BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1671 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Lorena Gonzalez, Chair AB 1671 (Gomez) - As Amended April 25, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill makes it a crime to intentionally disclose, distribute, or attempt to disclose or distribute, in any manner, and for any purpose, the contents of a confidential communication after illegally obtaining it. Specifically, this bill: 1)Provides that a person who illegally records a confidential AB 1671 Page 2 communication and then intentionally discloses or attempts to disclose, or distributes or attempts to distribute, its contents in any manner, in any form, including but not limited to websites and social media, is guilty of a crime. 2)Punishes the disclosure or publishing of illegally recorded confidential communications, or the directs a person to do, as follows: a) For a first offense, the punishment is a fine not exceeding $2,500 per violation and/or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or state prison. b) For a second or subsequent conviction, the punishment is a fine not exceeding $10,000 per violation and/or imprisonment for up to a year in a county jail or state prison. 3)Clarifies that the fines for the crimes of illegal recording of a confidential communication and the use or disclosure of illegally recorded confidential communications apply per violation. FISCAL EFFECT: 1)Likely minor fiscal impact to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). If one person were sentence to state prison, the annual cost to CDCR would be approximately $29,000 per year. 2)Unknown nonreimbursable costs for incarceration, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue. To the extent the crime is treated as a misdemeanor, the cost for incarceration would be minor, but if it is treated as a felony, and the time is served in county jail, the cost could be moderate. AB 1671 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, "AB 1671 updates the law to account for the harm created by broad dissemination over the internet. It aligns the law on unauthorized recording of confidential communications with the law on misappropriation of trade secrets. And it aligns California law with the law of other states that prohibit interception and disclosure of confidential wire, oral, or electronic communications." This bill criminalizes the distribution of an illegally recorded confidential communication by the person who made the illegal recording. 2)Background. Current law defines "confidential communication" as "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 in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. Current law makes it a crime to intentionally, and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, eavesdrop or record that confidential communication. Current law punishes eavesdropping or recording confidential communications as a fine of up to $2,500 and/or imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or as a felony with imprisonment in county jail under Realignment, or both. A subsequent conviction can result in a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment in state prison. 3)Support: According to Planned Parenthood, the sponsor of this bill, "This bill grew out of our unfortunate experience last summer when the Center for Medical Progress published on the internet a series of video recordings it had made surreptitiously at confidential conferences or in private AB 1671 Page 4 conversations with medical providers. These recordings were manipulated heavily to create a narrative entirely different than the full tapes revealed. They suggested Planned Parenthood had broken the law, although a federal judge and two dozen state investigations have concluded that Planned Parenthood broke no law. ? The bill is modeled after similar statutes in other states that extend penalties to use and disclosure as well as taping without consent. 4)Opposition. According to the California Newspaper Publishers Association, "Laws that restrict speech based on content must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. As proposed, AB 1671 is a content-based regulation that is overbroad, vague, and would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment and newsgathering activity. The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), also makes the First Amendment argument, "So important is our ability to obtain and to utilize such information that ALDF has filed no fewer than three federal lawsuits against states that have sought to criminalize the collecting and/or use of information about agricultural practices. Indeed, we have already won one such lawsuit, against the State of Idaho, on the basis that their 'Ag-Gag' law violates the First Amendment and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 AB 1671 Page 5