BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1957
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 25, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1957 (Quirk) - As Amended May 18, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|4 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |8 - 2 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill allows a local governing body to review body-worn
camera (BWC) footage of an officer-involved incident resulting
in death or great bodily injury the day after the incident
occurs. This bill allows the public access to the footage 60
days after the commencement of an investigation, but only if the
investigation does not result in charges of misconduct against
the officer. Footage that relates to domestic violence, crimes
AB 1957
Page 2
against minors, and statements of a witness at the scene of a
crime may not be released unless these portions can be redacted.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No state cost.
Significant cost to local agencies that provide body-worn
cameras to their peace officers. These requirements apply only
if the agency uses body-worn cameras. Furthermore, public
disclosure required by AB 1957 falls under the public access
provision of, Section 3, Article I of the California
Constitution, thus costs associated with these provisions are
not reimbursable.
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 BWCs 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 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.
AB 1957
Page 3
In addition to general policy debates about the relative
merits and effectiveness of BWCs, when and how they should be
used, and whether they will foster trust or distrust among the
community, one important issue concerns whether footage
obtained from BWCs should be treated as a "public record" open
to public inspection, or whether the footage raises unique
privacy and safety issues that would justify some constraints
on public disclosure of the footage.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "Body worn cameras have
many benefits. A 2013 University of Cambridge study found that
when police wear body cameras, both police and respondents are
less likely to use violence. The study indicated a drop in use
of force by more than 50 percent. Body cameras could thus make
the streets safer for both officers and the general public.
Body worn footage can improve the public's view of policing.
"California has an untiring commitment to fairness, civil
rights, community policing, transparency, and justice; AB 1957
seeks to adopt the best practices for release of images
captured by the use of police body-worn cameras in this
state."
AB 1957 attempts to balance the public's interest in access
with the competing privacy interests of persons depicted in
the footage. This bill would create an exception to the
investigative-records exemption of the Public Records Act.
This bill would allow body camera footage depicting an
officer-involved use of force involving great bodily injury or
death which has resulted in an investigation of misconduct to
be made available to the public under the California Public
Records Act, 60 days after the investigation commences, if the
AB 1957
Page 4
investigation does not result in charges of misconduct.
However, there appears to be some ambiguity in this bill; it
provides that the governing body of the law enforcement agency
may review footage by close of business the day after the
incident. It is not clear if such a meeting would be exempt
from the Brown Act - the law which guarantees the public's
right to attend and participate in meetings of local
legislative bodies - and whether notification requirements of
such meetings are waived.
3)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 (Cooper), passed by this Committee on May 18, 2016,
requires law enforcement agencies, departments or entities to
develop a policy for peace officer use of BWCs, 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 the recording
until accompanied by an assigned investigator or supervisor.
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.
AB 1957
Page 5
4)Previous legislation. AB 66 (Weber) would have imposed
specified requirements on a law enforcement agency that
requires its officers to use BWCs, including a requirement
that the policies and procedures being 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 exempt
footage depicting sexual or domestic violence victims from
public disclosure. This bill was held in 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 BWCs.
AB 1246 (Quirk), held in Assembly Public Safety, would have
prohibited the disclosure of a recording made by a BWC, except
to the person whose image is recorded by the BWC.
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 BWCs to
develop a policy relating to their 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 BWCs utilized by law
AB 1957
Page 6
enforcement officers and the privacy of the officers wearing
these cameras.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081