BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair SB 61 (Pavley) Hearing Date: 4/11/2011 Amended: As Introduced Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 7-0 _________________________________________________________________ ____ BILL SUMMARY: SB 61 would extend the sunset on provisions governing wiretaps from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2015. _________________________________________________________________ ____ Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Prison commitments Unknown; potentially major 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 State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1989 and granted law enforcement officers the right to use wiretapping while investigating specific types of crimes. Most recently, Chapter 707/2010 expanded the use of wiretapping to include the interception of modern types of electronic communications. The use of wiretap orders in California has stabilized over the past several years, averaging slightly over 600 orders per year since 2008. The Department of Justice indicates that of the 627 wiretap orders issued in 2010, 696 arrests were made, leading to 184 convictions. The crimes for which arrests were made vary, but were largely narcotics-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 potential cost avoidance to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in incarceration costs. It is unknown how many wiretap orders would be authorized under SB 61 between January 1, 2012, and January 1, 2015, or 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, with wiretaps to be used after all other normal SB 61 (Pavley) Page 3 investigative procedures have been exhausted. It is unclear how many investigations could have led to successful convictions even in the absence of wiretaps. Moreover, wiretap evidence makes it more difficult to prove a defendant's innocence and could ultimately result in an indeterminable level of reduced trial and incarceration costs to the extent that a defendant is more likely to plea bargain due to the existence of wiretap evidence of his or her guilt. Nonetheless, if even two additional defendants are sentenced to state prison directly attributable to a wiretap, the cost would exceed the threshold for referral to the Suspense File. Prior Legislation. SB 1428 (Pavley) 2010 proposed to extend the sunset on wiretap provisions to January 1, 2014, however, this provision was amended out of the chaptered version of the bill.