BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 61
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 61 (Pavley) - As Introduced: December 22, 2010
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill extends the sunset date regulating state and local
government interception of electronic communications (wiretaps)
from January 1, 2012 until January 1, 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential for ongoing significant state costs potentially in
the millions of dollars, to the extent continuing current
authorization for wiretaps leads to an increase in state
prison commitments. (For example, according to the state
Department of Justice (DOJ), in California in 2010, 627
wiretaps were authorized in 19 counties, leading to 698
arrests and 192 convictions.)
2)Major ongoing non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs as
a result of continuing wiretapping authorization, in the range
of $16 million, according to the self-reported personnel and
other resources costs from the counties reporting to DOJ in
2010. (Law enforcement costs related to extending wiretapping
statutes are presumably offset to a degree by related law
enforcement savings as a result of more efficient law
enforcement efforts.)
3)Potential ongoing state law enforcement costs to DOJ for its
wiretapping efforts, though DOJ did not note any state
wiretaps in its statutory electronic interceptions report.
4)Minor costs to DOJ, likely less than $50,000, for the detailed
annual report.
SB 61
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author and proponents (the bill is sponsored by
the L.A. District Attorney's Office) contend that existing
wiretap statutes have enabled law enforcement agencies to
obtain wiretap authorization that has successfully contributed
to efforts to address the production and sale of controlled
substances and to investigate murder and criminal gang
activity statewide.
2)Current law authorizes the A.G. or the district attorney to
apply to the Superior Court for an order authorizing
interception of a wire, electronic pager, or electronic
cellular phone communication under specified circumstances.
(Virtually all orders are for cell phones.)
The crimes for which an interception order may be sought
include murder, solicitation to commit murder, bombing, use or
threat to use weapons of mass destruction, criminal gang
activity, and importation, possession for sale,
transportation, manufacture or sale of heroin, cocaine, PCP,
or methamphetamine. Written reports must be submitted at the
discretion of the court, but at least every 10 days, to the
judge who issues the order.
3)Suggested Technical Amendment . The statutory report is quite
prescriptive and could be focused a bit more to help DOJ
provide the necessary information. For example, Penal Code
629.62 (b)(9)(A) and (B) - "the approximate nature and
frequency" of interceptions - appears vague and is somewhat
duplicative of other requirements.
4)Wiretap stats overview from DOJ's 2010 California Electronic
Interceptions Report:
Counties reporting wiretaps in 2010:19
Number of court orders sought:628
Number granted: 627
The six busiest counties: L.A.:192
San Bernardino:110
Riverside: 75
San Diego:
SB 61
Page 3
74
Orange:
39
Sacramento: 31
Arrests: 698
Murder : (52)
Narcotics: (576)
Convictions: 190
Murder: (0)
Narcotics (190)
Number of persons convicted:192
5)Prior Legislation .
SB 1016 (Boatwright), Statutes of 1995, established
California's wire intercept statute. The initial sunset
provision was Jan. 1, 1999.
SB 688 (Alaya), Statutes of 1997, extended the sunset to
Jan. 1, 2003.
AB 74 (Washington), Statutes of 2002, extended the
authority to Jan. 1, 2008.
AB 569 (Portantino), Statutes of 2007, extended the
authority to Jan. 1, 2012.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081