BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
4
5
SB 1454 (Gaines) 4
As Introduced: February 21, 2014
Hearing date: April 29, 2014
Fish and Game Code
JRD:sl
FISH AND WILDLIFE: ENFORCEMENT:
PATROL MOUNTED VEHICLE VIDEO AND AUDIO SYSTEMS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Fish and Game Wardens' Association;
California Fish and Game Wardens' Supervisors and
Managers Association
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union of California (Oppose
Unless Amended)
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE
"DASHBOARD CAMERAS"?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageB
The purpose of this legislation is to allow Department of Fish
and Wildlife officers to have "dashboard cameras" in their
vehicles, as specified.
Existing law generally charges the Department of Fish and
Wildlife (DFW) with the administration and enforcement of the
Fish and Game Code (FGC). (Fish and Game Code § 702.)
Existing law states that all employees of the DFW designated by
the director as deputized law enforcement officers are peace
officers as provided by Penal Code section 830.2 of the Penal
Code. (Fish and Game Code § 856.)
Existing law makes it a crime for a person, intentionally, and
without requisite consent to eavesdrop on a confidential
communication by means of any electronic amplifying or recording
device. (Penal Code § 632.)
Existing law exempts from this crime a number of law enforcement
agencies from the prohibition in Penal Code section 632,<1>
including the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any
assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or
any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway
Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or
police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff,
undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid in
that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los
Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one
of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his
or her authority. (Penal Code § 633.)
This bill would allow the DFW to install patrol vehicle mounted
cameras and audio systems ("dashboard cameras"), in patrol
vehicles used by peace officers described in section 856 of the
Fish and Game Code.
---------------------------
<1> Penal Code section 633 also exempts listed law enforcement
from the prohibitions in sections 631, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7.
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageC
This bill would allow DFW officers to use the dashboard camera
to record any communications or other actions involving the
officer while the officer is in uniform and action within the
scope of his or her authority.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageD
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageE
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Wardens typically initiate between 120,000 to 230,000
law enforcement contacts, issue between 7,000 to
18,000 citations, and execute over 100 search warrants
per year.
Although other law enforcement agencies have
increasingly installed dashboard mounted dashboard
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageF
cameras in their patrol vehicles, it is unclear
whether California law authorizes their use by
Wildlife Officers employed by the Department.
Recording communications between Wildlife Officers,
suspects, and witnesses creates an unbiased record of
these contacts that leads to more accurate and
complete information being included in investigative
reports and made available to attorneys in civil and
criminal proceedings.
Recording law enforcement contacts is also an
important tool in preventing misconduct on the part of
officers, training officers in proper safety and
constituent contact procedures, and defending Wildlife
Officers and agencies from frivolous lawsuits.
Dashboard cameras would benefit the local District
Attorney's offices by enhancing their ability to
obtain convictions for violations and reducing costly
time in our already backlogged court system.
2. Effect of This Legislation
This legislation would allow the DFW to have dashboard cameras.
The Federal Office of Community Policing Services, in
conjunction with the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, prepared a comprehensive study on the use of in-car
cameras and found:
The in-car camera is a multifaceted tool that assists
police executives by ensuring
integrity and accountability while enhancing public
trust. In-car cameras allow officers to critique and
enhance their performance and provide training
material for new recruits and advanced officer
training. With the proper education, video evidence
can be of great value to prosecutors as well as
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageG
police. Video evidence can be used to refresh an
officer's recollection of events while validating the
officer's testimony. In many cases when video
evidence is present, both time and monies can be saved
if the defendant elects to plead guilty to the
charges. In civil, criminal, and administrative
cases, the presence of video evidence streamlines the
investigative process and allows an agency to come to
a timely conclusion. Even when revealing departmental
violations, video evidence allows investigators,
supervisors and executives to make sound assessments
of the facts. With videos, mitigating circumstances
that may impact the severity of discipline can be
addressed.
(The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing, Research and
Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras,
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications /video_evidence.pdf.)
This finding is echoed by both those who support this
legislation and those who oppose. Specifically, the California
Fish and Game Wardens Association states:
Dashboard cameras have proven beneficial to both the
public and officers in the allied agencies who
currently use them. They provide an important
training tool, aid officers in proving the events
related to an investigation or an arrest to the court,
and help protect officers from unfounded complaints.
The ACLU, which is opposed to this legislation unless
amended, states:
[D]ashboard cameras can protect Californians' rights
in peace officer encounter and provide a level of
protection for officers, if used properly. The
cameras provide a neutral third observer to a
situation, ensuring that disputes over facts to not
breakdown into a he-said, she-said impasse. Mobile
phone cameras are now being used effectively by
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageH
citizens to observe peace officer behavior.
(More)
There is no disagreement that in-car cameras are an
effective tool-if they are used correctly. The ALCU states
that this legislation, as written:
[F]alls short of protecting Californians in that it
is silent on when peace officers may turn the cameras
on and off. One presumes then that the decision on
powering the camera is left to the individual peace
officer. This places a great deal of control in the
peace officers' hands and leave Californian's rights
vulnerable to creative editing of video.
This is not hypothetical. In Seattle in 2010, two men
filed a claim of excessive force and wrongful arrest.
Part of the arrest was captured by a dashboard camera;
however, critical moments of the arrest were
mysteriously missing from the video. [Footnote
omitted.] In Oakland in 2011 an officer powered off
his colleague's body-mounted camera during an
encounter with protestors. [Footnote omitted.] SB
1454 needs amending to ensure that patrol vehicle
mounted video and audio systems are being used at all
times during all encounters with the public and that
peace officers cannot engage in creative editing.
SB 1454 falls short in other ways as well. The bill
is silent on Californians' access to video of
incidents involving themselves and delineates no
requirements on data retention.
SHOULD THE BILL CONTAIN A PROVISION MANDATING WHEN THE
DASHBOARD CAMERA SHOULD BE TURNED ON AND OFF?
SHOULD THIS LEGISLATION SPECIFY WHO CAN ACCESS VIDEO OF
INCIDENTS INVOLVING THEMSELVES?
(More)
SB 1454 (Gaines)
PageJ
SHOULD A TIMEFRAME FOR RETENTION OF THE VIDEOS BE DEFINED
IN THE LEGISLATION?
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE BE REQUIRED TO
GIVE NOTICE THAT A PARTICULAR VEHICLE HAS A DASHBOARD
CAMERA?
***************