BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1860
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
Counsel: David Billingsley
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
1860 (Alejo) - As Amended March 17, 2016
SUMMARY: Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC) to develop a grant program to make funds available to
local law enforcement entities to purchase body-worn cameras and
related data storage and equipment, and to hire personnel
necessary to operate a local body-worn camera program.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires BSCC to develop a grant program to make funds
available to local law enforcement entities to purchase
body-worn cameras and related data storage and equipment, and
to hire personnel necessary to operate a local body-worn
camera program.
2)Deletes the transfer requirement for the Driver Training
Penalty Assessment Fund and instead require a transfer to the
Body-worn Camera Fund.
3)Creates the Body-worn Camera Fund, that would continuously
appropriate funds to the board for those purposes.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 1860
Page 2
1)States that there shall be levied a state penalty in the
amount of ten dollars ($10) for every ten dollars ($10), or
part of ten dollars ($10), upon every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all
criminal offenses, including all offenses, except parking
offenses as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (a)(1).)
2)Specifies that after a determination by the court of the
amount due, the clerk of the court shall collect the penalty
and transmit it to the county treasury. A specified portion
shall be deposited in the appropriate county fund and 70
percent of the balance shall then be transmitted to the State
Treasury, to be deposited in the State Penalty Fund, which is
hereby created, and 30 percent to remain on deposit in the
county general fund. (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (e).)
3)The moneys so deposited in the State Penalty Fund shall be
distributed as follows:
a) Once a month there shall be transferred into the Fish
and Game Preservation Fund an amount equal to 0.33 percent
of the state penalty funds deposited in the State Penalty
Fund during the preceding month, except that the total
amount shall not be less than the state penalty levied on
fines or forfeitures for violation of state laws relating
to the protection or propagation of fish and game. These
moneys shall be used for the education or training of
department employees which fulfills a need consistent with
the objectives of the Department of Fish and Game; (Pen.
Code, § 1464, subd. (f)(1).)
b) Once a month there shall be transferred into the
Restitution Fund an amount equal to 32.02 percent of the
state penalty funds deposited in the State Penalty Fund
during the preceding month; (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd.
(f)(2).)
c) Once a month there shall be transferred into the Peace
Officers' Training Fund an amount equal to 23.99 percent of
the state penalty funds deposited in the State Penalty Fund
during the preceding month; (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd.
AB 1860
Page 3
(f)(3).)
d) Once a month there shall be transferred into the Driver
Training Penalty Assessment Fund an amount equal to 25.70
percent of the state penalty funds deposited in the State
Penalty Fund during the preceding month; (Pen. Code, §
1464, subd. (f)(4).)
e) Once a month there shall be transferred into the
Corrections Training Fund an amount equal to 7.88 percent
of the state penalty funds deposited in the State Penalty
Fund during the preceding month. Money in the Corrections
Training Fund is not continuously appropriated and shall be
appropriated in the Budget Act; (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd.
(f)(5).)
f) Once a month there shall be transferred into the Local
Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Training Fund
established pursuant to Section 11503 an amount equal to
0.78 percent of the state penalty funds deposited in the
State Penalty Fund during the preceding month. The amount
so transferred shall not exceed the sum of eight hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($850,000) in any fiscal year. The
remainder in excess of eight hundred fifty thousand dollars
($850,000) shall be transferred to the Restitution Fund;
(Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (f)(6).)
g) Once a month there shall be transferred into the
Victim-Witness Assistance Fund an amount equal to 8.64
percent of the state penalty funds deposited in the State
Penalty Fund during the preceding month; and (Pen. Code, §
1464, subd. (f)(7).)
h) Once a month there shall be transferred into the
Traumatic Brain Injury Fund an amount equal to 0.66 percent
of the state penalty funds deposited into the State Penalty
Fund during the preceding month. (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd.
(f)(8).)
4)When establishing policies and procedures for the
implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, law
enforcement agencies, departments, or entities shall consider
AB 1860
Page 4
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. (Pen. Code, §
832.18, subd. (b)(1).)
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.
(Pen. Code, § 832.18, subd. (b)(2).)
c) Establish specific measures to prevent data tampering,
deleting, and copying, including prohibiting the
unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of body-worn
camera data. (Pen. Code, § 832.18, subd. (b)(3).)
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. (Pen. Code, §
832.18, subd. (b)(4).)
e) Specifically state the length of time that recorded data
is to be stored. (Pen. Code, § 832.18, subd. (b)(5).)
f) States that nonevidentiary data including video and
audio recorded by a body-worn camera should be retained for
a minimum of 60 days, after which it may be erased,
destroyed, or recycled, except in specified circumstances.
(Pen. Code, § 832.18, subd. (b)(5)(A).)
g) States that evidentiary data including video and audio
recorded by a body-worn camera under this section should be
retained for a minimum of two years under any of the
following circumstances, as specified. (Pen. Code, §
832.18, subd. (b)(5)(B).)
5)Appropriates annually from the Driver Training Penalty
Assessment Fund to the General Fund in the State Treasury and
from the General Fund to the California Energy Extension
AB 1860
Page 5
Service of the Office of Planning and Research a sum as
necessary to establish and maintain a unit for driver
instruction within the State Department of Education as
specified. (Ed. Code, § 41304, subd. (a).)
6)Appropriates from the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund
to the General Fund, then to the State School Fund each fiscal
year, the sum the Superintendent of Public Instruction
certifies as necessary to reimburse on a quarterly basis for
each current fiscal year school districts, county
superintendents of schools, the Department of the Youth
Authority, and the State Department of Education for the
actual cost of instructing pupils in the operation of motor
vehicles. (Ed. Code, § 41304, subd. (b).)
7)Directs that monies, as specified, shall also be appropriated
from the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund the sum the
Superintendent of Public Instruction shall certify as
necessary to reimburse on a quarterly basis for each current
fiscal year school districts, county superintendents of
schools, the Department of the Youth Authority, and the State
Department of Education for the actual cost of replacing
vehicles and simulators used exclusively in the laboratory
phase of driver education programs, but the amount shall not
exceed three-fourths of that part of the actual cost of
instructing pupils in the laboratory phase of driver education
which is: (1) in excess of ninety-seven dollars ($97) per
pupil instructed, and (2) expended by the district, the county
superintendent of schools, the Department of the Youth
Authority, and the State Department of Education in replacing
the vehicles and simulators. Reimbursement for vehicles shall
be computed for only that portion of the total mileage used
exclusively in the laboratory phase of driver education
programs. (Ed. Code, § 41304, subd. (c).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Having video of
police officers' interactions with the public will help create
AB 1860
Page 6
accountability. Body cameras will help us address problems of
misconduct, absolve officers who've been wrongly accused and
help the public understand things from a public safety
perspective. There are other benefits of police wearing body
cameras that don't get talked about as much, these include
providing evidence in domestic violence cases and enhanced
evidence collection at accident scenes."
2)Federal Justice Department Grants for Body-Worn Cameras: On
September 21, 2015, as part of President Obama's commitment to
building trust and transparency between law enforcement and
the communities they serve, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch
announced that the Justice Department has awarded grants
totaling more than $23.2 million to 73 local and tribal
agencies in 32 states to expand the use of body-worn cameras
and explore their impact. The body-worn camera pilot program
announced in May 2015 includes $19.3 million to purchase
body-worn cameras, $2 million for training and technical
assistance and $1.9 million to examine the impact of their
use. The grants, awarded by the department's Office of
Justice Programs (OJP), build on President Obama's proposal to
purchase 50,000 body-worn cameras for law enforcement agencies
within three years.
( https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-awards-over-
23-million-funding-body-worn-camera-pilot-program-support-law )
"This vital pilot program is designed to assist local
jurisdictions that are interested in exploring and expanding
the use of body-worn cameras in order to enhance transparency,
accountability and credibility," said Attorney General Lynch .
"The impact of body-worn cameras touches on a range of
outcomes that build upon efforts to mend the fabric of trust,
respect and common purpose that all communities need to
thrive."
( https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-awards-over-
23-million-funding-body-worn-camera-pilot-program-support-law )
The grants, which require a 50/50 in-kind or cash match, can be
used to purchase equipment and require that applicants
establish a strong implementation plan and a robust training
policy before purchasing cameras. Each agency awarded a grant
is responsible for developing a plan for long-term storage,
AB 1860
Page 7
including the cost of storing data.
