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