BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1270
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1270 (Ammiano) - As Amended: January 4, 2012
Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 5-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No
Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to allow reporters to personally interview
inmates, including prearranged interviews and random encounters
at a correctional facility, unless the warden determines the
interview poses an immediate threat to public safety or the
security of the institution. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the warden, after granting a media interview request,
to provide notice to the victim or victim's family at least
two days prior to the interview if the victim or victim's
family has notified the warden they wish to be contacted in
the event of interview requests.
2)Authorizes CDCR, in the interest of security and safety, to
establish reasonable time, place and manner restrictions for
inmate interviews.
3)Requires CDCR to notify a news media representative making an
interview request whether the request has been granted within
48 hours of the request.
4)Authorizes a reporter to use tools of the trade - pens, paper,
cameras, and audio and video recording devices. The warden may
regulate time, location, length, and the equipment used for
all interviews conducted. All items are subject to search.
5)Defines a news media representative as a journalist who works
AB 1270
Page 2
for, or is under contract to, a newspaper, magazine, wire
service, book publisher, or radio or television program, or
who through press passes issued by a governmental or police
agency, or through similar convincing means, can demonstrate
he or she is a bona fide journalist.
6)Prohibits inmate compensation, audio monitoring of interviews,
and administrative retaliation against an inmate for
participating in an interview.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, likely minor administrative costs to CDCR to process
media access requests.
While CDCR has acknowledged for years that only about 200
interview requests are received each year, and that the cost to
authorize pre-arranged face-to-face interviews would likely be
absorbable, the department has recently voiced concerns that
authorizing face-to-face interviews could increase requests from
media outlets. If the request volume did increase significantly,
and, for example, the annual workload for public informational
officers at state prisons increased by about 10%, and the
equivalent of about three positions was necessary, costs could
increase by about $300,000, assuming the workload is not
absorbable.
CDCR also contends that should the department use the interview
time, place and manner restrictions provided in the bill, and/or
simply deny the request due to public safety concerns, media
entities are likely to litigate, creating additional cost
pressure for the state.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Proponents, including the CA Newspaper Publishers
Association, the CA Broadcasters Association, CA Attorneys for
Criminal Justice, the CA Public Defenders Association, the CA
Correctional Peace Officers Association, contend media access
is crucial to public accountability, particularly in light of
AB 1270
Page 3
recent litigation, cost overruns and inmate abuse.
According to the author, "It is vital to maintain public
accountability of the prison system during a period of huge
growth and sharp increases in the prison system's share of the
state budget. Because prisons are closed institutions, the
media's role in keeping the public informed about how its tax
dollars are spent is essential. Also, in light of continued
allegations of prisoner abuse and CDCR misconduct, media
access will shed light on problems that need to be addressed
in the corrections system. This bill balances the needs of
the media with the needs of crime victims and correctional
facility safety."
2)There is no registered opposition to this bill .
3)Background/Current CDCR regulations/practice prohibits
targeted face-to-face interviews except in the course of
inmate visiting, and then no cameras are permitted. (CA Code
of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3261.5(f)(2).
CDCR allowed inmate interviews from 1975 until 1996, when the
department adopted emergency regulations deleting this
authority. Interviews were conducted under conditions set by
the institution. Interviews with specified prisoners were
permitted with prior approval and were limited to no more than
one interview in a 90-day period for inmates in administrative
segregation with a media pool option for such inmates.
In 1996, the CDCR added regulatory language that "inmates may
not participate in specific-person, face-to-face interviews."
The CDCR contended the new policy "deters activities that
would glamorize criminals at the expense of their victims and
the general public..."
Authorized media representatives may, however, under current
law and regulation, correspond with and interview an inmate
via:
AB 1270
Page 4
a) U.S. Mail.
b) Standard inmate visiting procedures.
c) Standard inmate collect telephone calls to media
representatives.
d) Face-to-face interviews with randomly selected inmates,
including interviews with randomly selected inmates
participating in specific programs or activities.
In addition, regulations adopted in 2008 also reflect several
provisions proposed in this bill, including the definition of
news media representative, and the prohibition on punishing an
inmate for communicating with a news media representative.
4)Related Legislation. Eight versions of this bill have been
vetoed, by three different governors.
a) SB 304 (Romero), 2008, was identical to the bill before
the committee today. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill,
stating:
"For the past two years I have vetoed similar measures
because these bills would allow the media to glamorize
murderers and thereby once again traumatize crime victims
and their families.
"This year I directed the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to address the media access
issues by adopting new regulations. Through this process my
administration met with stakeholders from both crime
victims groups and groups supporting media access to
address concerns on both sides. These regulations are
pending approval and public comment at the Office of
Administrative Law.
"While the regulations do not go as far as the provisions
in this bill, I believe the regulations provide more clear
and appropriate access to our prisons and preserve the
balance with crime victims and their families. I believe
these regulations should be given a chance to work."
b) SB 1521 (Romero, 2006) was identical to SB 304. In his
veto message, Gov. Schwarzenegger stated: Last year I
vetoed a similar measure because it would have allowed the
AB 1270
Page 5
media to glamorize murderers and thereby once again
traumatize crime victims and their families. I am vetoing
this bill for the same reason.
c) SB 239 (Romero, 2005) was almost identical to SB 1521.
d) AB 698 (Haynes, 2005) was similar to SB 239.
e) SB 1164 (Romero, 2004), was similar to SB 239.
f) AB 2101 (Migden, 2000), similar to SB 239, was vetoed by
Gov. Davis, who stated, in part, "According to correctional
authorities, its implementation would disrupt the orderly
administration of prisons and interfere with the ability of
inmate families to visit their loved ones. The purpose of
incarceration is punishment and deterrence; it is not to
provide additional celebrity to convicts, many of whose
criminal acts were brutal and violent, thereby causing
further pain to the victims and their loved ones."
g) AB 1440 (Migden, 1999), similar to AB 2101, was also
vetoed by Gov. Davis.
h) SB 434 (Kopp, 1998), similar to AB 1440, was vetoed by
Gov. Wilson, who stated: "The purpose of imprisonment is
punishment and deterrence of crime. Those that are housed
in state prison should not be treated as celebrities.
Interviews with prisoners about their crimes tend to
glamorize criminal activity and criminals at the cost of
pain to crime victims."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081