BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                         SB 35|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                 UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 35
          Author:   Pavley (D), et al.
          Amended:  8/21/14
          Vote:     21

           
          PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE  :  6-0, 1/14/14
          AYES:  Hancock, De León, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Anderson

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  6-0, 1/23/14
          AYES:  De León, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Walters

           SENATE FLOOR  :  32-0, 1/28/14
          AYES:  Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Calderon, Cannella,  
            Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Fuller, Galgiani,  
            Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Knight, Leno,  
            Liu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Roth, Steinberg,  
            Vidak, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Gaines, Lara, Lieu, Nielsen, Torres, Walters,  
            Wright, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  79-0, 8/25/14 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Wiretapping:  authorization

           SOURCE  :     Los Angeles District Attorneys Office


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 35
                                                                     Page  
          2

           DIGEST  :    This bill extends, until January 1, 2020, the sunset  
          provision on the law that authorizes wiretaps by law enforcement  
          under specified circumstances.

           Assembly Amendments  add a coauthor. 

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:   

           1.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 or electronic communications under  
            specified circumstances. 

          2.Provides that the provisions governing wiretap sunsets on  
            January 1, 2015. 

          This bill extends the sunset date, on provisions governing  
          wiretapping, from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2020.

           Background
           
          State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1989 and granted law  
          enforcement officers the right to use wiretapping while  
          investigating specific types of crimes. SB 1428 (Pavley, Chapter  
          707, Statutes of 2010) expanded the use of wiretapping to  
          include the interception of modern types of electronic  
          communications. 

          The number of electronic interception orders in California  
          averaged approximately 700 in both 2011 and 2012.  According to  
          the Department of Justice's (DOJ) 2011 California Electronic  
          Interceptions Report, 697 interception orders were authorized in  
          21 counties, leading to 697 arrests and 193 convictions.  DOJ  
          2012 California Electronic Interceptions Report indicates 707  
          interception orders were authorized in 16 counties, leading to  
          961 arrests.  The majority of these arrests are currently  
          pending prosecution, with 58 convictions reported to date. The  
          crimes for which arrests were made vary, but charges were  
          largely narcotics- (51 percent) or gang- (20 percent) related.


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 35
                                                                     Page  
          3

          Electronic interceptions are used as an investigative tool, one  
          of many at law enforcement's disposal.  As one example of the  
          significant impact of electronic intercepts and their importance  
          as a tool for law enforcement agencies to use in investigating  
          crimes involving narcotics transactions, criminal street gangs,  
          and violence, the DOJ 2012 report cites the seizure of over $1.3  
          million, 799 pounds of methamphetamine, and 65 kilograms of  
          cocaine in Imperial County due to the assistance of 15  
          electronic intercept orders.

          Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or the district  
          attorney to apply to the Superior Court for an order authorizing  
          interception of a wire or electronic communication under  
          specified circumstances.  The crimes for which an electronic  
          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. 

          Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare and submit  
          a detailed annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial  
          Council, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the  
          Courts on electronic interceptions conducted during the  
          preceding year. Information for this report is to be provided to  
          the Attorney General by any prosecutorial agency seeking an  
          electronic interception order.

           Prior Legislation
           
          AB 569 (Portantino, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2007) extended the  
          provisions authorizing the use of wiretaps by law enforcement to  
          January 1, 2012.

          SB 1428 (Pavley, Chapter 707, Statutes of 2010) expanded the  
          scope of wiretapping provisions to include the interception of  
          modern types of electronic communications.  This bill also  
          proposed to extend the sunset on wiretap provisions to January  
          1, 2014, however, the provision was amended out of the chaptered  
          version of the bill.

          SB 61 (Pavley, Chapter 663, Statutes of 2011) extended the  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 35
                                                                     Page  
          4

          sunset to January 1, 2015.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

           Ongoing significant state costs (General Fund) potentially in  
            the millions of dollars, to the extent continuing the current  
            authorization for electronic interceptions leads to additional  
            state prison commitments. 

           Major ongoing non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs as  
            a result of continuing electronic interception authorization,  
            in the range of $31 million, according to the self-reported  
            personnel and resources costs from the counties reported to  
            DOJ for 2012. (Costs related to extending electronic  
            interception authorization are likely offset to a degree by  
            related savings as a result of more efficient law enforcement  
            practices.)  

           Non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs, offset to a  
            degree by fine revenue, for violations of the electronic  
            interception statutes, which are punishable by a fine not  
            exceeding $2,500, imprisonment in the county jail for up to  
            one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of  
            Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both the fine and  
            imprisonment.

           Potential ongoing state law enforcement costs to DOJ for its  
            electronic interception efforts.

           Minor annual costs to DOJ, likely less than $50,000 (General  
            Fund) for the detailed annual report. 

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/25/14)

          Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (source) 
          Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          California Narcotic Officers' Association
          California Police Chiefs Association, Inc.
          Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
          Los Angeles Police Protective League
          Peace Officers Research Association of California

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 35
                                                                     Page  
          5

          Riverside Sheriffs' Association
          San Diego District Attorney

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author:

               The California State Wiretap Statute sunsets on January  
               1, 2015, unless it receives reauthorization.   
               California law enforcement agencies and multi-agency  
               task forces have used the law with great success since  
               its enactment in 1989 to solve the most serious and  
               difficult crimes, such as organized crime and drug  
               trafficking, while maintaining an emphasis on the  
               protection of individual privacy. 

               In 2009, California's wiretap program was updated to  
               include the interception of communications by email,  
               blackberry, instant messaging by phone and other forms  
               of contemporaneous two-way electronic communication.   
               These provisions were added because many criminals  
               today have moved to electronic communications to easily  
               escape law enforcement's reach for their illicit  
               activities.  This law recognizes the expanding use of  
               electronic devices in the planning of criminal  
               activities and modernized our state's wiretap law so  
               that court-approved interceptions of communication from  
               the latest technologies are a relevant option for law  
               enforcement investigations.    

               SB 35 extends the operation of California wiretap law  
               until 2020 and ensures re-enactment of the statute,  
               including the technological updates. 

               In the last three years (2011-2013), wiretap investigations  
               involving just drug trafficking, led to the seizure of over  
               $90 million in narcotics and narcotic proceeds in Los  
               Angeles County alone.


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  79-0, 8/25/14
          AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian  
            Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,  
            Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,  
            Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 35
                                                                     Page  
          6

            Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández,  
            Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,  
            Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,  
            Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A.  
            Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,  
            Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,  
            Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy


          JG:nl  8/26/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****






























                                                                CONTINUED