California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly Bipartisan · 2 R · 1 D cosponsors

AB 390 — Criminal law: DNA evidence.

Last action — In committee: Set, second hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, requires a person who has been convicted of a felony offense 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. Existing law makes these provisions retroactive, regardless of when the crime charged or committed became a qualifying offense. This bill would expand these provisions to require persons convicted of specified misdemeanors 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. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies to collect and forward these samples, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits a judge from relieving a person of the separate administrative duty to provide specimens, samples, or print impressions required by the DNA Act if the person has been found guilty of an offense for which DNA collection is required. Existing law, added by Proposition 47, allows a person to petition the court for resentencing if he or she was convicted of a felony that was reduced to a misdemeanor by Proposition 47. Existing law requires the court to resentence the petitioner, unless the court determines that the person would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. This bill would clarify that the prohibition on judges relieving a person of the duty to provide specimens, samples, or print impressions is not affected by resentencing under Proposition 47. 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 Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Set, second hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.

  2. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  5. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 2. Page 1802.)

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 28).

  10. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  13. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

  15. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Burke · Cosponsor
  • Campos · Cosponsor
  • Cooley · Cosponsor
  • Cooper · Primary
  • Galgiani · Cosponsor
  • Jacqui Irwin · Cosponsor
  • Tom Lackey · Cosponsor
  • Obernolte · Cosponsor
  • Perea · Cosponsor
  • Steinorth · Cosponsor
  • Wagner · Cosponsor
  • Wolk · Cosponsor
  • Jeff Gonzalez · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 12 co-sponsors · 109 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Cooper

Co-sponsors (12)

Not signed on (109)

109 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 109 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 390 COOPER Assembly Third Reading

Passed 74 Yea · 2 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 65203
Republican 5001
Democratic 4000
Total 74204
% of votes cast 93%3%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Baker — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Campos — Yea
Salas — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Harper — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Gray — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Brough — Yea
Holden — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Burke — Yea
Chang — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Chu — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Kim — Yea
Levine — Yea
Linder — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Williams — Yea
Wood — Yea
Chávez — Not Voting
Brown — Not Voting
Quirk — Yea
Ting — Nay
Weber — Not Voting
Gonzalez — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 11002
Republican 2000
Total 15002
% of votes cast 88%0%0%12%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chang — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Daly — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Quirk — Not Voting
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Not Voting
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 390 do?
Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, requires a person who has been convicted of a felony offense 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. Existing law makes these provisions retroactive, regardless of when the crime charged or committed became a qualifying offense. This bill would expand these provisions to require persons convicted of specified misdemeanors 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. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies to collect and forward these samples, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits a judge from relieving a person of the separate administrative duty to provide specimens, samples, or print impressions required by the DNA Act if the person has been found guilty of an offense for which DNA collection is required. Existing law, added by Proposition 47, allows a person to petition the court for resentencing if he or she was convicted of a felony that was reduced to a misdemeanor by Proposition 47. Existing law requires the court to resentence the petitioner, unless the court determines that the person would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. This bill would clarify that the prohibition on judges relieving a person of the duty to provide specimens, samples, or print impressions is not affected by resentencing under Proposition 47. 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.
Who sponsors AB 390?
AB 390 is sponsored by Burke, Campos, Cooley, Cooper, Galgiani, Irwin, Jacqui (Democratic), Lackey, Tom (Republican), Obernolte, Perea, Steinorth, Wagner, Wolk, and Gonzalez, Jeff (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 390?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 390?
Track AB 390 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 390

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 390

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →