BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 69
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
AB
69 (Rodriguez) - As Amended March 16, 2015
SUMMARY: Requires law enforcement agencies to follow specified
best practices when establishing policies and procedures for
downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras.
Specifically, this bill:
1)States the intent of the Legislature to establish policies and
procedures to address issues related to the downloading and
storage data recorded by a body-worn camera worn by a peace
officer. These policies and procedures shall be based on best
practices.
2)States that when establishing policies and procedures for the
implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, law
enforcement agencies, departments, or entities shall consider
the following best practices regarding the downloading and
storage of body-worn camera data:
a) Designate the person responsible for downloading the
recorded data from the body-worn camera;
AB 69
Page 2
b) Establish when data should be downloaded;
c) Include specific measures to prevent data tampering,
deleting, and copying;
d) Categorize and tag body-worn camera video at the time
the data is downloaded and classified according to the type
of event or incident captured in the data;
e) State the length of time that recorded data shall be
stored;
f) State where the body-worn camera data will be stored;
and
g) If using a third-party vendor to manage the data storage
system, the following factors shall be considered to
protect the security and integrity of the data:
i) Using an experienced and reputable third-party
vendor;
ii) Entering into contracts that govern the vendor
relationship and protect the agency's data;
iii) Using a system that has a built in audit trail to
prevent data tampering and unauthorized access;
iv) Using a system that has a reliable method for
automatically backing up data for storage;
AB 69
Page 3
v) Consulting with internal legal counsel to ensure the
method of data storage meets legal requirements for
chain-of-custody concerns; and
vi) Using a system that includes technical assistance
capabilities.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that it is a an alternate felony/misdemeanor for any
person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or
makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically,
electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with
any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument,
including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal
telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without
the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any
unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn
the contents or meaning of any message, report, or
communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at
any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use,
in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any
way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with,
employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully
do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things
mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not
exceeding $2,500, or by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the county jail for
16 months, or two or three years, or by both a fine and
imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 631.)
2)States that every person who, intentionally and without the
consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by
means of any electronic amplifying or recording device,
AB 69
Page 4
eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication,
whether the communication is carried on among the parties in
the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph,
telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by
both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 632, subd.
(a).)
3)Defines "confidential communication" to include any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably
indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be
confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication
made in a public gathering or any legislative, judicial,
executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or
in any circumstance that the parties may reasonably expect
that the communication may be overheard or recorded. (Pen.
Code, § 632, subd. (c).)
4)Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting
eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law
enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting
within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or
recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear
or record. (Pen. Code, § 633.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "While the 2012
Rialto Study on body-worn cameras concluded that there is a
correlation between the use of body-worn cameras and the
reduction of excessive use of force complaints, we must not
lose sight that this is a developing technology and we have
yet to learn and fully understand how this technology is being
used in the field and the impact it has on police-citizen
AB 69
Page 5
behavior and on crime. AB 69 focuses on providing guidelines
for downloading and storing body-worn camera data for those
law enforcement agencies that choose to implement a body-worn
camera program."
2)Background: A recent report released by U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and
the Police Executive Research Forum studied the use of
body-worn cameras by police agencies. This research included
a survey of 250 police agencies, interviews with more than 40
police executives, a review of 20 existing body-camera
policies, and a national conference at which more than 200
police chiefs, sheriffs, federal justice representatives, and
other experts shared their knowledge of and experiences with
body-worn cameras. The report shows that body-worn cameras
can help agencies demonstrate transparency and address the
community's questions about controversial events. Among other
reported benefits are that the presence of a body-worn camera
have helped strengthen officer professionalism and helped to
de-escalate contentious situations, and when questions do
arise following an event or encounter, police having a video
record helps lead to a quicker resolution. (Miller and
Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program:
Recommendations and Lessons Learned, Police Executive Research
Forum (Nov. 2014).) The report made specified recommendations
related to data storage and retention policies. These
recommendations include who should download the video, when
the video should be downloaded, where the data should be
stored, how long to retain the data, and measure to prevent
tampering, deleting and tampering. (Id. at pp. 42-45.)
3)Argument in Support: According to the California Public
Defenders' Association (CPDA), "CPDA supports the use of
body-worn cameras by law enforcement. Of equal importance to
the wearing of body-worn cameras are policies concerning the
use of these cameras and the proper storage of data collected
from these cameras.
AB 69
Page 6
"CPDA believes that this bill is a good start in establishing
these policies. Once the use of body-worn cameras by law
enforcement becomes more common, these policies may need to be
revisited and updated to ensure integrity in their use and
integrity in the data captured by them.
"Further, CPDA believes that the use of body-worn cameras will
help build trust between communities and their law enforcement
officers, and promote the truth finding process."
4)Related Legislation:
a) AB 65 (Alejo), would redirect funds from the Driver
Training Penalty Assessment Fund and allocates that money
to the Board of State and Community Corrections to be used
to fund local law enforcement agencies to operate a body
worn camera program. AB 65 is pending a hearing by the
Committee on Appropriations.
b) AB 66 (Weber), would state the intent of the Legislature
to enact legislation to require local police departments
that utilize police body-worn cameras to follow policies
and procedures that will streamline best practices to
better enhance the quality of the services that those
departments provide to Californians. AB 66 is pending
hearing by this Committee.
c) SB 175 (Huff), would require each department or agency
that employs peace officers and that elects to require
those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a
policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. The bill
would require the policy to be developed in collaboration
with nonsupervisory officers and to include certain
provisions, including, among others, the duration, time,
and place when body-worn cameras shall be worn and
operational. SB 175 is pending hearing by the Senate
Committee on Public Safety.
d) SB 195 (Anderson), would state the intent of the
Legislature to enact legislation that protects the privacy
AB 69
Page 7
of individuals recorded by body-worn cameras utilized by
law enforcement officers and the privacy of law enforcement
officers wearing body-worn cameras. SB 195 is pending
referral by the Senate Rules Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Public Defenders Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared
by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744