BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair A 2009-2010 Regular Session B 2 2 1 AB 2210 (Fuentes) 0 As Amended June 22, 2010 Hearing date: June 29, 2010 Penal Code MK:mc INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS: HOSTAGE TAKING AND BARRICADING HISTORY Source: Los Angeles District Attorney's Office Prior Legislation: None Support: California District Attorneys Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California State Sheriffs Association Opposition: Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUE SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT BE PERMITTED TO EAVESDROP IN A HOSTAGE OR BARRICADE SITUATION WHEN CERTAIN FACTORS ARE MET AND A COURT LATER ISSUES AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE USE OF AN ELECTRONIC AMPLIFYING OR RECORDING DEVICE? (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageB PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to allow law enforcement to eavesdrop in a barricade or hostage situation. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, chief deputy attorney general, chief assistant attorney general, district attorney or the district attorney's designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the interception of wire, electronic digital pager, or electronic cellular telephone communications under specified circumstances. (Penal Code 629.50.) Existing law specifies the crimes for which an interception order may be sought: murder, kidnapping, bombing, criminal gangs, and possession for sale, sale, transportation, or manufacturing of more than three pounds of cocaine, heroin, PCP, methamphetamine or its precursors, possession of a destructive device, weapons of mass destruction or restricted biological agents. (Penal Code 629.52.) Existing law provides that the court may grant oral approval for an emergency interception of wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone communications without an order as specified. Approval for an oral interception shall be conditioned upon filing with the court, within 48 hours of the oral approval, a written application for an order. Approval of the ex parte order shall be conditioned upon filing with the judge within 48 hours of the oral approval. (Penal Code 629.56.) Existing law provides that any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable or instruments including the wire, line, cable or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageC without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state, or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts is guilty of a wobbler. No evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. (Penal Code 631.) Existing law provides that every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device except a radio is guilty of a wobbler. (Penal Code 632.) Existing law provides that any person who has been injured as a violation of prohibitions on the taping or listening in on confidential communications shall be entitled to specified civil damages. (Penal Code 637.2.) Existing federal law provides the principal prosecuting attorney of any state, or the principal prosecuting attorney of any political subdivision thereof, if such attorney is authorized by a statute of that state to make application to a state court judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, may apply to such judge for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter (18 USCS 2518) and with the applicable state statute an order authorizing, or approving the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageD offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic drugs, marijuana or other dangerous drugs, or other crime dangerous to life, limb, or property, and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, designated in any applicable state statute authorizing such interception, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. (18 USCS 2516 (2).) Existing federal law provides that notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter (18 USCS 2510 et seq.), any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any state or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that state, who reasonably determines: (a) an emergency situation exists that involves: (i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person; (ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or (iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime, that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained; and (b) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter [18 USCS 2510 et seq.] to authorize such interception, may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur. In the absence of an order, such interception shall immediately terminate when the communication sought is obtained or when the application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier. In the event such application for approval is denied, or in any other (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageE case where the interception is terminated without an order having been issued, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter [18 USCS 2510 et seq.], and an inventory shall be served as provided for in subsection (d) of this section on the person named in the application. (18 USCS 2518 (7).) Existing case law provides states are authorized to enact their own eavesdropping laws so long as they are at least as restrictive as federal law. (People v. Avelino Leon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 376, 384-385.) State law which is as restrictive as - and written in compliance with - the federal statute is permissible and will withstand scrutiny. (Leon, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 384-385.) This bill provides that notwithstanding other prohibitions, and in accordance with federal law, a designated peace officer may use or authorize the use of, an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop on or record, or both, any oral communication within a particular location in response to an emergency situation involving the taking of a hostage or hostages or barricading of a location if all of the following are satisfied: The officer reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists involving the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person within the meaning of Section 2518(7)(a)(i) of Title 18 of the United States Code. The officer reasonably determines that the emergency situation requires that eavesdropping on oral communication occur immediately. There are grounds upon which an order could be obtained pursuant to Section 2516(2) of Title 18 of the Untied States Code in regard to the offenses enumerated therein. This bill provides that only a peace officer who has been designated by either a district attorney in the county where the emergency exists, or by the attorney general to make the (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageF necessary determinations may make those determinations for purposes of this section. This bill provides that if the determination is made by a designated peace officer that an emergency situation exists, a peace officer shall not be required to knock and announce his or her presence before entering, installing, and using any electronic amplifying or recording devices. This bill provides that if the determination is made by a designated peace officer that an emergency situation exists and an eavesdropping device has been deployed, an application for an order approving the eavesdropping shall be made within 48 hours of the beginning of the eavesdropping and shall comply with the requirements of Penal Code Section 629.50. This bill provides that a court may grant an application authorizing the use of electronic amplifying or recording devices to eavesdrop on and record otherwise confidential oral communications in barricade or hostage situations where there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit and offense listed in Section 25216(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code. This bill provides that the contents of any oral communication overheard pursuant to this section shall be recorded on tape or other comparable device. The recording of the contents shall be done so as to protect the recording from editing or other alterations. This bill provides that a "barricading" occurs when a person refuses to come out from a covered or enclosed position. Barricading also occurs when a person is held against his or her will and the captor has not made a demand. This bill provides that a "hostage situation" occurs when a person is held against his or her will and the captor has made a demand. This bill provides that a judge shall not grant an application (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageG made pursuant to this section in anticipation that such an emergency will arise. This bill provides that a judge shall grant an application authorizing the use of electronic amplifying or recording devices to eavesdrop on and record otherwise confidential oral communications in barricade or hostage situations where there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense listed in Section 2516(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and only if the peace officer has fully complied with requirements of this section. This bill provides that if an application is granted pursuant to this section, an inventory shall be served pursuant to Section 629.68. This bill provides that it does not require that a peace officer designated undergo POST training on wiretaps. This bill provides that a peace officer who has been designated to use an eavesdropping device shall cease use of the device upon the termination of the barricade or hostage situation, or upon the denial by a judge of an application for an order to approve the eavesdropping, whichever is earlier. This bill , as proposed to be amended, provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageH reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009, that court stated in part: "California's correctional system is in a tailspin," the state's independent oversight agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased the population of California's prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a result, the state's prisons have become places "of extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, . . . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while contributing little to the safety of California's residents, . . . . California "spends more on corrections than most countries in the world," but the state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . . Although California's existing prison system serves neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. (Some citations omitted.) . . . The massive 750% increase in the California prison population since the mid-1970s is the result of political decisions made over three decades, including the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole system. Unfortunately, as California's prison population has grown, California's political decision-makers have failed to provide the resources and facilities required to meet the additional need for space and for other necessities of prison existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageI have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the state could safely reduce its prison population, their recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend the necessary funds to support the population growth has brought California's prisons to the breaking point. The state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to this day, California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<1> The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal in this case. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: Currently, when law enforcement officers respond to a barricaded suspect situation or a hostage situation, they are unable to lawfully deploy eavesdropping devices to listen in on the location. California Penal Code ----------------------- <1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California United States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009). (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageJ Section 632 makes it a crime to eavesdrop upon confidential communications by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, in the absences of consent from all parties. There is no search warrant exception to this prohibition. Suspects who barricade themselves or who take hostages pose a high level of risk to responding officers, hostages (when present), and the general public. Common sense dictates that peace officers should have the maximum possible amount of information about the premises and parties, to enable them to best resolve the situation and minimize the risk of injury of death. The use of eavesdropping devices is currently prohibited under state law but is allowed under federal law. Federal law allows states to implement their own laws so long as the state laws are at least as protective as federal law. Eavesdropping is the interception of oral communications (not wiretapping which is the interception of electronic communications), also referred to as "bugging". California law makes it a crime to eavesdrop on an oral communication without the consent of all parties. (See Penal Code Section 632) There is no exception to this prohibition for law enforcement, even in an emergency situation. Similarly, there is no provision for eavesdropping under California's wiretap statute. AB 2210 would authorize California law enforcement officers to use eavesdropping devices under two very limited but extremely dangerous situations involving suspects who barricade themselves inside a location or who have taken innocent persons hostage. AB 2210 tracks the requirements of federal law. It requires the officer making the determination to be an officer previously designated by District Attorney. The officer must reasonably determine that an emergency (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageK exists that involves immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. The need for the eavesdropping must exist before a court order allowing such an interception could be obtained with due diligence. An application for a court order approving the interception is made must be made within 48 hours of the interception. The contents of the communication must be recorded. Finally, if the order is denied, the contents of the communication must be suppressed and may not be disclosed or used. Except to prevent the commission of a public offense. 2. Use of Listening Device in Barricade or Hostage Situation (More) Generally, under existing law, wiretapping, eavesdropping and recording of confidential communications is prohibited except under specified circumstances where law enforcement has a court order authorizing such wiretap, eavesdropping or recording or there is specific statutory authorization allowing such activity. While under federal law, law enforcement has the authority under specified circumstances, to use a listening device in a federal barricade or hostage situation and later go to the court to get an order to affirm the earlier decision to use the device. No such law exists currently in California. This bill would allow specified peace officers in California to use an electronic recording or amplifying device to eavesdrop on and record the otherwise confidential communications of individuals within a location when responding to an emergency situation that involves the taking of a hostage or the barricading of a location. All of the following conditions must be met in order for an eavesdropping or amplifying device to be used: The officer reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists involving the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person within the meaning of federal law. The officer reasonably determines that the emergency situation requires that eavesdropping or oral communication occur immediately. There are grounds upon which an order could be obtained pursuant to federal law in regard to the offenses enumerated therein. Federal law defines an emergency situation as involving: immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person; conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or (More) AB 2210 (Fuentes) PageM conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime, that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained. (18 USCS 2518 (7) (a).) As with federal law, this bill would require the peace officer to file with the court an application within 48 hours of the beginning of the eavesdropping seeking an order authorizing the use of the eavesdrop on otherwise confidential communications in the barricade or hostage situation. If the order is denied the eavesdropping must cease (if it is still going on.) This bill specifically states that it does not affect the admissibility of evidence, thus just because an order is granted does not mean that any recorded conversation will be admissible if it would otherwise be deemed inadmissible. Existing provisions providing for civil damages in Penal Code Section 637.2 would also apply to inappropriate uses of the process created by this bill. Supporters argue that this is a "lifesaving measure" allowing law enforcement to take control of an emergency situation and to use these devices to determine what is going on behind the barricade or in a hostage situation in order to resolve the situation safely. 3. Technical Amendment The author intends to take an amendment in Committee to delete "at trial" from page 4, line 17. ***************