BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1526
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1526 (Holden)
As Amended February 24, 2014
Majority vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Melendez, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Jones-Sawyer, Quirk, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Stone, | |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |
| |Hagman | |Gomez, Holden, Jones, |
| | | |Linder, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, |
| | | |Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date until January 1, 2020, 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.
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
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
AB 1526
Page 2
sought: murder; kidnapping; bombing; criminal gangs; and
possession for sale, sale, transportation; or manufacturing of
more than three pounds of cocaine, heroin, phencyclidine
(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.
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
AB 1526
Page 3
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.
11)Provides that a defendant shall be notified that he or she
was identified as the result of an interception prior to the
entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or at least 10
days, prior to any trial, hearing or proceedings in the case
other than an arraignment or grand jury proceeding. Within 10
days prior to trial, hearing or proceeding the prosecution
shall provide to the defendant a copy of all recorded
interceptions from which evidence against the defendant was
derived, including a copy of the court order, accompanying
application and monitory logs.
12)Provides that any person may move to suppress intercepted
communications on the basis that the contents or evidence were
obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution or of California electronic surveillance
provisions.
13)Provides that the AG, any deputy attorney general, district
attorney or deputy district attorney or any peace officer who,
by any means authorized by this chapter has obtained knowledge
of the contents of any wire, electronic pager, or electronic
cellular telephone communication or evidence derived there
from, may disclose the contents to one of the individuals
referred to in this section and to any investigative or law
enforcement officer as defined in Subdivision (7) of Section
2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code to the extent that
the disclosure is permitted pursuant to Penal Code Section
629.82 and is appropriate to the proper performance of the
official duties of the individual making or receiving the
disclosure. No other disclosure, except to a grand jury, of
intercepted information is permitted prior to a public court
hearing by any person regardless of how the person may have
come into possession thereof.
14)Provides that if a law enforcement officer overhears a
communication relating to a crime that is not specified in the
wiretap order, but is a crime for which a wiretap order could
have been issued, the officer may only disclose the
information and thereafter use the evidence, if, as soon as
practical, he or she applies to the court for permission to
AB 1526
Page 4
use the information. If an officer overhears a communication
relating to a crime that is not specified in the order, and
not one for which a wiretap order could have been issued or
any violent felony, the information may not be disclosed or
used except to prevent the commission of a crime. No evidence
derived from the wiretap can be used unless the officers can
establish that the evidence was obtained through an
independent source or inevitably would have been discovered.
In all instances, the court may only authorize use of the
information if it reviews the procedures used and determines
that the interception was in accordance with state wiretap
laws.
15)Provides that the provisions governing wiretap sunsets on
January 1, 2012.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)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 2012, 707 wiretaps were authorized in
16 counties, leading to 961 arrests and 58 convictions.)
2)Major ongoing non-reimbursable local and federal law
enforcement costs, more than $30 million, as a result of
continuing wiretapping authorization, according to counties
reporting to DOJ in 2012.
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, less than $50,000, for its detailed annual
report.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "California's wiretap
statute is set to expire on January 1, 2015. With the evolution
of the digital age, individuals have become more clever and
organized in drug and arms trafficking, therefore requiring an
equally sophisticated response from law enforcement and its
partners to disrupt and dismantle their networks.
AB 1526
Page 5
"Since its implementation, this statute has been used as an
effective tool for law enforcement agencies to further
investigate crimes involving narcotic transactions, criminal
street gangs, and violence, while also protecting one's privacy.
Additionally, this statute has also saved lives especially
trafficked victims who find themselves trapped in an unwanted
lifestyle and seek law enforcement for help. AB 1526 would
extend the sunset date on California's wiretapping law to assist
law enforcement in keeping our communities safe."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0003635