BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                  SB 955
                                                                  Page  1

          SB 955 (Mitchell and Lieu)
          As Amended  August 18, 2014
          Majority vote

           SENATE VOTE  :32-0  
           PUBLIC SAFETY       7-0         APPROPRIATIONS      17-0        
          |Ayes:|Ammiano, Melendez,        |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow,           |
          |     |Jones-Sawyer, Quirk,      |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |
          |     |Skinner, Stone, Waldron   |     |Calderon, Campos,         |
          |     |                          |     |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez,  |
          |     |                          |     |Holden, Jones, Linder,    |
          |     |                          |     |Pan, Quirk,               |
          |     |                          |     |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner,    |
          |     |                          |     |Weber                     |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           SUMMARY  :  Authorizes the interception of wire or electronic  
          communications initially intercepted within the territorial  
          jurisdiction of the court where the judge is siting, if the  
          judge determines, on the basis of facts submitted, that there is  
          probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has  
          committed, or is about to commit the offense of human  

           EXISTING LAW :

          1)Authorizes the Attorney General (AG), chief deputy AG, chief  
            assistant AG, 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, electronic  
            digital pager, or electronic cellular telephone communications  
            under specified circumstances.

          2)Defines "wire communication, electronic pager communication,"  
            "electronic cellular communication," and "aural transfer" for  
            the purposes of wiretaps.

          3)Defines "aural transfer" as a transfer containing the human  
            voice at any point between and including the point of origin  
            and the point of reception.


                                                                  SB 955
                                                                  Page  2

          4)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, phencyclidine  
            (PCP), methamphetamine or its precursors; possession of a  
            destructive device, weapons of mass destruction or restricted  
            biological  agents.

          5)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.

          6)Provides that no order entered under this chapter shall  
            authorize the interception of any wire, electronic pager or  
            electronic cellular telephone or electronic communication for  
            any period loner than is necessary to achieve the objective of  
            the authorization, nor in any event longer than 30 days.

          7)Requires that written reports showing what progress has been  
            made toward the achievement of the authorized objective,  
            including the number of intercepted communications, be  
            submitted at least every six days to the judge who issued the  
            order allowing the interception.

          8)Provides that whenever an order authorizing an interception is  
            entered the order shall require a report be made to the AG  
            showing what persons, facilities, or places are to be  
            intercepted pursuant to the application, and the action taken  
            by the judge on each of these applications.

          9)Requires the AG to prepare and submit an annual report to the  
            Legislature, the Judicial Council and the Director of the  
            Administrative Office of the United States Court on  
            interceptions conducted under the authority of the wiretap  
            provisions and specifies what the report shall include.

          10)Provides that applications made and orders granted shall be  
            sealed by the judge.  Custody of the applications and orders  


                                                                  SB 955
                                                                  Page  3

            shall be where the judge orders.  The applications and orders  
            shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a  
            judge and shall not be destroyed except on order of the  
            issuing or denying judge, and in any event shall be kept for  
            10 years.

          11)Provides that a defendant shall be notified that he or she  
            was identified as the result of an interception prior to the  
            entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or at least 10  
            days, prior to any trial, hearing or proceedings in the case  
            other than an arraignment or grand jury proceeding.  Within 10  
            days prior to trial, hearing or proceeding the prosecution  
            shall  provide to the defendant a copy of all recorded  
            interceptions from which evidence against the defendant was  
            derived, including a copy of the court order, accompanying  
            application and monitory logs. 

          12)Provides that any person may move to suppress intercepted  
            communications on the basis that the contents or evidence were  
            obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United  
            States Constitution or of California electronic surveillance  

          13)Provides that the AG, any deputy attorney general, district  
            attorney or deputy district attorney or any peace officer who,  
            by any means authorized by this chapter has obtained knowledge  
            of the contents of any wire, electronic pager, or electronic  
            cellular telephone communication or evidence derived there  
            from, may disclose the contents to one of the individuals  
            referred to in this section and to any investigative or law  
            enforcement officer as defined in Title 18 of the United State  
            Code Section 2510(7) to the extent that the disclosure is  
            permitted pursuant to Penal Code Section 629.82 and is  
            appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties  
            of the individual making or receiving the disclosure.  No  
            other disclosure, except to a grand jury, of intercepted  
            information is permitted prior to a public court hearing by  
            any person regardless of how the person may have come into  
            possession thereof.
          FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, moderate state General Fund (GF) costs, potentially  
          in the range of $1 million, to the extent expanding current  
          authorization for wiretaps leads to an increase in state prison  


                                                                  SB 955
                                                                  Page  4

          commitments for human trafficking.  Over the past three years,  
          45 persons have been committed to state prison under the human  
          trafficking section. If this bill is effective and results in  
          just two additional commitments, the annual GF cost would be in  
          the range of $1 million in eight years, assuming an average term  
          of eight years at current per capita prison costs.   

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "The voters of California  
          and several local governments have challenged California to  
          better prosecute perpetrators of human trafficking and provide  
          assistance to victims of human trafficking.  SB 955 will mirror  
          federal law by allowing a court to issue a wiretap order on the  
          basis of human trafficking."

          Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this  

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)  

                                                                FN: 0004815