BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 175
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
175 (Huff) - As Amended April 21, 2015
SUMMARY: Requires 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. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that the policy shall be developed in collaboration
with nonsupervisory officers.
2)States that the policy shall include, at minimum, all of the
SB 175
Page 2
following:
a) The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras
shall be worn and operational;
b) The length of time video collected by officers will be
stored by the department or agency;
c) The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to
recordings taken by body-worn cameras, in accordance with
the California Public Records Act;
d) The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data,
including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to
access data and the circumstances in which recorded data
may be reviewed; and,
e) The training that will be provided on the use of
body-worn cameras.
3)Provides that the policy shall be provided to each officer
required to wear a body-worn camera.
EXISTING LAW:
SB 175
Page 3
1)States that every person who, intentionally and without the
consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by
means of any electronic amplifying or recording device,
eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication,
whether the communication is carried on among the parties in
the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph,
telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by
both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 632, subd.
(a).)
2)Defines "confidential communication" to include 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 any legislative, judicial,
executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or
in any circumstance that the parties may reasonably expect
that the communication may be overheard or recorded. (Pen.
Code, § 632, subd. (c).)
3)Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting
eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law
enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting
within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or
recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear
or record. (Pen. Code, § 633.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
SB 175
Page 4
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "As pivotal
events surrounding police use of force has become the focus of
important national debate, it is necessary to explore law
enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a
statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC
technology is relatively new and some agencies have started
using BWC's without providing comprehensive policies for their
use.
"BWC technology will only be as effective as its policies and
procedure are. Having talked with members of numerous law
enforcement agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is
unacceptable. Many agencies have already begun reaching out
to community leaders and other agencies to provide policy
recommendations regarding privacy rights, data storage, and
accountability measures. It is vital that any legislative
framework regarding BWC policies remain flexible so that local
agencies can develop policies and procedures that lineup with
community needs and agency resources.
"SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious
public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement
agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their
departments and the public that they serve, it is obvious that
subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the
natural. This particular Senate Bill is an essential forum
from which to demonstrate the Legislature's commitment to
keeping the discussion focused on the public safety and
privacy rights of all citizens, including our peace officers,
who are tasked with enormous responsibility to protect and to
serve, while preserving the public's trust."
2)Background: A recent report released by U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and
SB 175
Page 5
the Police Executive Research Forum studied the use of
body-worn cameras by police agencies. This research included
a survey of 250 police agencies, interviews with more than 40
police executives, a review of 20 existing body-camera
policies, and a national conference at which more than 200
police chiefs, sheriffs, federal justice representatives, and
other experts shared their knowledge of and experiences with
body-worn cameras. The report shows that body-worn cameras
can help agencies demonstrate transparency and address the
community's questions about controversial events. Among other
reported benefits are that the presence of a body-worn camera
have helped strengthen officer professionalism and helped to
de-escalate contentious situations, and when questions do
arise following an event or encounter, police having a video
record helps lead to a quicker resolution. (Miller and
Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program:
Recommendations and Lessons Learned, Police Executive Research
Forum (Nov. 2014).)
The report recommends that each agency develop its own
comprehensive written policy to govern body-worn camera usage,
that includes the following:
a) Basic camera usage, including who will be assigned to
wear the cameras and where on the body the cameras are
authorized to be placed;
b) The designated staff member(s) responsible for ensuring
cameras are charged and in proper working order, for
reporting and documenting problems with cameras, and for
reissuing working cameras to avert malfunction claims if
critical footage is not captured;
c) Recording protocols, including when to activate the
camera, when to turn it off, and the types of circumstances
SB 175
Page 6
in which recording is required, allowed, or prohibited;
d) The process for downloading recorded data from the
camera, including who is responsible for downloading, when
data must be downloaded, where data will be stored, and how
to safeguard against data tampering or deletion;
e) The method for documenting chain of custody;
f) The length of time recorded data will be retained by the
agency in various circumstances;
g) The process and policies for accessing and reviewing
recorded data, including the persons authorized to access
data and the circumstances in which recorded data can be
reviewed;
h) Policies for releasing recorded data to the public,
including protocols regarding redactions and responding to
public disclosure requests; and,
i) Policies requiring that any contracts with a third-party
vendor for cloud storage explicitly state that the videos
are owned by the police agency and that its use and access
are governed by agency policy.
SB 175
Page 7
(Id. at pp. 37-38.)
This bill seeks to implement some of these recommendations, by
requiring any agency that uses body-worn cameras to have a
policy specifying: the duration, time, and place that
body-worn cameras must be worn and operational; the length of
time video collected by officers will be stored by the
department or agency; the procedures for, and limitations on,
public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras,
provided that those procedures and limitations are in
accordance with state law that governs public access to
records; and the process for accessing and reviewing recorded
data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to
access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may
be reviewed.
The report also highlighted the need for training on the use
of body-worn cameras and the applicable procedures and
policies. (Id. at pp. 47-48) This bill states that the policy
developed by each agency must include the training that will
be provided on the use of body-worn cameras. Lastly, the bill
requires that each officer who has to wear a body-worn camera
must be provided with a copy of the policies.
3)Argument in Support: According to the California Police
Chiefs' Association, "SB 175 would require every 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. We concur that
agencies that elect to utilize body worn cameras should have
an inclusive and vetted policy in place prior to the
implementation of the agency's body worn camera program.
SB 175
Page 8
"SB 175 allows for local discretion in the creation of agency
policies. This approach allows each agency to develop and
implement the best policy for their department and community."
4)Related Legislation:
a) AB 65 (Alejo), would redirect funds from the Driver
Training Penalty Assessment Fund and allocates that money
to the Board of State and Community Corrections to be used
to fund local law enforcement agencies to operate a body
worn camera program. AB 65 was held on the Committee on
Appropriations' Suspense File.
b) AB 66 (Weber), would create statewide policies and
guidelines for law enforcement agencies that require its
officers to wear body-worn cameras. AB 66 is pending
hearing by the Committee on Appropriations.
c) AB 69 (Rodriguez), would require law enforcement
agencies to consider specified best practices when
establishing policies and procedures for downloading and
storing data from body-worn cameras. AB 69 is pending
referral by the Senate Rules Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
SB 175
Page 9
City of Santa Barbara
City of Visalia
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Opposition
None
SB 175
Page 10
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744