SB 0806 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0806 - Enhances drug laws against methamphetamine; amends law about multijurisdictional enforcement groups

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 3319-02

BILL NO. SB 806

SUBJECT: Crimes and Punishment; Drugs and Controlled Substances

TYPE: Original

DATE: January 27, 1998

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
General Revenue	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
None
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 6 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials of the State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the proposal would increase penalties for the possession, manufacture, and distribution of methamphetamine, and for the possession of its chemical components. This proposal would also lower the amount of a drug required for prosecution for certain levels of crime. It would also alter the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree to include chapter 195 violations.

Depending on the degree of enforcement, there could be a significant increase in the workload of the courts, but CTS officials were unable to quantify that increase. CTS officials also assume that there would be a definite increase in the prison population.

Officials of the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume this proposal could result in an increase in trials, but assume any fiscal impact should be absorbed with existing resources since it is changing existing laws. OPS officials also spoke with the Cole and St. Louis County Prosecutors who also indicated that there should be no appreciable fiscal impact to their offices.

Officials of the Greene County Prosecutor's office assumes this proposal would have no fiscal impact to their agency.

Officials of the State Public Defender (SPD) assumed that existing staff could provide representation for those 15 - 20 cases arising where indigent persons were accused of "possessing the chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine." However, passage of more than one similar proposal would require the SPD system to request increased appropriations to cover the cumulative cost of representing the indigent accused.

Officials of the Missouri Police Chiefs' Association, Office of the Attorney General and the Missouri Sheriffs' Association assume that this proposal would have no fiscal impact to their agencies.

Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) assume this proposal would increase sanctions against paraphernalia used to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine, would establish allowances for expert witness testimony concerning precursor ingredients of methamphetamine, and provide new sanctions against persons stealing precursor materials used to manufacture methamphetamine. The broadened definition and list of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine would enhance prosecution efforts to convict drug manufacturers. MSHP officials assume this would cause an increased number of liquid, powder, and drug samples being submitted to the Patrol laboratories. In addition to testing, the laboratories personnel would be required to present testimonies in more criminal cases. Therefore, MSHP would request one Criminalist II and related laboratory equipment,

ASSUMPTION (continued)

including an electric balance, steriozoom microscope, gas chromatography/mass spectrometer, and accessories. This additional FTE would help decrease the turnaround time related to clandestine lab cases and aid in the swift prosecution of these cases.

Oversight assumes this proposal increases penalties associated with the manufacture and production, or attempt to manufacture or produce, any quantity of any material which contains any quantity of amphetamine, methamphetamine, phenmetrazine or methylphenidate. It does not assign any new duties to the MSHP. Therefore, Oversight assumes that any costs for additional testing equipment or personnel to decrease the turnaround time related to such cases and to aid in swift prosecution of those cases would be requested through the normal budgetary process.

Officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC) did not respond to the request for fiscal note.

Oversight assumes based on responses to similar proposals that the proposed legislation's enhanced penalty provisions would have a substantial impact to the population of the DOC.

The revision of section 195.420, increasing the charges from a class D to a C felony, would have a fiscal impact.

Oversight assumes this proposal would also make it a class D felony to have possession of drug paraphernalia in cases where the person used, or possessed with intent to use, the paraphernalia in combination with each other to manufacture or test amphetamine or methamphetamine.

Oversight assumes this proposal would add the element of aiding, through payment or coercion, a person under seventeen to manufacture, sell, transport or test amphetamine or methamphetamine to the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree which would be a class C felony.

Additionally, if an actor appropriated any material worth less than $150 with intent to use the material to manufacture or test amphetamine or methamphetamine, the violation would be a class D felony. It would also prohibit any person from providing any precursor materials if they knew the materials were intended to be used for the production of methamphetamine. Violations would be a class D felony.

Oversight assumes the sentencing for a class D felony is for a term of years not to exceed 5 years. This proposal would upgrade the offense to a class C felony for which sentencing is for a term of years not to exceed 7 years.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Oversight could not predict the number of new commitments which could result from the creation of the offense(s) and the penalty enhancements outlined in this proposal. An increase in commitments would depend on the utilization by prosecutors and the actual sentences imposed by the court. If additional persons were sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this proposal, Oversight assumes the DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average $30.37 per inmate, per day) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (average of $2.47 per offender, per day). Supervision by the DOC through probation or incarceration would result in some additional costs but DOC officials assume that the impact would be minimal.

Based on DOC responses to other proposals, Oversight assumes DOC could not absorb any additional offenders in the system without additional resources. Currently, the DOC utilizes emergency housing due to a shortage of bed space. Population projections indicate that the DOC will experience shortage of bed space in the future. Since this proposal would impact DOC current population projections, Oversight assumes additional construction costs would be incurred by the DOC. Oversight further assumes that for each new commitment received by the DOC, an additional bed would need to be constructed at the cost of $45,000. Using current construction time lines, DOC officials assumed in response to other proposals that a bed will take at least two years to construct. Some type of alternative housing could have to be provided for as the new beds were constructed. These costs are not included in this fiscal note.

Oversight will update the fiscal note when a fiscal note response from the Department of Corrections is received.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost-Department of Corrections
Increase in number of beds	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
Cost-State Courts Administrator
Increase in court cases	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
GENERAL REVENUE FUND	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
	0	0	0
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business

No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.

DESCRIPTION

This proposal would make it a class D felony to have possession of drug paraphernalia in cases where the person used, or possessed with intent to use, the paraphernalia in combination with each other to manufacture or test amphetamine or methamphetamine.

This proposal would add chemicals "proven to be precursors of methamphetamine" to the list of chemicals which it is unlawful to possess with intent to manufacture, compound, convert produce, process, prepare, test, or otherwise alter that chemical to create a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue. The penalty for this section would be enhanced from a class D to class C felony. The State would be allowed to present expert testimony to prove that a chemical is an immediate precursor ingredient of methamphetamine.

This proposal would amend statutes concerning multijurisdictional enforcement groups ("MEG"s) to target the enforcement of drug laws regarding methamphetamine, and limits their formations to counties of the second, third and fourth classification.

This proposal would allow any law enforcement officer who seizes hazardous materials as evidence to collect representative samples and destroy or dispose of the remaining materials. These samples could be used in any prosecution accompanied by verifying documentation. The weight and quantity needed to prove that element of any offense would be held as evidence; any amount in excess could be destroyed. Documentary evidence of the destroyed substances would be admissible in any proceeding.

This proposal would add the element of aiding, through payment or coercion, a person under seventeen to manufacture, sell, transport or test amphetamine or methamphetamine to the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree which would be a class C felony.

DESCRIPTION (continued)

If an actor appropriated any material worth less than $150 with intent to use the material to manufacture or test amphetamine or methamphetamine, the violation would be a class D felony.

This proposal would prohibit any person from providing any precursor materials if they knew the materials were intended to be used for the production of methamphetamine. Violations would be a class D felony.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would require additional capital improvements or rental space.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol

State Courts Administrator

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Natural Resources

State Public Defender

Office of Prosecution Services

Cole County Prosecutor

Greene County Prosecutor

St. Louis County Prosecutor

Missouri Police Chiefs' Association

Missouri Sheriffs' Association

NOT RESPONDING -- Department of Corrections and Missouri Association of Counties

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

January 27, 1998