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 Background State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1989 and granted law enforcement officers the right to use wiretapping while investigating specific types of crimes.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