BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    AB 1940

                                                                    Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  May 18, 2016


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

          1940 (Cooper) - As Amended May 3, 2016

          |Policy       |Public Safety                  |Vote:|6 - 0        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |Privacy and Consumer           |     |10 - 0       |
          |             |Protection                     |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |

          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   


          This bill requires law enforcement agencies, departments or  
          entities to develop a policy for peace officer use of body-worn  
          cameras, makes that policy subject to collective bargaining, and  
          requires that the policy allow a peace officer to review camera  
          footage before making a report or statement.  A peace officer  
          involved in a serious use of force, as defined, may not review  


                                                                    AB 1940

                                                                    Page  2

          the recording until accompanied by an assigned investigator or  

          FISCAL EFFECT:

          No state cost. 

          Significant nonreimbursable cost to local agencies that provide  
          body-worn cameras to their peace officers.  These requirements  
          apply only if the agency uses body-worn cameras.


          1)Background. As a result of a string of well-publicized  
            incidents involving the use of force by law enforcement  
            officers against African-American men, beginning with the  
            shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9,  
            2014, a public debate has emerged over the use of body-worn  
            cameras by peace officers.  According to the National  
            Conference of State Legislatures, there are no fewer than 30  
            states currently considering some form of legislation on the  

            A body-worn camera (BWC) is a small video camera - typically  
            attached to an officer's clothing, helmet or sunglasses - that  
            can capture, from an officer's point of view, video and audio  
            recordings of activities, including traffic stops, arrests,  
            searches, interrogations, and critical incidents such as  
            officer-involved shootings or serious use of force. 

          2)Purpose. According to the author, "AB 1940 requires law  
            enforcement agencies to develop, through the collective  


                                                                    AB 1940

                                                                    Page  3

            bargaining process, policies and procedures on the use of body  
            worn cameras (BWC).  Additionally, the bill authorizes officer  
            review of BWC footage and recommends best practices for law  
            enforcement to consider when establishing policies."

            This bill is intended to establish certain rights for peace  
            officers that use body-worn cameras while on duty, including  
            the right to review camera footage before making a report and  
            the right to have a formal policy regarding body-worn camera  
            use subject to collective bargaining.

          3)Support.  According to the sponsor, "PORAC supports the use of  
            body worn camera when they are implemented and used  
            responsibly.  With the addition of a body worn camera policy  
            that would require an officer to view the footage prior to  
            making a statement, we believe that the reports and  
            conclusions will be more detailed, relevant and inherently  
            more accurate.  The other important aspect of this bill is  
            that all of these policies and procedures are collectively  

          4)Opposition.  The American Civil Liberties Union of California  
            is concerned that requiring "that every police department  
            allow a peace officer to review BWC recordings before he or  
            she makes a report, gives an internal affairs statement, or  
            testifies in any criminal or civil proceeding.  Creating such  
            a right would seriously undermine effective investigation and  
            fair determination of alleged misconduct."

          5)Related legislation.  AB 2533 (Santiago), passed by this  
            Committee on May 5, 2016, requires that a public safety  
            officer be given a minimum of three business days' notice  
            before any audio or video data of the officer that was  
            recorded by the officer may be publicly released by the  
            department or other public agency on the Internet.  


                                                                    AB 1940

                                                                    Page  4

            AB 1957 (Quirk), also on today's agenda, requires a law  
            enforcement agency to confidentially review body worn camera  
            from serious use of force incidents and require a judicial  
            determination to set the terms of any public release of such  
            footage, while generally requiring the disclosure of footage  
            60 days after the commencement of a misconduct investigation  
            and restricting the public disclosure of footage depicting  
            domestic violence victims, minors, or witness statements.

            AB 2611 (Low), pending in the Assembly, exempts from  
            disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) any  
            visual or audio recording of another that depicts death or  
            serious bodily injury in such a morbid and sensational manner  
            that the content is highly offensive to a reasonable person,  
            and any public interest or law enforcement purpose for  
            disclosure is clearly outweighed by the public interest in  
            nondisclosure, and any recording of the death of a peace  
            officer, unless authorized by his or her family. 

          6)Previous legislation.  AB 66 (Weber) would have imposed  
            specified requirements on a law enforcement agency that  
            requires its officers to use body worn cameras, including a  
            requirement that the policies and procedures be posted online,  
            that peace officers be banned from making personal copies of  
            video footage, that officers be allowed to review their own  
            footage before making an initial statement and report, and  
            exempting footage depicting sexual or domestic violence  
            victims from public disclosure.  This bill was held on this  
            Committee's Suspense file. 

            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.


                                                                    AB 1940

                                                                    Page  5

            AB 1246 (Quirk), held in Assembly Public Safety, would have  
            prohibited the disclosure of a recording made by a body-worn  
            camera, except to the person whose image is recorded by the  
            body worn camera.  

            SB 175 (Huff), currently inactive on the Assembly floor,  
            requires each department or agency that employs peace officers  
            and elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn  
            cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn  

            SB 195 (Anderson), held in Senate Rules, would have stated the  
            intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that protects  
            the privacy of individuals recorded by body-worn cameras  
            utilized by law enforcement officers and the privacy of the  
            officers wearing these cameras.

          Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)  


                                                                    AB 1940

                                                                    Page  6