BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 424|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 424
Author: Pan (D)
Amended: 4/21/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/28/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Law enforcement: communications
SOURCE: California College and University Police Chiefs
Association
DIGEST: This bill allows university and college peace officers
to eavesdrop in any criminal investigation related to sexual
assault or other sexual offense and to wear body-worn cameras.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes that a member of the University of California (UC)
Police Department whose primary duty is the enforcement of the
law within the specified jurisdictional areas is a peace
officer. (Penal Code § 830.2(b).)
SB 424
Page 2
2)Limits the authority of a member of the UC Police Department
to the UC campuses, an area within one mile of the exterior
boundaries of each campus, and other properties owned or
operated by the Regents of the University of California.
(Education Code § 92600.)
3)Establishes that a member of the California State University
(CSU) Police Department whose primary duty is the enforcement
of the law within the specified jurisdictional areas is a
peace officer. (Penal Code § 830.2(c).)
4)Limits the authority of a member of the CSU Police Department
to the CSU campuses, an area within one mile of the exterior
boundaries of each campus, and other CSU owned or operated
properties. (Education Code § 89560.)
5)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 conduct.
(Penal Code § 630.)
6)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. (Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 632.5,
632.6, and 632.7.)
7)Permits one party to a confidential communication to record
the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence
reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another
party to the communication of the crime of extortion,
kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the
person, or a violation of the law against obscene,
SB 424
Page 3
threatening, or annoying phone calls. Existing law further
provides that any evidence so obtained is admissible in a
prosecution for such crimes. (Penal Code § 633.5.)
8)Provides that notwithstanding prohibitions to eavesdropping,
etcetera, upon the request of a victim of domestic violence
who is seeking a domestic violence restraining order, a judge
issuing the order may include a provision in the order that
permits the victim to record any prohibited communication made
to him or her by the perpetrator. (Penal Code § 633.6.)
9)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. Any
evidence so obtained is admissible in any judicial,
administrative, or legislative proceeding. (Penal Code §
633.)
This bill:
1)Provides that nothing prohibits POST (Peace Officer Standards
and Training)-certified peace officers of a university or
college campus from eavesdropping in any criminal
investigation related to sexual assault or other sexual
offense.
2)Provides that nothing prohibits POST-certified peace officers
of a university or college campus from using or operating
body-worn cameras.
3)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 constitutionally
protected right of person privacy.
SB 424
Page 4
Background
Penal Code section 631 et seq. sets forth a comprehensive
statutory scheme protecting the right of privacy by prohibiting
unlawful wiretapping and other forms of illegal electronic
eavesdropping. Unless a specific exception applies, persons may
not intercept, record, or listen to confidential communications
whether on a conventional, cordless, or cellular telephone.
A significant exception is described in Penal Code section 633.
The Attorney General, any district attorney, specified peace
officers, and any person acting pursuant to the direction of a
law enforcement officer may lawfully overhear or record certain
communications.
This bill allows university and college peace officers to
eavesdrop in any criminal investigation related to sexual
assault. This bill also allows these police forces to use body
cameras. Eavesdropping allows them to authorize another to make
a pretext call, for example, in a sexual assault case permitting
the victim to tape the accused perpetrator in a conversation
where she gets him to admit there was no consent.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, potential
major future cost pressure in the millions of dollars (General
Fund) to the extent the UC, California Community Colleges, and
the CSU elect to utilize the authority provided in this bill,
resulting in one-time and ongoing expenditures for resources,
training, equipment, and storage.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/28/15)
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
(source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Narcotic Officers Association
SB 424
Page 5
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/15)
ACLU
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of their position that it
is appropriate to include university and college peace officers
in the exception to eavesdropping, the sponsor makes the
following points:
College and university police departments meet the
same POST training and certification requirements of
every municipal police and county sheriff agency and,
just like those agencies, engage in ongoing training
to continually enhance their knowledge and
professionalism.
Although not generally realized, officers in a college
and university environment are charged with the
handling of some of the most serious events in our
society. According to a study by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, there were 39 incidents that
occurred in an educational environment in the United
States between 2000 and 2013. These incidents at
school and college campuses accounted for some of the
highest casualty counts in the nation.
College and university police officers are also
responsible for investigating sexual assaults against
students, which is a burgeoning problem given the
availability of alcohol, the pernicious presence of
controlled substances used to facilitate a sexual
assault and a newfound absence of parental
supervision.
In addition to crimes like active shooter and sexual
assault, college and university police agencies deal
with the same array of criminal activity that takes
SB 424
Page 6
place in a non-campus environment. Campuses are not
cocooned bubbles and criminal activity truly knows no
jurisdictional boundaries. Over the most recent two
year period, there were nearly six thousand serious
crimes committed on our campuses. These crimes, which
are required to be reported pursuant to the Clery Act,
include murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults,
robbery, aggravated assaults, burglary, vehicle thefts
and arson.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The ACLU opposes this bill stating:
We do not believe the authority to engage in
eavesdropping should be extended. Restrictions on the
use of eavesdropping apparatus were originally enacted
to ensure that such activities would be undertaken
only in absolutely justifiable situations and under
strict control. We have consistently opposed all
previous efforts to expand this authority.
University and college campuses are environments in
which the free exchange of views and ideas play a
critical role. Freedom of speech and expression must
be carefully and thoughtfully protected. These
freedoms foster the advancement of knowledge, and help
provide students and faculty with a sense of safety
and comfort. Giving campus police officers broad
powers of surveillance could end up having a chilling
effect on these freedoms, and could lead to
adversarial relationships between campus police,
faculty and the student body.
Campus law enforcement often lacks the training,
supervision, and accountability to help ensure the
powers granted by SB 424 would be used in a
constitutionally acceptable manner. If an
investigation is of sufficient importance to merit
electronic eavesdropping, campus police should seek
cooperation and assistance of those agencies that
presently have the authority to do so. Creating
further encouragement and incentive to engage in
electronic surveillance is inconsistent with the
legitimate expectation of privacy surrounding our
SB 424
Page 7
personal and confidential communications.
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
5/31/15 12:01:00
**** END ****