BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 61 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 61 (Pavley) - As Introduced: December 22, 2010 Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 7-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill extends the sunset date regulating state and local government interception of electronic communications (wiretaps) from January 1, 2012 until January 1, 2015. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Potential for ongoing significant state costs potentially in the millions of dollars, to the extent continuing current authorization for wiretaps leads to an increase in state prison commitments. (For example, according to the state Department of Justice (DOJ), in California in 2010, 627 wiretaps were authorized in 19 counties, leading to 698 arrests and 192 convictions.) 2)Major ongoing non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs as a result of continuing wiretapping authorization, in the range of $16 million, according to the self-reported personnel and other resources costs from the counties reporting to DOJ in 2010. (Law enforcement costs related to extending wiretapping statutes are presumably offset to a degree by related law enforcement savings as a result of more efficient law enforcement efforts.) 3)Potential ongoing state law enforcement costs to DOJ for its wiretapping efforts, though DOJ did not note any state wiretaps in its statutory electronic interceptions report. 4)Minor costs to DOJ, likely less than $50,000, for the detailed annual report. SB 61 Page 2 COMMENTS 1)Rationale . The author and proponents (the bill is sponsored by the L.A. District Attorney's Office) contend that existing wiretap statutes have enabled law enforcement agencies to obtain wiretap authorization that has successfully contributed to efforts to address the production and sale of controlled substances and to investigate murder and criminal gang activity statewide. 2)Current law authorizes the A.G. or the district attorney to apply to the Superior Court for an order authorizing interception of a wire, electronic pager, or electronic cellular phone communication under specified circumstances. (Virtually all orders are for cell phones.) The crimes for which an interception order may be sought include murder, solicitation to commit murder, bombing, use or threat to use weapons of mass destruction, criminal gang activity, and importation, possession for sale, transportation, manufacture or sale of heroin, cocaine, PCP, or methamphetamine. Written reports must be submitted at the discretion of the court, but at least every 10 days, to the judge who issues the order. 3)Suggested Technical Amendment . The statutory report is quite prescriptive and could be focused a bit more to help DOJ provide the necessary information. For example, Penal Code 629.62 (b)(9)(A) and (B) - "the approximate nature and frequency" of interceptions - appears vague and is somewhat duplicative of other requirements. 4)Wiretap stats overview from DOJ's 2010 California Electronic Interceptions Report: Counties reporting wiretaps in 2010:19 Number of court orders sought:628 Number granted: 627 The six busiest counties: L.A.:192 San Bernardino:110 Riverside: 75 San Diego: SB 61 Page 3 74 Orange: 39 Sacramento: 31 Arrests: 698 Murder : (52) Narcotics: (576) Convictions: 190 Murder: (0) Narcotics (190) Number of persons convicted:192 5)Prior Legislation . SB 1016 (Boatwright), Statutes of 1995, established California's wire intercept statute. The initial sunset provision was Jan. 1, 1999. SB 688 (Alaya), Statutes of 1997, extended the sunset to Jan. 1, 2003. AB 74 (Washington), Statutes of 2002, extended the authority to Jan. 1, 2008. AB 569 (Portantino), Statutes of 2007, extended the authority to Jan. 1, 2012. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081