BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 69|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 69
Author: Rodriguez (D), et al.
Amended: 8/18/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Peace officers: body-worn cameras
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires law enforcement agencies to
consider specified best practices when establishing policies and
procedures for downloading and storing data from body-worn
cameras.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Defines "peace officer," as specified. (Penal Code § 830, et
seq.)
2)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
AB 69
Page 2
recording device. (Penal Code § 632.)
3)Exempts a number of law enforcement agencies from the
prohibition in Penal Code Section 632, 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:
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.
2)States that law enforcement agencies, departments, or entities
must consider the following best practices when establishing
policies and procedures for the implementation and operation
of a body-worn camera system:
a) 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.
b) Establish when data should be downloaded to ensure the
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.
c) Establish specific measures to prevent data tampering,
deleting, and copying, including prohibiting the
unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of body-worn
AB 69
Page 3
camera data.
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) Specifically state the length of time that recorded data
shall be stored;
i) Unless otherwise specified, a law enforcement agency
shall retain nonevidentiary data including video and
audio recorded by a body-worn camera 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.
ii) A law enforcement agency shall retain evidentiary
data including video and audio recorded by a body-worn
camera under this section 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.
iii) 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 shall retain
the recording for any time in addition to the amount of
time specified above and in the same manner as is
required by law for other evidence that may be relevant
to a criminal prosecution.
iv) Each agency must work with their legal counsel to
determine a retention schedule to ensure that storage
policies and practices are in compliance with all
relevant laws and adequately preserve evidentiary chain
of custody.
v) Records or logs of access and deletion of data from
body-worn cameras must be retained permanently.
f) State where the body-worn camera data will be stored;
AB 69
Page 4
including, for example, an in-house server which is managed
internally, or an online cloud database which is managed by
a third- party vendor.
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;
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.
h) 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.
3)Defines "evidentiary data" as data of an incident or encounter
that could prove useful for investigative purposes, including,
but not limited to, a crime, an arrest or citation, a search,
a use of force incident, or a confrontational encounter with a
member of the public. The retention period for evidentiary
data is subject to state evidentiary laws.
4)Defines "nonevidentiary data" refers to data that does not
AB 69
Page 5
necessarily have value to aid in an investigation or
prosecution, such as data of an incident or encounter that
does not lead to an arrest or citation, or data of general
activities the officer might perform while on duty.
5)Clarifies that the provisions in the bill shall not be
interpreted to limit the public's right to access recorded
data under the California Public Records Act.
Background
A number of law enforcement agencies are currently permitted to
utilize body-worn cameras. Existing law, however, does not
require these agencies to have a policy prior to utilizing them.
This bill requires law enforcement to consider best practices
for the retention of body-worn camera data should an agency
draft a policy.
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. (Miller and Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera
Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, Police Executive
Research Forum (Nov. 2014).) 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. (Id.) The report shows that body-worn cameras can
help agencies demonstrate transparency and address the
community's questions about controversial events. (Id.) 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. (Id.) The report
made specified recommendations related to data storage and
retention policiesthis bill seeks to help implement these
recommendations by requiring law enforcement agencies to
consider best practices regarding the downloading and storage of
body-worn camera data.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
AB 69
Page 6
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
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,
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, to the extent these agencies
implement a body-worn camera system in 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.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)
California Public Defenders Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/28/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Public Defenders
Association (CPDA) states:
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.
CPDA believes that this bill is a good start in
AB 69
Page 7
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 5/28/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla,
Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer,
Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte,
O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood,
Atkins
NOES: Harper
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Brough, Grove, Thurmond
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
8/30/15 19:48:57
**** END ****