 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the DNA Identification Fund, plus $7.3 million one-time for equipment purchase and replacement. The Governor’s 2024-25 proposed budget includes another $46.1 million General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), 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:

Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. This additional funding has been instrumental in the success of the state’s DNA database program. In the 20 years since the measure was passed, the state has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes, many of which were sexual assault crimes…Retaining this key funding source will not only aid in exonerating the innocent but also support public safety in our communities for generations to come.

1. Background. The DNA Identification Fund was created pursuant to Proposition 69 (2004), which expanded the collection and use of DNA samples taken from criminal defendants. Under Proposition 69, courts are required to levy an additional penalty – $1 on every $10 of base fine assessed – for criminal and traffic offenses. These penalty funds are transferred into the DNA Identification Fund, which finances the Bureau of Forensic Services (BFS) within the Department of Justice (DOJ). BFS operates state and regional crime laboratories that provide services to law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, including DNA testing, drug analysis, and crime scene investigative support, generally provided at no cost to the local agencies.

In recent years, the Legislature has passed a number of bills that reduced or eliminated fines and fees associated with criminal convictions. Although these efforts may alleviate debt for people convicted of low-level offenses, they have also resulted in diminishing fine and fee revenue that has historically been used to fund other programs. According to the LAO, criminal fee and fine revenue deposited into the DNA Identification Fund has declined steadily in the past ten years, from $69 million in FY 2013-14 to $34 million in 2022-23. To maintain BFS service levels, the state has provided limited-term General Fund backfill to the DNA Identification Fund since FY 2016-17.

This bill eliminates the sunset on the statute that authorizes a county to transfer Proposition 69 penalty revenue into the DNA Identification Fund. By authorizing ongoing county transfer of this revenue, the bill maintains the current structure and operation of the Proposition 69 penalty and the DNA Identification Fund indefinitely. Because revenue from criminal fines and fees is expected to continue to decline, this will likely result in ongoing cost pressures to the General Fund to continue providing backfill in the tens of millions of dollars annually to the DNA Identification Fund, with General Fund backfill potentially continuing to increase over time unless a longer-term solution is implemented.

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 3042

Author:(Stephanie Nguyen) – As Amended Ver:March 4, 2024

SUMMARY:

Eliminates the sunset date on a county’s authority to transfer funds levied as a penalty pursuant to the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act (hereinafter “Prop. 69”).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Mandates a state penalty be assessed on any person convicted of a crime of an amount of $10 for every $10 assessed by the court, with some exceptions. (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Requires pursuant to Proposition 69, that each person be levied a fine of an additional $1 for every $10 assessed for any criminal offenses, including vehicle code violations. (Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. States any deposit into the Prop. 69 account may continue through and including the 20th year after the initial calendar year in which the surcharge is collected, or longer if and as necessary to make payments upon any lease or leaseback arrangement utilized to finance any of the projects, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (b)(1).)
   
4. States that on the last day of each calendar quarter of the year, the county treasurer shall transfer funds in the county’s DNA Identification Fund to the State Controller for credit to the state’s DNA Identification Fund, as specified.
   
   1. In the first two calendar years following the effective date of this section, 70 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon.
      
   2. In the third calendar year following the effective date of this section, 50 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon.
      
   3. In the fourth calendar year following the effective date of this section and in each calendar year thereafter, 25 percent of the amounts collected, including interest earned thereon. (Pen. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (b)(2).)
      
5. Requires the state’s DNA Identification Fund be administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and funds in the state’s DNA Identification Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be used by the Attorney General (AG) only to support DNA testing in the state and to offset the impacts of increased testing.
   
6. Provides that to ensure expeditious and economical processing of offender DNA specimens and samples for inclusion in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the state’s DNA Database and Data Bank Program, the DOJ DNA Laboratory is authorized to contract with other laboratories, whether public or private, including law enforcement laboratories, that have the capability of fully analyzing offender specimens or samples within 60 days of receipt, for the anonymous analysis of specimens and samples for forensic identification testing, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 298.3, subd. (a).)
   
7. States that in addition to the $10 on every $10 assessed for any criminal offense for deposit in the DNA Identification fund, an additional state-only penalty of $4 for every $10, or part of $10, in each county on every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts. (Gov. Code, § 76104.7, subd. (a).)
   
8. Requires the following persons to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis:
   
   1. Any person, including any juvenile, who is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any felony offense, or is found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony offense, or any juvenile who is adjudicated under Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for committing any felony offense.
      
   2. Any adult person who is arrested for or charged with any of the following felony offenses:
      
      1. Any felony offense for which a person is required to register as a sex offender, or attempt to commit any felony offense described in sex offender registration provisions, or any felony offense that imposes on a person the duty to register in California as a sex offender.
         
      2. Murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.
         
      3. Commencing on January 1 of the fifth year following enactment of the act that added this subparagraph, as amended, any adult person arrested or charged with any felony offense. (Pen. Code, § 296, subd. (a)(1).)
         
9. States that whenever the DNA Laboratory of the DOJ notifies the CDCR or any law enforcement agency that a biological specimen or sample, or print impression is not usable for any reason, the person who provided the original specimen, sample, or print impression shall submit to collection of additional specimens, samples, or print impressions. CDCR or other responsible law enforcement agency shall collect additional specimens, samples, and print impressions from these persons as necessary, and transmit these specimens, samples, and print impressions to the appropriate agencies of the DOJ. (Pen. Code, 296.2, subd (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Proposition 69, the ‘DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,’ was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to improve public safety. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. This additional funding has been instrumental in the success of the state’s DNA database program. In the 20 years since the measure was passed, the state has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes, many of which were sexual assault crimes.
   
   “AB 3042 eliminates the sunset date for Prop 69 funding to establish a permanent, steady source of revenue outside of the General Fund that supports DNA testing programs at both state and local levels. Retaining this key funding source will not only aid in exonerating the innocent but also support public safety in our communities for generations to come.”
   
2. DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act: The DNA Identification Fund was adopted by the voters in 2004 as Prop. 69. In the early 2000s, the rise of DNA technology made it an attractive component to a criminal prosecution – it theoretically eliminates all other suspects that are not guilty; and conclusively identifies the suspect that is guilty. Furthermore, after multiple instances of states including Georgia, Texas, and Illinois nearly executing or actually executing innocent people that were exonerated by DNA, DNA became a literal life saver and acted as a form of protection against wrongful conviction.^[1] Prop. 69 requires felony arrestees to have their DNA taken at the time of arrest and, ideally, uploaded into the CODIS.

Prop. 69 set up a funding mechanism that required assessing penalties on criminal and traffic offenses and transferring those funds between state and local agencies for DNA testing. Government Code section 76104.6 requires each county to submit an annual report to the Legislature and the DOJ on the total amount of penalty assessments they collected, allocated, and expended for authorized programs to implement Prop. 69. The DNA Identification Fund is used for a variety of purposes on both the state and county levels, including law enforcement collection and analysis of DNA specimens, and to reimburse local law enforcement for processing, tracking, and storing DNA samples that may be tested by the state or a private lab. (See Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (b)(3).)

Civil Rights advocates objected at the time to the enactment of Proposition 69, and filed suit arguing it constituted an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and was overbroad. The ACLU, in particular, filed suit alleging Prop. 69 is an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.^[2] The California Supreme Court held in People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 690-91, that Prop. 69’s collection requirement were constitutionally valid because of the safeguards built into the law. In its decision, the Court held:

“Safeguards against the wrongful use or disclosure of sensitive information may minimize the privacy intrusion when the government accesses personal information, including sensitive medical information. The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act makes the misuse of a DNA sample a felony, punishable by years of imprisonment and criminal fines. (See Pen. Code, § 299.5.)

