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 --