BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 61
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 61 (Pavley)
As Amended August 26, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :39-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Knight, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Hagman, Hill, Mitchell, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Skinner | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date until January 1, 2015, on
provisions of California law which authorize the Attorney
General (AG), chief deputy attorney general, chief assistant
attorney general, district attorney or the district attorney's
designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court
for an order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic
communications under specified circumstances. Modifies the
general descriptions reported to the Legislature annually by the
Attorney General as to the number and character of intercepted
communications.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the AG, chief deputy attorney general, chief
assistant attorney general, district attorney or the district
attorney's designee to apply to the presiding judge of the
superior court for an order authorizing the interception of
wire, electronic digital pager, or electronic cellular
telephone communications under specified circumstances.
2)Defines "wire communication, electronic pager communication,"
"electronic cellular communication," and "aural transfer" for
the purposes of wiretaps.
3)Defines "aural transfer" as a transfer containing the human
SB 61
Page 2
voice at any point between and including the point of origin
and the point of reception.
4)Specifies the crimes for which an interception order may be
sought: murder; kidnapping; bombing; criminal gangs; and
possession for sale, sale, transportation; or manufacturing of
more than three pounds of cocaine, heroin, PCP,
methamphetamine or its precursors; possession of a destructive
device, weapons of mass destruction or restricted biological
agents.
5)Provides that the court may grant oral approval for an
emergency interception of wire, electronic pager or electronic
cellular telephone communications without an order as
specified. Approval for an oral interception shall be
conditioned upon filing with the court, within 48 hours of the
oral approval, a written application for an order. Approval
of the ex parte order shall be conditioned upon filing with
the judge within 48 hours of the oral approval.
6)Provides that no order entered under this chapter shall
authorize the interception of any wire, electronic pager or
electronic cellular telephone or electronic communication for
any period loner than is necessary to achieve the objective of
the authorization, nor in any event longer than 30 days.
7)Requires that written reports showing what progress has been
made toward the achievement of the authorized objective,
including the number of intercepted communications, be
submitted at least every six days to the judge who issued the
order allowing the interception.
8)Provides that whenever an order authorizing an interception is
entered the order shall require a report be made to the AG
showing what persons, facilities, or places are to be
intercepted pursuant to the application, and the action taken
by the judge on each of these applications.
9)Requires the AG to prepare and submit an annual report to the
Legislature, the Judicial Council and the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Court on
interceptions conducted under the authority of the wiretap
provisions and specifies what the report shall include.
SB 61
Page 3
10)Provides that applications made and orders granted shall be
sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders
shall be where the judge orders. The applications and orders
shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a
judge and shall not be destroyed except on order of the
issuing or denying judge, and in any event shall be kept for
10 years.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "SB 61 is needed to ensure
the continuation of the California State Wiretap Statute which
includes both telephone and electronic communication
technologies. The current program sunsets on January 1, 2012.
California and federal law enforcement agencies and multi-agency
task forces have used the law with great success since its
enactment in 1989 to solve the most serious and difficult
crimes, such as organized crime and drug trafficking, while
maintaining an emphasis on the protection of individual privacy.
SB 61
Page 4
"Last year, California wiretap program was updated to include
the interception of communications by e-mail, blackberry,
instant messaging by phone and other forms of contemporaneous
two-way electronic communication. These provisions were added
because many criminals today have moved to electronic
communications to easily escape law enforcement's reach for
their illicit activities. The new law recognizes the expanding
use of electronic devices in the planning of criminal activities
and modernized our state's wiretap law so that court-approved
interceptions of communication from the latest technologies are
a relevant option for law enforcement investigations.
"SB 61 extends the operation of California's wiretap law until
2015 and ensures re-enactment of statute, including the
technological updates that were approved last year.
"In Los Angeles County, it is estimated that 50-75 major
narcotic division cases (usually involving large seizures and
multiple defendants) and approximately 25-40 homicide cases are
affected annually by the law."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0002276