In assessing whether the demand for a sample of an arrestee's DNA was reasonable under California Constitution, article I, section 13, we agree that it may be appropriate to consider not only the minimal nature of the physical intrusion associated with a buccal swab, but the arrestee's reasonable expectations about what would happen to the sample after collection. But in so analyzing the arrestee's choice, we cannot ignore the safeguards built into the DNA Act: the limited nature of the information stored in databases on an arrestee (specifically, a numerical profile describing noncoding parts of the arrestee's DNA); the legal protections against possible misuse of the profile or the sample (including felony sanctions for knowing improper use or dissemination); and the availability of procedures for removing the profile from the database and destroying the sample should the basis for the arrestee's inclusion dissipate. We have no record before us to show that these legal protections would have been violated or proved unworkable had defendant chosen to comply with the requirement to provide a DNA sample on booking. …To be sure, as explained above, defendant was entitled to the full scope of constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, despite his arrest on evident probable cause. And had he later found himself in a position to seek expungement of his sample and profile and found the statutory procedures inadequate, he would have been entitled to challenge the retention of his information on that basis.” (Buza, supra, at 692.)

Given that the legal challenges to Prop. 69 have mostly been exhausted, it may make sense to formalize the funding so as to ensure a steady stream of financing for DNA testing statewide.

1. DNA Identification Fund: For the purpose of implementing Prop. 69, there is levied an additional penalty by the courts in each county which will be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established by Section 1464 of the Penal Code, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The penalty amounts will be collected by the counties and deposited into a DNA Identification Fund, established within each county treasury.

This money, along with any interest earned, is held by the county treasurer until transferred to the State Controller for credit to the DNA Identification Fund. (Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (b)(2); Gov. Code, § 76104.7, subd. (b).) The DNA Identification Fund was created within the State Treasury to deposit the penalties collected to be used by the AG only to support DNA testing in the state and to offset the impacts of increased testing. Its scope is further expanded to fund the operations of all of the DOJ forensic laboratories.

Government Code section 16346 states that in the absence of language that either eliminates the 20 year sunset or extends it, or no other successor fund is identified, any remaining balance and existing obligations in this fund upon abolishment shall be transferred to the General Fund. If this bill or any related bills are not signed into law, the fund would simply be deposited into the GF. As explained below, the Budget process has used the GF to backfill the DNA Identification Fund because it is increasingly unstable. (See Department of Finance, Manual of State Funds, April 2021, DNA Identification Fund, No. 3086.)^[3]

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (“LAO”), the Governor’s 2023-24 Budget included $54.9 million from the GF in 2023-24 (decreasing to $47.6 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26) to maintain existing service levels. In addition, the budget includes a $10 million increase in DNA Identification Fund expenditure authority annually for three years to restore historical expenditure levels from the fund. (This was reduced in prior years when the budget partially addressed the fund’s insolvency by temporarily redirecting General Fund support from another DOJ program to support BFS instead.)

“The proposed amount consists of $46.1 million annually for three years to backfill a decline in criminal fine and fee revenue deposited into the DNA Identification Fund used to support the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Bureau of Forensic Services (“BFS”) Division. BFS provides criminal laboratory services, such as DNA testing, alcohol and controlled substances analysis, and on-site crime scene investigation support. Ten regional laboratories provide services at no charge for local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in 46 counties that do not have access to those services. BFS also assists the 12 counties and 8 cities that operate their own laboratories where BFS offers services their laboratories lack. Local agencies also contract with providers or other government laboratories for services. Additionally, BFS operates the state’s DNA laboratory as well as the state’s criminalistics training institute. (LAO, 2023-24 Budget (February 23, 2023) DOJ Budget Proposals.) ”^[4]

The DNA Identification Fund has been underfunded for at least the last four years. Over the past several years, the Legislature has taken steps to reduce the cycle of criminal justice debtors by reducing or eliminating fines and fees based on criminal convictions. As a general matter, it makes more sense to fund these programs through GF allocation rather than by low or no income members of the community who cannot pay exorbitant fines. It lead to catastrophic consequences for people in the community and did not generate much money. Does it make more sense to simply deposit the funds into the GF and continue to allocate moneys for BSF as a general fund appropriation?

1. Penalty Assessments: As explained above, Prop. 69 is funded via penalty assessments on criminal convictions. Government Code section 76104.6, subdivision (a) states:

For the purpose of implementing the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, there shall be levied an additional penalty of one dollar for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof in each county which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts otherwise levied against a criminal defendant, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, except parking offenses…. These moneys shall be taken from fines and forfeitures deposited with the county treasurer….The board of supervisors shall establish in the county treasury a DNA Identification Fund into which shall be deposited the collected moneys pursuant to this section.

