COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 2654-03
Bill No.: SB 924
Subject: Criminal Procedure; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; Department of Public Safety
Type: Original
Date: April 14, 2004
FISCAL SUMMARY
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| General Revenue | (Less than $200,000) | (Less than $200,000) | (Less than $200,000) |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on General Revenue Fund |
(Less than $200,000) | (Less than $200,000) | (Less than $200,000) |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Missouri Laboratory Oversight Committee Revolving Fund | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Justice Improvement Fund | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on Other State Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 10 pages.
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Local Government | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Missouri House of Representatives, Missouri Senate, Office of State Public Defender, and the Office of State Treasurer assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the proposed legislation would assess a surcharge of $5.00 in each court proceeding filed in all criminal cases, including ordinance violations, traffic offenses, and infractions. The surcharge is not to be collected where a defendant is dismissed or costs are paid by the state, county, or municipality. Four dollars of the surcharge collected is to be deposited in the Missouri Laboratory Oversight Committee Revolving Fund, which is created in the bill, and $1.00 is to be deposited in the justice Improvement Fund, also created in the bill. Based on preliminary FY 03 data, CTS estimates the amount collected from the imposition of this surcharge would be approximately $1,735,439.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials from the Office of Secretary of State (SOS) assume the proposal would give the Department of Public Safety the authority to adopt rules to implement the provisions of this act. These rules would be published in the Missouri Register and the Code of State Regulations. These rules could require as many as 24 pages in the Code of State Regulations and half again as many pages in the Missouri Register, as cost statements, fiscal notes, and the like are not repeated in the Code. The estimated cost of a page in the Missouri Register is $23 and the estimated cost of a page in the Code of State Regulations is $27. Based on these costs, the estimated cost of the proposal is $1,476 in FY 05 and unknown in subsequent years. The actual cost could be more or less than the numbers given. The impact of this legislation in future years is unknown and depends upon the frequency and length of rules filed, amended, rescinded, or withdrawn.
Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which would require the printing and distribution of regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriation process.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume the proposal would result in additional incarceration and/or probation costs. DOC assumes these costs would be unknown, but less than $100,000 per year.
Officials from the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume the legislation would result in numerous new criminal appeals because if the new requirements including recording of custodial interrogations, procedures required for interviewing of people with learning disabilities, and new restrictions on using statements by incarcerated individuals. While the AGO cannot anticipate the number of new appeals generated, it anticipates the number may be significant. Costs are unknown, but less than $100,000 per year.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP) assume the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agency. However, the duties of the Lab Oversight Committee are not clear. It is not known what types of decision the Committee would make that would affect the MHP's Lab. Section 491.800 of the legislation would require the MHP to purchase videotapes. This cost would be absorbed within existing resources. Other sections of the proposal would potentially result in a fiscal impact, but because the language is vague, the MHP is assuming no impact.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials from the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney's Office assume any and all tapes, etc. would have to be copied and maintained and sent in discovery, which would greatly increase the financial burden on prosecutors.
Officials from the Kansas City Police Crime Lab, St. Louis Metropolitan Crime Lab, Southeast Missouri Regional Crime Lab, Springfield Regional Crime Lab, St. louis Metropolitan Police Department, Kansas City Police Department, Greene County Sheriff's Office, and the Independence Police Department did not respond to Oversight's request for fiscal impact.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| GENERAL REVENUE | |||
| Costs - Department of Corrections | |||
| Incarceration/probation costs | (Less than $100,000) | (Less than $100,000) | (Less than $100,000) |
| Costs - Office of the Attorney General | |||
| Costs of appeals | (Less than $100,000) | (Less than $100,000) | (Less than $100,000) |
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | (Less than $200,000) | (Less than $200,000) | (Less than $200,000) |
| MISSOURI LABORATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REVOLVING FUND | |||
| Revenues - From court surcharge | $1,156,959 | $1,388,351 | $1,388,351 |
| Costs - For DNA testing of currently incarcerated individuals and improvement of DNA database | ($578,479) | ($694,175) | ($694,175) |
| Costs - For accreditation testing and auditing of crime labs | ($289,240) | ($347,088) | ($347,088) |
| Costs - For equipment and training for MO crime lab personnel | ($289,240) | ($347,088) | ($347,088) |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON MISSOURI LABORATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REVOLVING FUND |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT FUND | |||
| Revenues - From court surcharge | $289,240 | $347,088 | $347,088 |
| Costs - Department of Public Safety | |||
| To local law enforcement agencies | ($289,240) | ($347,088) | ($347,088) |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT FUND | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS | |||
| Revenues - Law Enforcement Agencies | |||
| from Justice Improvement Fund | $289,240 | $347,088 | $347,088 |
| Costs - Law Enforcement Agencies | |||
| Reimburse officer training expenses | ($289,240) | ($347,088) | ($347,088) |
| Costs - Prosecuting Attorneys | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation would make changes to the criminal justice system:
SURCHARGE ON CRIMINAL CASES - The proposal would create a $5 surcharge on all criminal court cases to be used for the "Missouri Laboratory Oversight Committee Revolving Fund" and the "Justice Improvement Fund" (§488.5022).
ELECTRONICALLY RECORDING POLICE INTERVIEWS - The proposal would require any interview conducted by a peace officer in a police facility for a person that may have witnessed a first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter crime be electronically recorded. This proposal would also require any interview of a suspect of these crimes to be electronically recorded. The proposal would define electronically recorded. The proposal would outline the requirements that must be met for any statement obtained at a police facility to be admissible in a criminal proceeding. The state could rebut the presumption of the inadmissibility of a statement not electronically recorded with good cause. Under the proposal, an electronic recording of a statement would be admissible against the defendant if the statement was obtained in accordance of laws of this state, those of another state, or the United States. The proposal would require law enforcement officials to preserve electronic recordings until the defendant's conviction is final and no appeals remain available (§491.800).
DESCRIPTION (continued)
ELECTRONICALLY RECORDING INDIVIDUALS WITH SIGNIFICANT LEARNING DISABILITIES AND THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF TWELVE - The proposal would require any interview or questioning relating to a felony which is conducted by a peace officer with a person whom the peace officer has a reasonable belief that the person has significant learning disabilities, or a person under the age of 12, to be electronically recorded (§491.803).
JAIL HOUSE SNITCH - The proposal would require prosecutors using the testimony of a witness who was incarcerated at the same time as the defendant to obtain an affidavit from the witness containing: (1) listing of specific consideration given by the state; (2) requests by law enforcement about cooperating; (3) listing of previous criminal cases that the witness has testified in; (4) listing of cases that the witness has been a state's witness and the consideration given; and (5) any media account of the charges that the witness may have observed. The Department of Public Safety would be required to establish a registry to track state's witnesses on the MULES system. The prosecutor would supply the information, including a written copy of the witness statement. The registry would only be an investigative database and would not be a public record (§491.806).
LAW ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION TO PROSECUTOR - The proposal would require that the law enforcement officer in charge of the principal investigating agency certify to the prosecutor a list of all evidence, including a list of witnesses. This would be done within 10 days of presentment to the prosecutor and the certification would be an ongoing obligation until the investigation is closed (§491.809).
TESTING AS EVIDENCE - The proposal would define forensic testing and allow the accused to have the right to argue that the lack of fingerprints or other evidence from forensic testing which was conducted to connect the defendant to the crime is relevant to the state's burden or may be consistent with an alternative theory of crime (§546.065).
EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE PROTOCOL TO FINDER OF FACT - The proposal would allow a significant violation of the eyewitness evidence protocol to result in the finder of fact being instructed as to the risks of mistaken identification. However, no violation of the eyewitness evidence protocol would provide the basis for a court to grant a motion to exclude any eyewitness identification. This section would also allow the jury to be instructed as to the reliability of eyewitness evidence, if used in trial (§546.070).
EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE FORMS - The proposal would give the Director of Public Safety the authority to provide standardized eyewitness evidence forms for use by law enforcement in all cases where an individual was observed by the witness and the identity of the suspect is unknown by the witness (§590.700).
DESCRIPTION (continued)
EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE PROTOCOL - The proposal would require the Director of Public Safety to promulgate an eyewitness evidence protocol. This section would establish seven requirements for eyewitness evidence protocol. Peace officers would be required to follow this section when obtaining eyewitness evidence (§590.702).
DNA EVIDENCE - The proposal would require possible DNA evidence to be preserved by the Highway Patrol for all felonies. Previously, this section was limited to specific crimes (§650.056).
LABORATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE - The proposal would create a seven member "Laboratory Oversight Committee." This committee would provide independent review of state crime lab operations. The committee would have the power to: (1) appoint an ombudsman to each crime laboratory to resolve conflict; (2) issue public reprimands to laboratories and individuals; (3) sanction a laboratory having multiple violations of good scientific procedure; and (4) administer oaths, subpoena witnesses, issue subpoenas duces tecum and require production of documents and records (§650.500).
LAB REPORTS - The proposal would require every lab report to be signed by the individual conducting the test. The report would also contain a listing of outside agencies which have currently accredited the lab. The report would also certify if the testing was performed in accordance with national or association standards. This section would also make it a class B felony for any public employee or lab personnel to knowingly alter or falsify laboratory test results for the purpose of changing the test results (650.505).
MISSOURI LABORATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REVOLVING FUND - The proposal would set up the "Missouri Laboratory Oversight Committee Revolving Fund" that consists of a portion of the moneys collected from the $5 criminal surcharge listed in Section 488.5022 of this proposal. Specifically, four dollars of the five dollar surcharge would go the fund. One-half of the money would be directed to conduct DNA testing of currently incarcerated individuals and to improve the DNA database. One-fourth of the money would be used for accreditation testing and auditing of crime lab facilities. The remaining one-fourth would be used by the Laboratory Oversight Committee to obtain new equipment and to provide training for Missouri crime lab personnel (§650.507).
DESCRIPTION (continued)
JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT FUND - The proposal would establish the "Justice Improvement Fund" that consists of a portion of the moneys collected from the $5 criminal surcharge listed in Section 488.5022 of this proposal. Specifically, one dollar of the five dollar surcharge would go to the fund. The fund would be designed to reimburse law enforcement agencies for necessary expenses accrued to comply with the requirements of these sections. The Director of the Department of Public Safety would administer the fund and would be granted rulemaking power to do so. If the fund balance exceeds $30,000, the excess money would be used to fund scholarships for law enforcement training. Scholarships would be granted to those officers or candidates whose departments require them to personally accrue the cost of training. The officer or candidate would be required to stay in the profession for four years following the completion of his or her training or he or she would reimburse the fund for the scholarship money awarded on a pro-rata basis for each month he or she is not employed in law enforcement that is less than the required forty-eight months (§650.509).
CRIME LAB RECORDS - The proposal would require state crime laboratories to keep records on testing methodology, quality assurance, internal auditing, technical reviews, instrument maintenance, technician lab notes, and written external auditing procedures for a period of twelve years (§650.510).
SALARY COMPENSATION LEVEL - The proposal would require the Director of Public Safety to promulgate a standard salary compensation level for all Missouri law enforcement officers (§650.515).
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of the Attorney General
Office of State Courts Administrator
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety
- Missouri State Highway Patrol
Missouri House of Representatives
Missouri Senate
Office of Secretary of State
Office of State Public Defender
Office of State Treasurer
Boone County Prosecuting Attorney
NOT RESPONDING
Kansas City Police Crime Lab
St. Louis Metropolitan Crime Lab
Southeast Missouri Regional Crime Lab
Springfield Regional Crime Lab
St. louis Metropolitan Police Department
Kansas City Police Department
Greene County Sheriff's Office
Independence Police Department
Mickey Wilson, CPA
Director
April 14, 2004