In addition to funds to help purchase body-worn cameras and
train officers in their use, grants under the Bureau of
Justice Assistance's (BJA's) Smart Policing Initiative will
support police departments in Miami, Milwaukee and Phoenix as
they examine the impact of body-worn cameras on citizen
complaints, internal investigations, privacy, community
relationships and cost effectiveness. Each of these three
departments will partner with a research institution to gain
insight on the merits of deploying body-worn camera programs.
( https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-awards-over-
23-million-funding-body-worn-camera-pilot-program-support-law )
3)Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund: This bill plans to
use funds from the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund and
send those funds to the newly created, Body-worn Camera Fund.
The Driver Training Penalty Assessment was set up to provide
funds in accordance with Education Code section 41304.
Education Code Section 41304 lists the fund priorities as
follows.:
a) Establish and maintain a unit for driver instruction
within the State Department of Education;
b) Reimburse actual cost of instructing pupils in the
operation of motor vehicles;
c) Reimburse actual cost of replacing vehicles and
simulators used extensively in the laboratory phase of
driver education programs; and
d) Transfer to other funds pursuant to Control Section
24.10 (b) of the annual Budget Act.
4)Budget Act and Budget Bill Expenditures Already has Claims on
the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund:
As part of the budget process, money from the Driver Training
Penalty Assessment Fund has been allocated to pay for other
policy objectives.
AB 1860
Page 8
Control Section 24.10 of the 2015-16 Budget Act and AB 103
(Budget Bill) transferred funds from the Driver Training
Penalty Assessment Fund as follows:
a) To the Schoolbus Driver Instructor Training in the
Department of Education $1,737,000
b) To the Corrections Training Fund, $9,800,000
c) To the Peace Officers' Training Fund, $14,000,000
d) To the Victim Witness Assistance Fund, $4,121,000
The 2016-17 Budget projections are:
a) To the Schoolbus Driver Instructor Training in the Department
of Education $1,763,000
b) To the Corrections Training Fund, $9,800,000
c) To the Peace Officers' Training Fund, $11,000,000
d) To the Victim Witness Assistance Fund, $4,121,000
e) To the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund, $360,000
5)Argument in Support: According to The League of California
Cities, "This measure will require the Board of State and
Community Corrections (BSCC) to develop a grant program to
fund the acquisition for local law enforcement personnel of
body cameras and related data storage and equipment. This
measure also creates a special fund, entitled the Body-worn
Camera Fund, from which monies will be continuously
appropriated for use by the BSCC in operating the grant
program.
"Monies from the Driver Penalty Assessment Fund will be used to
fund this program. This measure is progressive in nature in
that it avoids both any direct impact on the State General
Fund, as well as any mandate on local agencies, which will be
free to apply to the BSCC on a voluntary basis for funds to
acquire body cameras.
"AB 1860 seeks to take advantage of a three-year federal
allocation of $263 million that will be available in the form
of matching funds to state and local governments that purchase
body cameras."
6)Argument in Opposition: According to The Electronic Frontier
AB 1860
Page 9
Foundation, "EFF believes police body-worn cameras may be
useful in protecting civil liberties, but only if they are
adopted with robust community input and used in line with a
policy that ensures the cameras promote transparency and
accountability of police action.
"We therefore urge that, before authorizing a funding mechanism
to expand their availability to law enforcement agencies, you
amend your bill to require that potential grantees obtain
robust community input prior to submitting funding or other
acquisition requests or applications. Furthermore, we urge
you to amend your bill to require that potential grantees
adopt policies that address the many constitutional and other
concerns associated with the use of body-worn cameras,
including appropriate limits on data collection, data
retention, and dissemination to other agencies.
"First, police body-worn cameras monitor and record parts of an
officer's field of vision. As a result, they frequently
capture the activities of civilians who are not suspected of
any involvement in a criminal act, effectively placing the
public at large under new forms of potentially constant visual
surveillance. Indiscriminate surveillance has always raised
serious Fourth Amendment issues as well as privacy issues
under Art. I., § 1 of the California Constitution.
