BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 175
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB
175 (Huff) - As Amended June 18, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
SUBJECT: Peace officers: body-worn cameras.
SUMMARY: Requires law enforcement departments and agencies that
use body-worn cameras to develop a policy for their use, and
requires the policy to address the operational use of the
cameras, storage of data, provisions for internal and public
access and review of data, and training. Specifically, this
bill:
1)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.
2)Requires the policy to be developed in collaboration with
nonsupervisory peace officers.
3)Requires the policy to specify the following:
SB 175
Page 2
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.
c) The procedures for, and limitations on, public
access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras.
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.
e) The training that will be provided on the use of
body-worn cameras.
4)Requires that the policy be provided to each officer required
to wear a body-worn camera.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Makes it a crime to intentionally record a confidential
communication without the consent of all parties to the
communication. (Penal Code (PC) Section 632(a))
2)Exempts specified peace officers from consent requirements for
SB 175
Page 3
the recording of confidential communications if they are
acting within the scope of their authority. (PC 633)
3)Generally requires, pursuant to the California Public Records
Act (CPRA), that public agencies disclose a government record
to the public upon request, unless there is a specific reason
to withhold it or if a public agency can establish that the
public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public
interest in disclosure. (Government Code Section 6250, et
seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed nonfiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill is intended to require the
creation of a formal policy governing the use of body-worn
cameras by law enforcement agencies and requires that policy
to address a variety of issues regarding use of the camera and
access to the data, but without specifying what those policies
should be. SB 175 is author-sponsored.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "As pivotal
events surrounding police use of force have 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..."
SB 175
Page 4
"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 they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies
will eventually be developed on the natural?
"According to PORAC in a letter dated March 2, 2015 to Senator
Huff and Assemblymember Weber, 'Unfortunately, there are also
agencies that have begun the use of body cameras with no
structured polices in place, putting the privacy of officers
and the public in jeopardy, and leaving officers unprotected
when it comes to potential personnel issues. We are learning
as an organization from the experiences of our members on the
ground.'
"?[E]stablishing a BWC program should be done at the local
level with local stakeholders and local policymakers. In
order for BWC programs to be successful, the program needs
support from the community and the frontline officers who will
be wearing the cameras."
3)The use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement . 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 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.
SB 175
Page 5
There is substantial evidence to suggest that body-worn cameras
can have positive effects on policing. A 2012 study of the
Rialto, CA police department's use of body-worn cameras found
that the devices were correlated with a 60% reduction in
officer use of force incidents following camera deployment,
with twice the number of use of force incidents reported among
the group of officers without cameras. The report also found
an 88% reduction in the number of citizens' complaints in the
year after cameras were introduced. To explain the effect of
body-worn cameras, the Rialto Chief of Police was quoted as
saying, "Whether the reduced number of complaints was because
of the officers behaving better or the citizens behaving
better - well, it was probably a little bit of both."
According to a November 2014, report by the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and
the Police Executive Research Forum, a broad survey of police
departments that had deployed body-worn cameras has many
benefits: "body-worn cameras are useful for documenting
evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving
complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening
police transparency, performance and
accountability...body-worn cameras [also] help police
departments ensure events are also captured from an officer's
perspective." However, the report also notes that "[t]he use
of body-worn cameras also raises important questions about
privacy and trust."
4)The California Public Records Act . Video and audio data
produced by peace officers with body-worn cameras is
considered a public record under the CPRA, and is therefore
subject to disclosure to the public unless otherwise exempt.
The CPRA generally requires public agencies to respond to a
records request within 10 days, and make eligible public
records promptly available to a requester who pays the direct
costs of duplication. In order to withhold a record, a public
SB 175
Page 6
agency must demonstrate that a record is exempt under express
provisions of the CPRA, or else must show that "on the facts
of the particular case the public interest served by not
disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure of the record." Whenever a state or
local agency discloses a public record that would otherwise be
exempt, that disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemption.
The CPRA provides a detailed list of information and documents
that are exempt from disclosure, including: personnel files
and records of complaints or investigatory or security files
complied by state or local law enforcement agencies, although
specified written information must be provided regarding the
individuals involved in those incidents or investigations.
5)Arguments in support . According to the California Police
Chiefs Association, "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 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."
The League of California Cities writes, "This measure is an
important initial step in assisting local governments, and
local agencies specifically, in managing the voluntary
acquisition and use of this technology?It is significant that
this legislation specifies that the body camera policy is to
be developed in collaboration with non-supervisory officers,
and that it otherwise lays out broad guidelines for the
components of the policy. The former provision can be
expected to promote the acceptance of any policy by peace
officers unions, assisting the management within police
departments in implementing this transition. The latter
provision provides much needed local flexibility."
SB 175
Page 7
6)Related Legislation. AB 65 (Alejo) redirects 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 in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 66 (Weber) establishes mandatory requirements and
recommended guidelines for the use of body-worn cameras by
peace officers and the handling of the resulting video and
audio data. AB 66 was passed by this Committee on a 6-0 vote,
and was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
AB 69 (Rodriguez) specifies a set of best practices that a law
enforcement agency, department or entity establishing policies
and procedures for the implementation and operation of a
body-worn camera system must consider. AB 69 was passed by
this Committee on an 11-0 vote, and is set for hearing in the
Senate Public Safety Committee on July 17, 2015.
AB 1246 (Quirk) prohibits the disclosure of a recording made
by a body-worn camera, except to the person whose image is
recorded by the body worn camera. AB 1246 was held in the
Assembly Public Safety Committee.
7)Double-referral . This bill was double-referred to the
Assembly Public Safety Committee, where it was heard on June
16, 2015, and passed on a 7-0 vote.
SB 175
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
City of Santa Barbara
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
SB 175
Page 9
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Hank Dempsey / P. & C.P. / (916)
319-2200