In the past several years, numerous changes to the law have eliminated penalty assessments on convictions because it creates a cycle of poverty for historically marginalized communities. Currently, penalty assessments may amount to thousands of dollars and ultimately act as a bar to services, and may even result in a violation of probation, resulting in jail time. Fines are assessed as follows:

For a base fine of $1,000:

The total amount would obviously increase depending on the amount of the base fine. Penalty assessments more than triples the total fine. Given the importance of DNA testing, should the Legislature consider creating a permanent funding source that is not predicated on steadily declining fines and fees but allocations from the GF? Additionally, as explained above, the DNA Identification Fund is steadily declining and requires backfill from the GF. Does it make more sense to simply fund DNA testing directly, rather than through specified county transfers based on penalty assessments?

1. Argument in Support: According to the California Department of Justice: Proposition 69, also known as the “DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act,” was passed by voters in November 2004 to support and expand the use of DNA technology to solve crimes. Among its provisions, Prop. 69 directs funding from criminal fines to be allocated between state and local crime labs to support expanded efforts to collect and test DNA samples. In the two decades since Prop. 69 was passed, DOJ has received more than $74 million from the fund and has recorded over 106,000 DNA hits to unsolved crimes. By contrast, the state’s underfunded DNA database program recorded only 1,108 hits from 1984 to 2004.

While the numbers illustrate the benefit of these funds on public safety, Prop. 69 included a sunset date of 20 years that is set to expire this year. Fortunately, Prop. 69 included a provision allowing the legislature to amend it so long as the changes are consistent with the purposes of the proposition. By eliminating the sunset date, AB 3042 will establish a permanent, steady source of revenue from an already established criminal fine – completely separate and apart from the General Fund -- that will allow crime labs to continue this critical investigative work. This funding has been instrumental in the success of the state’s DNA database program, bringing closure to thousands of victims and their families. But the work is not done. AB 3042 will help the DOJ and local crime labs continue to bring justice to victims and to exonerate the innocent.

1. Argument in Opposition: None on file.
   
2. Related Legislation:
   1. AB 1368 (Lackey), requires a law enforcement agency to submit specified sexual assault forensic evidence received prior to January 1, 2016 to a crime lab for testing, and requires the crime lab to process that kit and upload DNA profiles to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). AB 1368 was held on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file.
      
   2. SB 917 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), requires a law enforcement agency to submit specified sexual assault forensic evidence received prior to January 1, 2016 to a crime lab for testing, and requires the crime lab to process that kit and upload DNA profiles to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
      
3. Prior Legislation:
4. AB 1869 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 92, Statutes of 2020, states a court may order that a portion of the costs assessed pursuant to existing law include a reasonable portion of the cost of obtaining specimens, samples, and print impressions in furtherance of Prop. 69 and the funds collected shall be deposited in the DNA Identification Fund as created by Section 76104.6 of the Government Code.
   
5. SB 824 (Committee on Budget) of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, includes changes necessary to implement the 2020 Budget Act to repeal various criminal administrative fees and provide the counties with an appropriation to address the corresponding revenue loss. SB 842 was held on the Assembly Floor.
   
6. SB 144 (Mitchell) of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have eliminated a number of administrative fees imposed on a person related to involvement in the criminal justice system. SB 144 was referred to, but never heard in this committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Department of Justice (Sponsor)
California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Opposition

None on File.

Analysis Prepared by:

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

1. See Death Penalty Information Center, Executed but Possibly Innocent, located at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent ↑

2. See ACLU of Northern California (2004) DNA Dragnet Includes Victims of Identity theft and Domestic Violence, press release, located at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-challenges-california-law-permitting-government-seizure-dna-samples-innocent last visited March 22, 2024. ↑

3. Located at https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2024-25/#/FundIndex, last visited March 19, 2024. ↑

4. Located at https://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4701, last visited March 19, 2024. ↑