BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 424 (Pan) - Law enforcement: communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 21, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 11, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 424 would authorize peace officers of a university
or college campus to eavesdrop in any criminal investigation
related to sexual assault or other sexual offenses, and to use
or operate body-worn cameras.
Fiscal
Impact: Potential major future cost pressure in the millions of
dollars (General Fund) to the extent the University of
California, California Community Colleges, and the California
State University elect to utilize the authority provided in this
measure, resulting in one-time and ongoing expenditures for
resources, training, equipment, and storage.
Background: Existing law declares legislative intent to protect the right
of privacy of the People of California and recognizes that law
enforcement agencies have a legitimate need to employ modern
listening devices and techniques to investigate criminal
SB 424 (Pan) Page 1 of
?
conduct. (Penal Code (PC) § 630.)
Existing law generally prohibits wiretapping, eavesdropping, and
using electronic devices to record or amplify a confidential
communication. It further provides that any evidence so obtained
is inadmissible in any judicial, administrative, or legislative
proceeding. (PC §§ 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7.)
Existing law exempts the Attorney General, any district
attorney, specified peace officers such as city police and
county sheriffs, and a person acting under the direction of an
exempt agency from the prohibitions against wiretapping and
other related activities to the extent that they may overhear or
record any communication that they were lawfully authorized to
overhear or record prior to the enactment of the prohibitions.
Existing law provides that any evidence so obtained is
admissible in any judicial, administrative, or legislative
proceeding. (PC § 633.)
Proposed Law:
This bill would authorize peace officers of a university or
college campus to eavesdrop in any criminal investigation
related to sexual assault or other sexual offense, and to use or
operate body-worn cameras. Specifically, this bill
Provides that nothing in specified provisions of
existing law prohibits any POST-certified chief of police,
assistant chief prohibits any POST-certified chief of
police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a
university or college campus acting within the scope of his
or her authority, from overhearing or recording any
communication that he or she could lawfully overhear or
record prior to January 1, 1968, in any criminal
investigation related to sexual assault or other sexual
offense.
Provides that nothing in specified provisions of
existing law shall prohibit any POST-certified chief of
police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a
university or college campus from using or operating
body-worn cameras.
Provides that the provisions of this bill are not be
construed to affect Section 633.
Provides that this section shall not be used to impinge
upon the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected
rights of freedom of speech or assembly, or the
SB 424 (Pan) Page 2 of
?
constitutionally protected right of person privacy.
Related
Legislation: SB 175 (Huff) 2015 would require every law
enforcement department and agency that elects to require its
peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy
relating to the use of those cameras, as specified. This bill is
pending referral in the Assembly.
Prior Legislation: AB 992 (Spitzer) 2005 would have added the
University of California peace officers and California State
University peace officers to overhear or record communications
in any criminal investigation related to a sex assault or other
sexual offense. This bill failed passage in the Senate Committee
on Public Safety.
AB 1884 (Spitzer) 2004 would have added city attorneys
prosecuting misdemeanor cases to the list of law enforcement
officers who are authorized to record or overhear
communications. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1884 without my
signature. I strongly support the need to provide law
enforcement with as many tools as necessary to
adequately protect the citizens of California. The
process in current law ensures that if a prosecutor
decides there is a need to broach a person's privacy
in an investigation there is a process in place which
balances the need of the investigation against a
person's right to privacy. If an investigation is of
sufficient importance as to merit electronic
eavesdropping, a city attorney may seek the
cooperation and assistance of those agencies which
presently have the authority to do so.
City attorneys who prosecute misdemeanor cases are a
vital component in the criminal justice system. While
this bill would eliminate one extra step they
currently must go through to obtain permission to
SB 424 (Pan) Page 3 of
?
record and use communications in an investigation, it
is not a process that should be streamlined.
Staff
Comments: By authorizing specified peace officers of a
university or college campus to overhear or record
communications in criminal investigations related to sexual
assault or other sexual offenses, and to use or operate
body-worn cameras, the provisions of this create major future
cost pressure to the extent University of California, California
Community Colleges, and the California State University elect to
utilize the authority provided in this measure, resulting in
one-time and ongoing expenditures for resources, training,
equipment, and storage. The potential future costs are unknown,
but potentially in the hundreds of thousands to millions of
dollars statewide.
According to a recent article by the Pew Charitable Trust
entitled "States Struggle to Pay for Police Body Cameras," (May
1, 2015):
As the nationwide push intensifies for police to wear
body cameras, states and cities have encountered one
consistent roadblock to adopting the technology: the
cost.
The price of a single camera ranges widely, from less
than $100 to more than $1,000, based on the size of
the purchase (larger police departments often get a
discount) and whether the deal includes data storage
services. But managing and storing the video costs
many times the price of the cameras themselves. And
because the technology is so new, it's likely that it
will have to be replaced fairly quickly, which would
require additional expenditures. ?
The Police Executive Research Forum survey found most
agencies spent between $800 and $1,200 per camera to
purchase them, a daunting price tag for departments
already strapped for cash.
But it is the ongoing costs that are the real
SB 424 (Pan) Page 4 of
?
challenge. The New Orleans Police Department plans to
purchase 350 body cameras, but is budgeting $1.2
million over five years, mostly for data storage.
Other departments, the police forum found, expect to
spend $2 million for a few years of data storage.
Many states are debating the issues that surround
police cameras without tackling the funding question,
said Richard Williams, a criminal justice policy
specialist with the NCSL. In many instances, he said,
lawmakers are focused how long departments should have
to keep video, and if or when recordings should be
made public. ?
Miller, with the Police Executive Research Forum, said
those issues are important, but that for police
departments, cost is the overriding concern.
Officers could potentially record millions of videos a
year, any number of which could be used as part of a
criminal proceeding, a public records request or for
another official purpose. The cost of downloading,
logging, handling and storing all that video can be
staggering. ?
"Most of the agencies that we worked with say the
biggest issue is the backend data storage," she said.
"It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to store
video each year."
-- END --