BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 69 (Rodriguez) - Peace officers: body-worn cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 18, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 24, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 69 would require law enforcement agencies,
departments, and entities to consider specified best practices
when establishing policies and procedures for the implementation
and operation of a body-worn camera system, including issues
related to the downloading and storage of data from body-worn
cameras.
Fiscal
Impact:
Potentially major non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds)
to law enforcement and other local agencies that opt to
implement a body-worn camera system.
Potential major future cost pressure (General Fund/Special
Fund) to various state agencies including but not limited to
the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Department of Justice
(DOJ), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), and the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to the
extent these agencies implement a body-worn camera system in
AB 69 (Rodriguez) Page 1 of
?
the future. The 2015 Budget Act includes $1 million for the
CHP to conduct a pilot program to study the use of body-worn
cameras.
Background: As the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies
becomes more prevalent, it is becoming increasingly important
for agencies to consider and institute best practices for the
utilization of this technology.
The U.S. Department of Justice noted in its report on the use of
body-worn cameras by police agencies, Implementing a Body-Worn
Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned (Miller and
Toliver, November 2014), that body-worn cameras can assist
agencies in demonstrating transparency and help address the
community's concerns regarding controversial events. The report
discussed various benefits of the technology and made specified
recommendations with regard to data storage and retention
policies. This bill seeks to ensure that agencies choosing to
implement body-worn cameras do so using best practices when
establishing policies and procedures for downloading and storing
data from body-worn cameras.
Proposed Law:
This bill 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. This bill requires law enforcement agencies,
departments, or entities to consider the following best
practices when establishing policies and procedures for the
implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system:
Designate the person responsible for downloading the
recorded data from the body-worn camera. If the storage
system does not have automatic downloading capability, the
officer's supervisor should take immediate physical custody
of the camera and should be responsible for downloading the
data in the case of an incident involving the use of force
by an officer, an officer-involved shooting, or other
serious incident.
Establish when data should be downloaded to ensure the
AB 69 (Rodriguez) Page 2 of
?
data is entered into the system in a timely manner, the
cameras are properly maintained and ready for the next use,
and for purposes of tagging and categorizing the data.
Establish specific measures to prevent data tampering,
deleting, and copying, including prohibiting the
unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of body-worn
camera data.
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;
Specifically state the length of time that recorded data
is to be stored.
o Unless either of the paragraphs below applies,
nonevidentiary data including video and audio recorded by
a body-worn camera should be retained for a minimum of 60
days, after which it will be erased, destroyed, or
recycled. Agencies may keep data longer to preserve
transparency and to have it available in case a citizen
complaint arises.
o Evidentiary data including video and audio recorded
by a body-worn camera under this section should be
retained for a minimum of two years when the recording is
of an incident involving use of force or an
officer-involved shooting, an incident that leads to the
detention or arrest of an individual, or is relevant to a
formal or informal complaint against an officer or a law
enforcement agency.
o If evidence that may be relevant to a criminal
prosecution is obtained from a recording made by a
body-worn camera, the law enforcement agency should
retain the recording for any time in addition to the
amount of time specified above and in the same manner as
AB 69 (Rodriguez) Page 3 of
?
is required by law for other evidence that may be
relevant to a criminal prosecution.
o In determining a retention schedule, each agency
should work with its legal counsel to ensure that storage
policies and practices are in compliance with all
relevant laws and adequately preserve evidentiary chain
of custody.
o Records or logs of access and deletion of data from
body-worn cameras should be retained permanently.
State where the body-worn camera data will be stored;
including, for example, an in-house server which is managed
internally, or an online cloud database which is managed by
a third- party vendor.
If using a third-party vendor to manage the data storage
system, specifies factors that should be considered to
protect the security and integrity of the data:
Require that all recorded data from body-worn cameras
are property of their respective law enforcement agency and
shall not be accessed or released for any unauthorized
purpose, explicitly prohibit agency personnel from
accessing recorded data for personal use and from uploading
recorded data onto public and social media Internet Web
sites, and include sanctions for violations of this
prohibition.
Related
Legislation: SB 175 (Huff) 2015 would require every law
enforcement department and agency that elects to require its
peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy
relating to the use of those cameras, as specified. This bill is
pending on the Assembly Floor.
AB 69 (Rodriguez) Page 4 of
?
SB 424 (Pan) Chapter 159/2015 would authorize peace officers of
a university or college campus to eavesdrop in any criminal
investigation related to sexual assault or other sexual
offenses, and to use or operate body-worn cameras.
Staff
Comments: This bill requires agencies that opt to implement a
body-worn camera system to consider best practices including
guidelines for downloading and storing body-worn camera data. As
a result, the provisions of this bill could result in
significant non-reimbursable local costs for local agencies
implementing the best practices outlined in the bill. The
provisions of this bill also create significant future cost
pressure on state agencies including but not limited to the CHP,
DOJ, CDCR, and DFW to the extent these agencies implement a
body-worn camera system in the future.
Staff notes the 2015 Budget Act (AB 93 (Chapter 10/2015))
authorizes $1 million from the Motor Vehicle Account for the CHP
to conduct a pilot program to study the use of body-worn
cameras. Prior to expenditure of these funds, the CHP is
required to outline the proposed scope of the study in writing
to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the chairpersons
of the budget subcommittees in both houses.
According to a recent article by the Pew Charitable Trust
entitled "States Struggle to Pay for Police Body Cameras," (May
1, 2015):
As the nationwide push intensifies for police to wear
body cameras, states and cities have encountered one
consistent roadblock to adopting the technology: the
cost.
The Police Executive Research Forum survey found most
agencies spent between $800 and $1,200 per camera to
purchase them, a daunting price tag for departments
already strapped for cash.
But it is the ongoing costs that are the real
challenge. The New Orleans Police Department plans to
AB 69 (Rodriguez) Page 5 of
?
purchase 350 body cameras, but is budgeting $1.2
million over five years, mostly for data storage.
Other departments, the police forum found, expect to
spend $2 million for a few years of data storage.
Many states are debating the issues that surround
police cameras without tackling the funding question,
said Richard Williams, a criminal justice policy
specialist with the NCSL. In many instances, he said,
lawmakers are focused how long departments should have
to keep video, and if or when recordings should be
made public. ?
Miller, with the Police Executive Research Forum, said
those issues are important, but that for police
departments, cost is the overriding concern.
Officers could potentially record millions of videos a
year, any number of which could be used as part of a
criminal proceeding, a public records request or for
another official purpose. The cost of downloading,
logging, handling and storing all that video can be
staggering. ?
Most of the agencies that we worked with say the
biggest issue is the backend data storage," she said.
"It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to store
video each year."
-- END --