BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1428 (Pavley)
Hearing Date: 05/03/2010 Amended: 04/20/2010
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: This bill amends the existing wiretap provisions
to include the interception of modern types of contemporaneous
two-way electronic communications and to make other changes to
the intercept law. This bill also extends the sunset on
provisions governing wiretaps to January 1, 2014.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Prison commitments *Unknown, potentially significant
ongoing costs* General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
This bill would extend the sunset on existing wiretap laws.
State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1995 and was
intended to provide conformity between federal and state law. At
that time, both the Department of Finance and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) indicated that the state law would not result in
significant costs to the state.
The use of wiretap orders has not been extensive, but has
increased substantially over the past 15 years. In 2000, there
were 88 orders; in 2005, there were 282 orders. The increase of
intercepts was largely a result of the expansion of their use
authorized in AB 74 (Washington, Chapter 605 of 2002). DOJ
indicates that of the 282 wiretap orders issued in 2005, 980
arrests were made, leading to 156 convictions. In 2009, there
were more than 600 wiretap orders. The crimes for which arrests
were made vary, but were largely drug-related.
Wiretaps are used as an investigative tool, one of many at law
enforcement's disposal. In the absence of this bill, the state
wiretap law would sunset, and any arrests and convictions
directly attributable to wiretaps (and any corollary commitments
to state prison) would cease, resulting in unknown ongoing
savings to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) in avoided incarceration costs.
It is unknown how many wiretap orders would be authorized under
SB 1428 between January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2014 and how many
arrests, convictions and prison commitments would result
directly from their use. In order to obtain intercept authority,
law enforcement must already be investigating specific criminal
activity; so, it is unclear how many investigations could lead
to successful convictions even without wiretaps. Moreover,
wiretap evidence makes it more difficult to prove a defendant's
innocence; wiretaps could save trial and incarceration costs to
the extent that a defendant is more
likely to plea bargain because of wiretap evidence of his or her
guilt. Nonetheless, if even one additional defendant was
sentenced to state prison directly attributable to a wiretap,
the cost would exceed the threshold for referral to the Suspense
File.