BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 955| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 955 Author: Mitchell (D) and Lieu (D), et al. Amended: As introduced Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/8/14 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De León, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/14 AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg SUBJECT : Interception of electronic communications SOURCE : County of Los Angeles DIGEST : This bill adds human trafficking to the list of offenses for which interception of electronic communications may be ordered, as specified; and extends the sunset on the provisions governing the interception of electronic communications from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1. Authorizes the Attorney General (AG), Chief Deputy AG, Chief Assistant AG, District Attorney (DA) or the DA's designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic CONTINUED SB 955 Page 2 communications under specified circumstances. 2. Provides that the court may grant oral approval for an emergency interception of wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone communications without an order as specified. Approval for an oral interception shall be conditioned upon filing with the court, within 48 hours of the oral approval, a written application for an order. Approval of the ex parte order shall be conditioned upon filing with the judge within 48 hours of the oral approval. 3. Specifies the crimes for which an interception order may be sought: murder, kidnapping, bombing, criminal gangs, and possession for sale, sale, transportation, or manufacturing of more than three pounds of cocaine, heroin, PCP, methamphetamine or its precursors, possession of a destructive device, weapons of mass destruction or restricted biological agents. 4. Provides that the provisions governing wiretap sunsets on January 1, 2015. This bill: 1. Adds "human trafficking" to the crimes for which an interception order may be sought. 2. Extends the sunset on provisions governing electronic interceptions from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020. 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. The 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 955 Page 3 sunset on wiretap provisions to January 1, 2015. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Increased and ongoing significant state costs (General Fund) potentially in the millions of dollars, to the extent expanding and 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 the 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 the DOJ for its electronic interception efforts. Minor annual costs to the DOJ, likely less than $50,000 (General Fund) for the detailed annual report. SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/14) County of Los Angeles (source) CONTINUED SB 955 Page 4 Alameda County District Attorney California Alliance of Child and Family Services California State Sheriffs' Association City of Long Beach Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking Los Angeles County District Attorney OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/23/14) American Civil Liberties Union California Attorneys for Criminal Justice ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California State Sheriffs' Association supports this bill stating, "Given the serious nature of human trafficking and its recent growth in California, it makes sense to allow law enforcement to use this highly effective tool to prevent and stop it. The bill would retain judicial authority over wiretap requests and make a modest yet meaningful expansion of this important statute." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The ACLU opposes this bill stating, "The ACLU has consistently opposed expansion of the state's wiretap law. Our objections are based on the fact that wiretapping violates basic privacy rights. A wiretap, because it picks up both sides of all communications made by all persons using wire or electronic communications under surveillance, by definition constitutes a general search - committed not only against the person under suspicion but against countless other persons connected with the suspect only remotely or not at all." JG:d 5/23/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED