BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 424
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB
424 (Pan) - As Amended April 21, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 35-0
SUBJECT: Law enforcement: communications
SUMMARY: Authorizes university and college peace officers to
overhear or record conversations in sexual assault
investigations as other law enforcement officials do, and
authorizes their use of body-worn cameras generally.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that existing restrictions on electronic
surveillance do not prohibit any Police Officer Standardized
Training (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 in any criminal
investigation related to sexual assault or other sexual
offense.
2)Clarifies that existing restrictions on electronic
SB 424
Page 2
surveillance do not 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.
3)Clarifies that these provisions do not affect the existing
statutory authority for law enforcement acting within the
scope of its authority to overhear or record any
communication, as specified.
4)Declares that these provisions may 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 personal privacy.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Declares the intent of the Legislature 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 (PC) Section 630)
2)Generally prohibits wiretapping, eavesdropping, and using
electronic devices to record or amplify a confidential
communication, and further provides that any evidence so
obtained is inadmissible in any judicial, administrative, or
legislative proceeding. (PC 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and
632.7.)
3)Authorizes one party to a confidential communication to record
SB 424
Page 3
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,
threatening, or annoying phone calls, and further provides
that any evidence so obtained is admissible in a prosecution
for such crimes. (PC 633.5)
4)Provides that, notwithstanding prohibitions on eavesdropping
and other surveillance techniques, 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. (PC 633.6)
5)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, and
further provides that any evidence so obtained is admissible
in any judicial, administrative, or legislative proceeding.
(PC 633)
6)Limits the authority of a member of the California State
University (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 (EDUC) Section 89560)
SB 424
Page 4
7)Limits the authority of a member of the University of
California (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 UC.
(EDUC 92600)
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This measure has been keyed nonfiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill is intended to clarify that
college and university law enforcement officers may overhear
or record conversations as other law enforcement officials
might as part of a criminal investigation of a sexual offense,
and may also utilize body-worn cameras for any lawful purpose.
SB 424 is sponsored by the California College and University
Police Chiefs Association.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, existing law
"allows sworn officers to record the statements of suspects
without notifying them, which would otherwise be prohibited
under state wiretapping laws. This is most often utilized
during suspect interviews/interrogations, in-car recordings of
suspects in custody, and in a pretext phone call situation. A
pretext phone call is the recording of a conversation between
a victim and a known suspect arranged by law enforcement to
gain admissions or other incriminating statements. This
technique provides some of the best evidence in cases of date
rape and other crimes involving no independent witnesses."
"Unfortunately, POST certified officers who protect campuses
such as the California State University and University of
SB 424
Page 5
California systems were not among those [authorized], while
virtually all other police entities in the state were
included. The exact cause of this omission is difficult to
ascertain, however, it is clear today that college and
university law enforcement entities need the ability to obtain
these recordings as dictated by their investigations. Not
only does this omission undermine effective law enforcement,
it has the effect of prohibiting use of Body Worn Cameras by
college and university officers in some circumstances."
"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 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."
"College and University police agencies meet the same POST
requirements of city police and county sheriffs; they face the
same law enforcement challenges. They should have the same
tools with which to address those challenges."
3)Arguments in support . According to the sponsor, the
California College and University Police Chiefs Association,
"SB 424 does two things: It allows sworn, POST-certified
college and university police agencies to record statements of
suspects in the investigation of campus sexual assault and
sexual offense cases. Sadly, sexual assaults take place
disproportionately on college and university campuses.
Further, it is estimated that the perpetrator is known to the
victim 80% of the time. As amended, SB 424 will enable
college and university police agencies to do "pretext" calls
between the victim and the alleged perpetrator. These
provisions were discussed and agreed to by the Council of
SB 424
Page 6
University of California Faculty Associations."
"Second, SB 424 makes clear that body worn cameras may be used
by sworn POST certified college and university police
agencies. The California College and University Police Chiefs
Association embraces the concept of body worn cameras and
believes they will constitute a major advancement in the
continued professionalism of police services. Ironically,
however, current law prohibits those officers from using body
worn cameras. SB 424 will rectify that statutory glitch and
permit the use of body worn cameras by sworn POST certified
college and university police agencies."
4)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 on the Suspense File
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 passed 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 passed this
Committee on an 11-0 vote, and is set for hearing in the
Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14, 2015.
SB 424
Page 7
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.
SB 178 (Leno) creates the California Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (CalECPA), which generally requires law
enforcement entities to obtain a search warrant before
accessing data on an electronic device or from an online
service provider. SB 178 passed this Committee on a 9-0 vote,
and is set for hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee
on July 14, 2015.
5)Previous legislation . AB 992 (Spitzer), of 2005, would have
authorized UC peace officers and CSU peace officers to
overhear or record communications in any criminal
investigation related to a sex assault or other sexual
offense. AB 992 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
AB 1884 (Spitzer), of 2004, would have authorized city
attorneys prosecuting misdemeanor consumer cases to record or
overhear communications in the same manner as other law
enforcement officials. This bill was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, stating that "[i]f an investigation is of
sufficient importance as to merit electronic eavesdropping, a
city attorney may seek the cooperation and assistance of those
agencies which have the authority to do so."
6)Double-referral . This bill was double-referred to the Assembly
Public Safety Committee, where it was heard on June 30, 2015,
and passed out on a 7-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 424
Page 8
Support
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
(SPONSOR)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Hank Dempsey / P. & C.P. / (916)
319-2200