BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1389 (Glazer) - Interrogation: electronic recordation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 19, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 18, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1389 would extend the existing requirement to
electronically record a custodial interrogation of a minor
suspected of committing murder to apply to any person suspected
of committing murder, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact:
Local law enforcement agencies : Potentially significant
increase in one-time and ongoing state-reimbursable local
costs (General Fund) in excess of hundreds of thousands of
dollars annually to electronically record interrogations of
detained adults suspected of committing murder. As the mandate
for electronic recording of minors is already established
under existing law, any additional state-reimbursable costs
attributable to this bill would be those costs incurred for
recording adults above the existing mandate. Given the
SB 1389 (Glazer) Page 1 of
?
significant number of local law enforcement agencies (nearly
400) subject to the mandate, and the significant increase in
volume of required recordings, even the minimal mandate
reimbursement claim of $1,000 would result in costs of nearly
$400,000.
State agencies : Minor ongoing costs (General Fund/Special
Fund*) to state agencies including the CHP, CDCR, and DOJ to
extend the existing recordation requirement to adults.
Agencies have indicated no new costs would be incurred for
equipment.
Trial courts : Potentially significant future trial court cost
savings (General Fund) to the extent mandated electronic
interrogation recording results in fewer false confessions,
expedited trials, and avoided litigation involving
interrogation issues.
*Motor Vehicle Account
Background: Existing law requires the electronic recording of the entire
custodial interrogation of a minor who is in a fixed place of
detention, as defined, and who, at the time of the
interrogation, is suspected of committing or accused of
committing murder. (Penal Code § 859.5(a).)
Existing law sets forth various exceptions from the requirement
to electronically record the interrogation, as follows:
Electronic recordation is not feasible because of
exigent circumstances, and the exigent circumstances are to
be recorded in the police report.
The person to be interrogated states that he or she will
speak to a law enforcement officer only if the
interrogation is not electronically recorded.
The custodial interrogation took place in another
jurisdiction and was conducted by law enforcement officers
of that jurisdiction in compliance with the law of that
jurisdiction, unless the interrogation was conducted with
the intent to avoid the requirements of this section.
The interrogation occurs when no law enforcement officer
conducting the interrogation has knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would lead an officer to reasonably
believe that the individual being interrogated may have
SB 1389 (Glazer) Page 2 of
?
committed a murder.
A law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation
or the officer's superior reasonably believes that
electronic recording would disclose the identity of a
confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an
officer, the individual being interrogated, or another
individual. An explanation of the circumstances shall be
recorded in the police report.
The failure to create an electronic recording of the
entire custodial interrogation was the result of a
malfunction of the recording device, despite reasonable
maintenance of the equipment, and timely repair or
replacement was not feasible.
The questions presented to a person by law enforcement
personnel and the person's responsive statements were part
of a routine processing or booking of that person.
Electronic recording is not required of spontaneous
statements made in response to questions asked during the
routine processing of the arrest. (PC § 859.5(b).)
In its report entitled "Report and Recommendations Regarding
False Confessions (July 2006)," the California Commission on the
Fair Administration of Justice (CCFAJ) noted that false
confessions were identified as the second most frequent cause of
wrongful convictions in a national study previously reviewed by
the CCFAJ. The CCFAJ report states:
"There are a number of reasons why the taping of
interrogations actually benefits the police departments
that require it. First, taping creates an objective,
comprehensive record of the interrogation. Second, taping
leads to the improved quality of interrogation, with a
higher level of scrutiny that will deter police misconduct
and improve the quality of interrogation practices. Third,
taping provides the police protection against false claims
of police misconduct. Finally, with taping, detectives,
police managers, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges
are able to more easily detect false confessions and more
easily prevent their admission into evidence. The cost of
recording custodial interrogations must be measured
against the cost of false confessions, which takes a
devastating human toll on those who are wrongfully
charged, their families, the victims of crime, and their
families. Closing a case with conviction of the wrong
person based upon a false confession also leaves the real
SB 1389 (Glazer) Page 3 of
?
perpetrator at large, to victimize others. The cost of
litigating claims of police misconduct that might have
been deterred by taping, and the savings in avoiding false
claims of police misconduct should, in the long run, more
than pay the costs of implementation of a mandate that all
custodial interrogation in serious criminal cases be
electronically recorded."
Proposed Law:
This bill would extend the existing requirement to
electronically record the custodial interrogation of minors
suspected of committing murder to apply to all persons suspected
of committing murder, as specified. This bill would retain the
exceptions from electronic recordation under existing law for
minors to apply to all persons.
Related
Legislation: SB 569 (Lieu) Chapter 799/2013 requires the
electronic recordation of the interrogation of any minor
suspected of committing murder.
SB 1300 (Alquist) 2012 would have required the electronic
recordation of custodial interrogations of both adults and
minors suspected of serious or violent felonies. This bill was
held on the Suspense File of this Committee.
SB 1590 (Alquist) 2008 would have required the electronic
recordation of any custodial interrogation of an individual
suspected of homicide or a violent felony. This bill was held on
the Suspense File of this Committee.
SB 511 (Alquist) 2007 would have required custodial
interrogations of violent felony suspects to be electronically
recorded. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
I am returning Senate Bill 511 without my signature. While
reducing the number of false confessions is a laudable goal, I
cannot support a measure that would deny law enforcement the
flexibility necessary to interrogate suspects in homicide and
violent felony cases when the need to do so is not clear. Police
interrogations are dynamic processes that require investigators
to use acumen, skill and experience to determine which methods
of interrogation are best for the situation. This bill would
place unnecessary restrictions on police investigators.
SB 1389 (Glazer) Page 4 of
?
SB 171 (Alquist) 2006, a measure similar to SB 511, was also
vetoed by the Governor.
Staff
Comments: By requiring the electronic recordation of custodial
interrogations of any person suspected of committing murder,
this bill expands upon the existing mandate on local agencies
that requires the electronic recordation of interrogations of
minors suspected of committing murder. It is unknown how many
additional electronic recordings this bill could require, as in
addition to individuals arrested for murder (on average 5,100
persons annually under PC §§ 187,189), a substantially larger
population of persons detained and suspected of committing
murder would be subject to the electronic recording requirement.
To the extent the existing mandate to electronically record the
custodial interrogations of minors resulted in the purchase of
equipment, storage, and possibly additional facility space,
those costs would not be attributable to this bill. However, any
additional staff time, storage needs, administrative costs to
catalogue and preserve the additional recordings, and additional
equipment/facility requirements related to the significant
increase in electronic recordings specific to adults would be
attributable to this bill and could potentially require
reimbursement from the state. With 58 sheriff departments and
over 330 police departments statewide, even the minimal mandate
reimbursable claim amount of $1,000 per department would equate
to nearly $400,000 in additional costs. As "electronic
recording" is defined as a video recording, additional storage
costs for a greater number of interrogations would vary based on
the method of video recordation utilized by each entity.
-- END --