BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1526|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1526
Author: Holden (D)
Amended: 2/24/14 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/17/14
AYES: Hancock, De Le�n, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson, Knight
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 5/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Wiretapping: authorization
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill extends the sunset provision on the law
that authorizes wiretaps by law enforcement under specified
circumstances.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Authorizes the Attorney General, chief deputy attorney
general, chief assistant attorney general, District Attorney
or the district attorney's designee to apply to the presiding
CONTINUED
AB 1526
Page
2
judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the
interception of wire or electronic communications under
specified circumstances.
2. Provides that the provisions governing wiretap sunsets on
January 1, 2015.
This bill extends that sunset to January 1, 2020.
Background
State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1989 and granted law
enforcement officers the right to use wiretapping while
investigating specific types of crimes. SB 1428 (Pavley,
Chapter 707, Statutes of 2010) expanded the use of wiretapping
to include the interception of modern types of electronic
communications.
The number of electronic interception orders in California
averaged approximately 700 in both 2011 and 2012. According to
DOJ 2011 California Electronic Interceptions Report, 697
interception orders were authorized in 21 counties, leading to
697 arrests and 193 convictions. The DOJ 2012 California
Electronic Interceptions Report indicates 707 interception
orders were authorized in 16 counties, leading to 961 arrests.
The majority of these arrests are currently pending prosecution,
with 58 convictions reported to date. The crimes for which
arrests were made vary, but charges were largely narcotics-
(51%) or gang- (20%) related.
Electronic interceptions are used as an investigative tool, one
of many at law enforcement's disposal. As one example of the
significant impact of electronic intercepts and their importance
as a tool for law enforcement agencies to use in investigating
crimes involving narcotics transactions, criminal street gangs,
and violence, the DOJ 2012 report cites the seizure of over $1.3
million, 799 pounds of methamphetamine, and 65 kilograms of
cocaine in Imperial County due to the assistance of 15
electronic intercept orders.
Comments
According to the author:
CONTINUED
AB 1526
Page
3
Current law authorizes a judge to enter an ex parte order
approving the interception of electronic communications,
if the judge determines there is probable cause to believe
that an individual is committing, has committed, or will
commit murder, importation of drugs, or a crime utilize ng
weapons of mass destruction. This statute is set to
expire on January 1, 2015.
AB 1526 makes a technical change and extends the sunset
date to January 1, 2020. This bill would provide an
effective tool for law enforcement agencies to further
investigate crimes involving narcotic transactions,
criminal street gangs, and violence.
Prior Legislation
AB 569 (Portantino, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2007) extended the
provisions authorizing the use of wiretaps by law enforcement to
January 1, 2012.
SB 1428 (Pavley, Chapter 707, Statutes of 2010) expanded the
scope of wiretapping provisions to include the interception of
modern types of electronic communications. The bill also
proposed to extend the sunset on wiretap provisions to January
1, 2014, however, the provision was amended out of the chaptered
version of the bill.
SB 61 (Pavley, Chapter 663, Statutes of 2011) extended the
sunset to January 1, 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Ongoing significant state costs (General Fund) potentially in
the millions of dollars, to the extent continuing the current
authorization for electronic interceptions leads to additional
state prison commitments.
Major ongoing non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs as
CONTINUED
AB 1526
Page
4
a result of continuing electronic interception authorization,
in the range of $31 million, according to the self-reported
personnel and resources costs from the counties reported to
DOJ for 2012. (Costs related to extending electronic
interception authorization are likely offset to a degree by
related savings as a result of more efficient law enforcement
practices.)
Non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs, offset to a
degree by fine revenue, for violations of the electronic
interception statutes, which are punishable by a fine not
exceeding $2,500, imprisonment in the county jail for up to
one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of
Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
Potential ongoing state law enforcement costs to DOJ for its
electronic interception efforts.
Minor annual costs to DOJ, likely less than $50,000 (General
Fund) for the detailed annual report.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/13/14)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Citizen's for Law and Order
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 5/27/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
CONTINUED
AB 1526
Page
5
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Perea, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,
Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Vacancy
JG:d 8/15/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED