COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 3639-10
Bill No.: Perfected SS for SB 1000
Subject: Prisons and Jails; Crimes and Punishment; Criminal Procedure; Department of Corrections; Department of Public Safety
Type: Original
Date: February 9, 2004
FISCAL SUMMARY
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on General Revenue Fund |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| DNA Profiling Analysis Fund | (Unknown) to $45,640 | (Unknown) to $152,588 | (Unknown) to $101,442 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
(Unknown) to $45,640 |
(Unknown) to $152,588 |
(Unknown) to $101,442 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 8 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 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Department of Social Services, Office of State Public Defender, and the Independence Police Department assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.
Officials from the Office of Attorney General assume the costs are unknown, but anticipated to be less than $100,000, to handle any new court proceedings arising under this legislation, particularly section 650.035.11 which allows for certain DNA records to be expunged.
Oversight assumes the AGO could absorb the cost of the proposed legislation within existing resources. If the AGO experiences an increase that would require additional funding, the AGO could request the funding through the appropriation process.
Officials from the State Treasurer's Office (STO) assume Sections 488.5400.3 and .4 require the STO to receive payments from circuit clerks and make deposits to the DNA profiling analysis fund. These are duties that the STO does not currently do. Therefore, the STO would require one FTE Accountant I (at $30,804 per year) with the corresponding expense and equipment. The STO estimates the cost to be $41,285 in FY 05; $46,070 in FY 06;and $47,225 in FY 07.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Oversight assumes the STO could absorb the cost of the proposed legislation within existing resources. If the STO experiences an increase that would require additional funding, they could request the funding through the appropriation process.
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the proposed legislation would make various revisions to the statutes relating to DNA analysis, expanding the list of those persons who must provide a sample. The legislation also imposes a series of surcharges on certain court cases to be deposited in the DNA analysis fund. Based on FY 03 data, CTS estimates that approximately $1,883,200 would be deposited in the fund annually. CTS would not expect the collection of these surcharges to have a fiscal impact on the workload of the courts. Persons who have been proven innocent and whose conviction has been set aside may petition the court for expungement of their DNA-related records. CTS would not expect that the number of persons seeking expungement would be so great as to have a fiscal impact on the courts.
Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services assume prosecutors could absorb the costs of the proposed legislation within existing resources.
Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) assume all responsibility for procuring blood samples falls to agencies/parties other than the DMH. Therefore, there would be no cost to the DMH.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume this proposal mandates that DOC (which includes the Division of Probation and Parole, or P&P) to collect DNA samples from all felony offenders which includes convictions, nolos, and guilty pleas (including SIS and SES.)
DOC has around 30,000 offenders in the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) with day-to-day turnover of offenders. DOC has about 60,000 felons under supervision in P&P at any given time with constant changeover.
The current DNA database and tracking system would have to be modified system-wide to identify offenders who would need to be tested, notify and counsel with those offenders, schedule and ascertain availability of offenders for testing, and provide that staff witness the collection at the time of the test. Evidence handling protocol would have to be enhanced. Staff (probably licensed phlebotomists) would have to be funded for each site. DOC's contracted inmate medical care provider does not collect blood for forensic functions, but merely for patient care purposes. The additional staff person who has to be present at the time of testing would be absent from their current post and job duties.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Offenders in the field (as opposed to incarcerated offenders) are much more likely to fail to appear and then have to be located and physically brought to the testing site. Court action is sometimes necessary and this is a costly endeavor to the state. It is impossible to estimate the number of offenders who might abscond to avoid testing and/or payment. It is also impossible to estimate how many further incarcerations would result due to failure to comply with this proposal. If additional persons are sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this legislation, the DOC will incur a corresponding increase in operational cost either through incarceration (FY03 average of $38.10 per inmate per day, or an annual cost of $13,907 per inmate) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (FY03 average of $3.15 per offender per day, or an annual cost of $1,150 per offender).
Incarcerated offenders can refuse to be tested. The proposal is unclear whether use-of-force would be authorized to collect a sample. If so there will be overtime for the use-of-force and the subsequent paperwork, as well as additional staff accidents/workman comp claims.
Collected samples would have to be stored correctly and the DOC does not currently have the means to carry this out at this volume. Transportation costs would be incurred from DAI and P&P sites throughout the state to deliver collected samples to the crime labs. This would take more officers away from their posts.
In summary, the fiscal impact for DOC to implement this proposal would be unknown.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP) assume the proposed legislation would increase current annual DNA analysis from approximately 2,200 to 28,000 (new offenders) samples. Upon implementation of the law, approximately 108,575 (backlog) adult individuals who are presently under the supervision of the Department of Corrections will qualify for collection and analysis. The MHP would provide training and collection kits to the Department of Corrections. With equipment upgrades, the Profiling Unit of the MHP's Crime Lab would be able to analyze the annual incoming offender samples and a portion of the offender backlog. It is unknown how quickly the Department of Corrections would provide the DNA samples from individuals already incarcerated or under field supervision to the MHP for analysis. MHP assumes the backlog samples would be provided by the Department of Corrections and be analyzed over a period of four years. The DNA processing cost is based on the estimated number of offenders, which was provided by the Department of Corrections in 2003, multiplied by the present cost of reagents and supplies. The equipment upgrade and additional employees are based on the estimated number of annual new offenders (not the initial backlog of 108,575) and the number of employees and the number and type of equipment needed to process these samples.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
The Crime Lab would require the following additional FTE as a result of the proposed legislation:
2 Criminalists (each at $28,044 per year) - duties would be to perform DNA sample preparation, analysis and review.
1 Laboratory Evidence Control Clerk (at $18,732 per year) - duties would be to perform data entry, filing, and sample tracking and control.
1 Laboratory Evidence Technician (at $22,320 per year) - duties would be to perform sample preparation, equipment maintenance and other laboratory support duties.
MHP estimates the total cost, subject to appropriations, to be $1,510,934 in FY 05; $1,730,612 in FY 06; and $1,781,758 in FY 07. FY 05 costs reflect 6 months for Chapter 650 costs.
MHP assumes the proposed legislation would result in long-range costs due to the increase current annual DNA analysis from approximately 2,200 to 28,000 (new offenders) samples. Upon implementation of the law, approximately 108,575 (backlog) adult individuals who are presently under the supervision of the Department of Corrections will qualify for collection and analysis. MHP assumes the backlog samples would be provided by the Department of Corrections and be analyzed over a period of four years. MHP estimates the long-range costs, subject to appropriations, to be $1,627,561 in FY 08 and FY 09; $1,302,611 in FY 10; and $977,631 in FY 11 and beyond.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Division of Budget and Planning assume the payment of restitution could result in an unknown cost to general revenue.
Oversight assumes restitution to individuals who are exonerated of a crime and released from incarceration as a result of the DNA profiling analysis would be paid from the DNA Profiling Analysis Fund. The amount of restitution is Unknown.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| DNA PROFILING ANALYSIS FUND | |||
| Revenues - State Treasurer's Office | |||
| Court fees | $1,569,333 | $1,883,200 | $1,883,200 |
| Costs - Missouri State Highway Patrol | |||
| Personal Service (4 FTE) | ($49,784) | ($102,058) | ($104,609) |
| Fringe Benefits | ($25,519) | ($52,315) | ($53,623) |
| Equipment and Expense | ($1,448,390) | ($1,576,239) | ($1,623,526) |
| Total Costs - MHP | ($1,523,693) | ($1,730,612) | ($1,781,758) |
| Costs - Department of Corrections | |||
| Increased personnel and expense costs | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Costs - Office of Administration | |||
| Restitution | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON DNA PROFILING ANALYSIS FUND |
(Unknown) to $45,640 |
(Unknown) to $152,588 |
(Unknown) to $101,442 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
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 impose a series of surcharges on certain court cases to be deposited in the DNA Profiling Analysis Fund. No moneys from the state general revenue fund would be appropriated for the purposes of funding the DNA profiling analysis.
The proposed legislation would provide that results of forensic DNA analysis be admissible as evidence to prove or disprove any relevant fact during a criminal trial or proceeding. Under this proposal, the "DNA Profiling System" is designed to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement with the identification, investigation, and prosecution of individuals, as well as the identification of missing people.
The proposal would require the DNA profiling system to support the development of forensic studies and protocols, and maintain a population statistics database for crime laboratories, in addition to the other activities it performs.
The proposal would require the DNA profiling system to collaborate with the FBI and other agencies relating to the state's participation in the FBI's Combined DNA Index System(CODIS).
The proposal would allow, subject to appropriations, the Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole, an authorized designee, or a contracted third party to collect DNA samples from qualified offenders who are under the custody and control of the Department of Corrections. For qualified offenders who are under custody and control of a county jail, the DNA sample would, subject to appropriations, be performed by the county jail, its authorized designee, or contracted third party.
This proposal would require that every individual, who pleads guilty to a felony or any sexual offense pursuant to Chapter 566, RSMo, provide a sample for the purposes of DNA profiling analysis. An individual would be tested: 1) upon entering the Department of Corrections; 2) before release from a county jail, detention facility, state correctional facility, or other detention facility or institution; 3) upon being admitted to Missouri from another state pursuant to an interstate compact; or 4) while under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.
The proposal would require a person to provide another sample for DNA profiling analysis, if his or her original sample was not adequate for any reason. In addition, the proposal would limit the effect of obtaining or placing an offender's DNA sample in the database by mistake.
This proposal would make all DNA records and biological materials retained for the DNA profiling system closed records. The records would be considered confidential, and with limited exceptions, could not be disclosed. Anyone would who properly obtain the records could only use the information for certain specified purposes.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
The proposal would allow individuals to request expungement of their DNA sample and profile if the court issues a dismissal of the charges or reversal of the decision. The proposal would set out the proper procedure to be used when a person requests expungement of his or her information and such expungement is granted. With the expungement of information, the highway patrol would not be required to destroy evidence obtained from DNA samples if evidence relating to other people would be destroyed as well. The failure or delay in expunging a person's information would not be a reason to suppress evidence or change the result of his or her case. Within 30 days after the receipt of the court order, the Missouri State Highway Patrol would notify the individual that it has expunged his or her DNA sample and profile, or the basis for its determination that the person is otherwise obligated to submit a DNA sample.
An individual who is exonerated of a crime and released from incarceration because of the results of DNA profiling analysis would be paid an amount equal to the US Department of Health and Human Services federal poverty guidelines for each year of incarceration in restitution by the state. Such individuals would be prohibited from seeking any civil redress from the state.
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 Attorney General
Office of Administration
Office of State Courts Administrator
Department of Mental Health
Department of Corrections
Department of Social Services
Department of Public Safety
- Missouri State Highway Patrol
- Division of Fire Safety
- Missouri State Water Patrol
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of State Public Defender
State Treasurer's Office
Independence Police Department
Mickey Wilson, CPA
Director
February 9, 2004