"Second, the rationale for encouraging law enforcement use of
body-worn cameras is to make police behavior more accountable
to the public. Such accountability requires at least the
limited disclosure of footage from body-worn cameras, for
which the proposed measure includes no provision. EFF
believes that civilians must have appropriate access to such
footage.
"Conversely, to the extent local laws and regulations allow them
to do so, police officers may be able to edit or suppress
footage of incidents revealing potential abuses-or,
alternatively, not to record those incidents in the first
instance. Any legislation or program enabling such
surveillance must address these transparency and
accountability concerns about body-worn cameras, or run the
risk of creating a solution worse than the problem it was
AB 1860
Page 10
enacted to address.
"Finally, rules governing the disclosure of footage from police
body-worn cameras are not only problematic when unspecified,
but also raise profound privacy concerns for individuals
depicted in body camera footage, including victims and
witnesses of crime. Reasonable witnesses may refrain from
sharing their observations with police officers if such
concerns are not addressed.
"These are difficult issues, to be sure. But the state already
requires government policies for surveillance technologies
like automated license-plate recognition systems and Stingrays
(SB 34, SB 741). Moreover, if the state funds acquisition or
use of police body-worn cameras, it should not and cannot
disclaim responsibility for their use.
"In sum, police body-worn cameras present serious issues that
must be addressed prior to the creation of any grant program,
including concerns regarding their constitutionality, their
efficacy, the standards governing the disclosure of body
camera footage, the privacy of Californians who appear in
videos, and public safety. As currently written, AB 1860 does
not address these critical interests at all, let alone strike
a defensible balance among them."
7)Related Legislation:
a) AB 1957 (Quirk), would require a state or local law
enforcement agency to make available, upon request, footage
from a law enforcement body-worn camera 60 days after the
commencement of an investigation into misconduct that uses
or involves that footage. AB 1957 is awaiting hearing in
the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
b) AB 1940 (Cooper), would exempt body-worn camera
recordings that depict the use of force resulting in
serious injury or death from public disclosure pursuant to
the act unless a judicial determination is made, after the
adjudication of any civil or criminal proceeding related to
the use of force incident, that the interest in public
disclosure outweighs the need to protect the individual
AB 1860
Page 11
right to privacy. AB 1940 is awaiting hearing in this
committee.
c) AB 65 (Alejo), would have required BSCC to develop a
grant program to make funds available to local law
enforcement entities to purchase body-worn cameras and
related data storage and equipment, and to hire personnel
necessary to operate a local body-worn camera program. AB
65 would have created the Body-worn Camera Fund, that would
continuously appropriate funds to the board for those
purposes. AB 65 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
d) 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 specified
procedures. AB 66 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
e) 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. SB 175
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 on the Assembly Inactive File.
8)Prior Legislation:
a) AB 69 (Rodriguez), Chapter 461, Statutes of 2015,
Requires law enforcement agencies to consider specified
best practices when establishing policies and procedures
for downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras,
including, among other things, prohibiting the unauthorized
use, duplication, or distribution of the data, and
establishing storage periods for evidentiary and
nonevidentiary data, as defined.
b) AB 790 (Karnette), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session,
would have redirected 4% of funds from the Driver Training
AB 1860
Page 12
Penalty Assessment Fund and allocated that money to the
Department of Justice to be used to support the California
Witness Protection Program. AB 790 was held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
c) SB 1761 (Poochigian), of the 2005-2006 Legislative
Session, would have changed the percentage of money that is
deposited into each of the funds in the State Penalty Fund,
and would have created the Child Advocacy Center Fund, into
which 4.97% of state penalty funds in the State Penalty
Fund would be deposited monthly. SB 1761 was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
d) AB 204 (Lowenthal), of the 2001-2002 Legislative
Session, would have required all funds transferred to the
Driver Penalty Assessment Fund, which would otherwise be
transferred to the General Fund, be appropriated on an
annual basis to the State Department of Education for the
purposes of providing driver training instruction in the
public schools. AB 204 was held in the held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Peace Officers' Association
League of California Cities
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Analysis Prepared
by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
AB 1860
Page 13