BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 690 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Stone |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Privacy
HISTORY
Source: Crime Victims Action Alliance
Prior Legislation: SB 1667 (Burton) Ch. 449, Stats. 1998
Support: Association of Deputy District Attorneys; Association
for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California District
Attorneys Association; Fraternal Order of Police; Long
Beach Police Officers Association; Los Angeles County
Professional Peace Officers Association; Riverside
Sheriffs Association; Santa Ana Police Officers
Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs'
Association
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand provisions making it a
misdemeanor to use an electronic tracking device to determine
the movement of a person to also prohibit the use of such a
device to track an object.
Existing law provides that no person or entity in this state
SB 690 (Stone ) Page
2 of ?
shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the
location or movement of a person. (Penal Code § 637.7(a))
This bill also provides that no person or entity shall use an
electronic device to determine the location or movement of an
object.
Existing law provides that the prohibition on tracking with an
electronic device shall not apply when the registered owner,
lessor or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the
electronic device with respect to that vehicle. (Penal Code §
637(b))
This bill also clarifies that the owner, lessor or lessee of an
object can consent.
Existing law provides that "electronic tracking device" means
any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that
reveals its location or movement by the transmission of
electronic signals. (Penal Code § 637(c))
This bill provides instead that "electronic tracking device"
means any electronic or mechanical device that permits the
tracking of the movement of a person or object.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
SB 690 (Stone ) Page
3 of ?
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
SB 690 (Stone ) Page
4 of ?
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Currently Penal Code Section 637.7 prohibits a private
citizen from using an electronic tracking device to
determine the location or movement of a person.
However Penal Code Section 637.7 has failed to keep up
with new methods of tracking an individual's movements
and/or location. This has created a public safety
emergency for victims of stalking, domestic violence
and sexual assault.
Penal Code Section 637.7 only prohibits the attaching
of an electronic device on vehicle to determine the
movement of the vehicle (or other moveable thing).
When Penal Code Section 637.7 was enacted the term
"cyberstalking" hadn't even been coined yet.
Today there are multiple versions of spyware available
that allow individuals to track a victims location and
movements by downloading applications onto a victim's
Smartphone, tablet or computer (often without the
victims consent or knowledge). Victims are also
increasingly being tracked by individuals who hack
into their vehicles navigation systems or On-Star type
devices. Some victims have even been tracked by
individuals placing GPS trackers in their clothes and
accessories. Unfortunately this type of conduct is
not prohibited by Penal Code Section 637.7.
A recent NPR investigation found 75% of domestic
violence shelters surveyed said they are assisting
victims whose abusers tracked them using GPS
technology or whose abusers eavesdropped on their
conversations remotely using hidden apps on their
Smartphone, tablet or computer. Stalking and domestic
violence victims have also been tracked by abusers who
SB 690 (Stone ) Page
5 of ?
have hidden GPS trackers in their clothing or
accessories such as a purse.
SB 690 will help protect victims of stalking, domestic
violence and sexual assault from their abusers by
replacing the narrow, outdated definition of
electronic tracking device currently contained in
Penal Code Section 637.7 with the broader, more
technologically updated definition of tracking device
contained in Penal Code Section 1534. Penal Code
Section 1534 governs the application and use of
tracking device search warrants by law enforcement.
Penal Code Section 1534 was specifically enacted to
deal with the use of GPS technology and other forms of
electronic tracking of both persons and objects in
response to a United States Supreme Court decision
involving GPS trackers.
2. Prohibition on Tracking Objects
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to use an electronic
tracking device to track a person unless the person has
consented. This bill would also make it a misdemeanor to use a
device to track an object.
The supporters state that there is evidence that abusers and
stalkers use the GPS tracking devices to track their victims.
According to an NPR article:
85 percent of the shelters we surveyed say they're
working directly with victims whose abusers tracked
them using GPS. Seventy-five percent say they're
working with victims whose abusers eavesdropped on
their conversation remotely-using hidden mobile apps.
And nearly have the shelters we surveyed have a policy
against using Facebook on premises, because they are
concerned a stalker can pinpoint location. (Shahani,
Aarti "Smartphones Are Used to Stalk Control Domestic
Abuse Victims" NPR all tech considered September 16,
2014)
According to the sponsor:
Today there are multiple versions of spyware available
SB 690 (Stone ) Page
6 of ?
that allow individuals to track a victims location and
movements by downloading applications onto a victim's
Smartphone, tablet or computer (often without the
victims consent or knowledge). Victims are also
increasingly being tracked by individuals who hack
into their vehicles navigation systems or On-Star type
devices. Some victims have even been tracked by
individuals placing GPS trackers in their clothes and
accessories. Unfortunately this type of conduct is
not prohibited by Penal Code Section 637.7.
***
SB 690 will help protect victims of stalking, domestic
violence and sexual assault from their abusers by
replacing the narrow, outdated definition of
electronic tracking device currently contained in
Penal Code Section 637.7 with the broader, more
technologically updated definition of tracking device
contained in Penal Code Section 1534. Penal Code
Section 1534 governs the application and use of
tracking device search warrants by law enforcement.
Penal Code Section 1534 was specifically enacted to
deal with the use of GPS technology and other forms of
electronic tracking of both persons and objects in
response to a United States Supreme Court decision
involving GPS trackers.
Should the law also prohibit the tracking of an object without
consent?
-- END -