DNA evidence.
Summary
Existing law establishes the Sexual Assault Victims' DNA Bill of Rights, which, among other things, encourages a law enforcement agency assigned to investigate specified sexual assault offenses to perform DNA testing of rape kit evidence or other crime scene evidence in a timely manner to ensure the longest possible statute of limitations. Existing law also requires a law enforcement agency to inform victims of certain unsolved sexual assault offenses if the law enforcement agency elects not to analyze DNA evidence within certain time limits. This bill would require law enforcement agencies to report information regarding rape kit evidence, within 120 days of the collection of the kit, to the Department of Justice through a database established by the department. The bill would require that information to include, among other things, whether biological evidence samples were submitted to a DNA laboratory for analysis and if a probative DNA profile was generated. The bill would additionally require a public DNA laboratory, or a law enforcement agency contracting with a private laboratory, to provide a reason for not testing a sample every 120 days the sample is untested, except as specified. The bill would only impose these requirements for a kit collected on or after January 1, 2018. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require that money received by the Office of Emergency Services from the federal Office on Violence Against Women be used before appropriating money from the General Fund for purposes of reimbursing any costs determined by the Commission on State Mandates to be mandated by the state to a local law enforcement agency by the bill. This bill would require the department to file a report to the Legislature on an annual basis summarizing the information in its database. The bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies or laboratories from being compelled to provide any contents of the database in a civil or criminal case, except as required by a law enforcement agency's duty to produce exculpatory evidence to a defendant in a criminal case. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2016
Committee Review
Sep 2017
Assembly Passage
Apr 2017
Senate Passage
Sep 2017
Signed into Law
Oct 2017
Introduced Dec 5, 2016
Signed Oct 12, 2017
Floor votes · Senate Sep 14, 2017 · Assembly Apr 27, 2017
How they voted
35–0
Passed
Total votes 35
Sep 14, 2017
D
Democratic25
100% Yea
R
Republican10
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
29
Key actions
11
Committee
10
Amendments
4
Oct 12, 2017
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 14, 2017
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0)
senate
Sep 14, 2017
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3421.).
lower
Sep 14, 2017
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Sep 8, 2017
Upper · Passed
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
upper
Sep 1, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (September 1).
upper
Jun 26, 2017
Committee
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
upper
Jun 6, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 6). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 10, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Apr 27, 2017
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (69-0-5)
assembly
Apr 5, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (April 5).
lower
Mar 28, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 27, 2017
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 1, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (February 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Feb 13, 2017
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jan 19, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Dec 6, 2016
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee January 5.
lower
1 primary · 15 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
David Chiu
DDemocratic
Co
Anthony Cannella
RRepublican
Co
BM
Brian Maienschein
DDemocratic
Co
Catharine B. Baker
RRepublican
Co
Chad Mayes
IIndependent
Co
Cristina Garcia
DDemocratic
Co
Dante Acosta
RRepublican
Co
Hannah-Beth Jackson
DDemocratic
Co
Jerry Hill
DDemocratic
Co
Joel Anderson
RRepublican
Co
Marc Berman
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 41
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 41. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline