BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1940
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
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:
No
SUMMARY:
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
supervisor.
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.
COMMENTS:
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
topic.
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
bargained."
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
cameras.
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)
319-2081
AB 1940
Page 6