BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 676| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 676 Author: Cannella (R) Amended: 7/2/15 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/28/15 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/22/15 AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Gaines, Galgiani, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuller SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Disorderly conduct: invasion of privacy SOURCE: Office of the Attorney General DIGEST: This bill requires pre-conviction forfeiture of an image and post-conviction equipment involved in the following offenses: distribution of a sexual image that the distributor and the person depicted have agreed or understood would remain private, surreptitious recording or viewing of a person in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and violating another person's privacy rights by secretly recording the body or undergarments of an identifiable person. SB 676 Page 2 Assembly Amendments limit items subject to forfeiture in cyber-porn revenge cases to the image used in the crime and a data storage device on which the image is found. The computer, camera or electronic device on which the image was stored is only subject to forfeiture if the image cannot be erased. ANALYSIS: Existing law includes a number of misdemeanor crimes concerning violation of a person's right to privacy by surreptitious viewing or recording, generally for sexual gratification. One such crime, commonly described as cyber-porn revenge, is committed under the following circumstances: 1)The defendant electronically distributed an image of another person's intimate body part, or an image of the person engaged in specified sexual conduct. 2)The defendant and the person depicted agreed or understood that the image would remain private. 3)The defendant knew or should have known that the person depicted experience serious emotional distress or humiliation. 4)The person depicted did suffer serious emotional distress. 5)This misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. (Pen. Code § 647, subd. (j)(4).) 6)Provides that computer equipment used is a wide range of crimes is subject to forfeiture. The computer forfeiture law includes a procedure through which an innocent security holder in the equipment can redeem the property or receive compensation equivalent the security interest. (Pen. Code § 502.01.) This bill: 1)Authorizes, upon conviction, forfeiture of computer or electronic equipment used in any of the crimes of non-consensual distribution of an intimate image, surreptitious recording or viewing of a person in a place SB 676 Page 3 where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and violating another person's privacy rights by secretly recording the body or undergarments of an identifiable person. 2)Authorizes pre-conviction forfeiture of an image involved in any of the crimes of non-consensual distribution of an intimate image, surreptitious recording or viewing of a person in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and violating another person's privacy rights by secretly recording the body or undergarments of an identifiable person. A data storage device on which the image is held is subject to pre-conviction forfeiture, but the computer, camera or electronic device on which the image is stored cannot be forfeited unless the image consists solely of electronic information stored on a device that cannot be altered or erased. Background This bill authorizes pre-conviction forfeiture of images that were distributed in the commission of what is commonly called cyber-porn revenge and a number of other invasion of privacy crimes that are typically sexually motivated. Cyber-porn revenge is the distribution of a sexual image that the person depicted in the image and the distributor have agreed or understood shall remain private. The other offenses generally involve images obtained in violation of a person's right to privacy because of the place where the image was taken or where the image is of the person's body underneath outer clothing. The image forfeiture provision requires that the image be "in the possession of" a specified government entity. It thus appears that the image was likely seized in a criminal investigation. However, there appears to be no requirement that a prosecution has been initiated or a conviction obtained. Arguably, once an image is in the possession of a government entity, all copies of the image are subject to forfeiture. However, the actual images involved in these offenses can also be found on myriad computers and servers, including those of an Internet service provider or an entity such as Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr. Unless the image provision applies to such entities, it will likely be ineffective; as one of the major harms of SB 676 Page 4 cyber-porn revenge and other sexual violation of privacy crimes is that an image is essentially uncontrollable once it is released onto the Internet. Assuming the forfeiture provision applies to all copies of the image, it could be very difficult to determine if all of the images have been confiscated. It is also unclear what process the Attorney General, district attorney, city attorney or county counsel would use to obtain the image or images from a third party that has a copy of the image in electronic form, or as a printed photograph or video. This bill also authorizes relatively broad post-conviction forfeiture of computer equipment used in cyber-porn revenge and sexually motivated violation of privacy offenses. This forfeiture provision - Penal Code Section 502.01, subdivision (a)(1) - can be read to mean that all computer equipment, including a computer network, is subject to forfeiture, regardless of whether the defendant owns the property. A third party that did not aid and abet the defendant in committing the crime would argue that he, she or it (in the case of a business) is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court that sentenced the defendant. However, property owned by third parties, or as to which a third party has a security interest, is commonly seized in drug asset forfeiture. If such property is seized in a forfeiture action under Section 502.01, the innocent owner could be forced to appear in the forfeiture action and assert the ownership interest of the person or entity through a motion in redemption. (Pen. Code § 502, subd. (c).) Redeeming property or the value of the property is further complicated by the fact that Section 502.01, (c), is phrased only in terms of a security interest, not outright ownership. A person or entity that owns the property would likely argue that if the defendant had no ownership or leasehold interest in the property, the property is not subject to forfeiture. The determination of that issue is not clear, however. In practice, computer forfeiture is an additional punishment, not prevention of a future crime. The convicted defendant could easily obtain another computer. It is likely that defendants convicted of cyber-porn revenge will be placed on probation with equivalent conditions to the forfeiture provisions in this bill. The convicted defendant can then be monitored on probation and his probation revoked if he SB 676 Page 5 violates the conditions of probation. It appears that the forfeiture provisions in this bill will ensure that equipment used in the crime, and at least some illicit distributed images, will be forfeited upon the defendant's conviction, regardless of whether or not the defendant is placed on probation. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, there are minor absorbable costs. SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/15) Office of the Attorney General (source) Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Association of Deputy District Attorneys California District Attorneys Association California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriffs' Association Crime Victims United of California Los Angeles Police Protective League Peace Officers Research Association of California Riverside Sheriffs Association OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/15) American Civil Liberties Union ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, SB 676 Page 6 Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. / 8/21/15 13:39:36 **** END ****