BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 35|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 35
Author: Pavley (D)
Amended: 1/6/14
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 1/14/14
AYES: Hancock, De Le�n, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 1/23/14
AYES: De Le�n, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SUBJECT : Wiretapping: authorization
SOURCE : Los Angeles County Attorney
DIGEST : This bill extends, until January 1, 2020, 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
SB 35
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 the sunset date, on provisions governing
wiretapping, from January 1, 2015 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State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1989 and granted law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
the Department of Justice's (DOJ) 2011 California Electronic
Interceptions Report, 697 interception orders were authorized in
21 counties, leading to 697 arrests and 193 convictions. 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 percent) or gang- (20 percent) 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.
Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or the district
attorney to apply to the Superior Court for an order authorizing
interception of a wire or electronic communication under
CONTINUED
SB 35
Page
3
specified circumstances. The crimes for which an electronic
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.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare and submit
a detailed annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial
Council, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts on electronic interceptions conducted during the
preceding year. Information for this report is to be provided to
the Attorney General by any prosecutorial agency seeking an
electronic interception order.
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. This 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 a
CONTINUED
SB 35
Page
4
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 1/23/14)
Los Angeles County Attorney (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Diego District Attorney
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
The California State Wiretap Statute sunsets on January
1, 2015, unless it receives reauthorization.
California 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.
In 2009, California's wiretap program was updated to
include the interception of communications by email,
CONTINUED
SB 35
Page
5
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. This 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 35 extends the operation of California wiretap law
until 2020 and ensures re-enactment of the statute,
including the technological updates.
In the last three years (2011-2013), wiretap investigations
involving just drug trafficking, led to the seizure of over
$90 million in narcotics and narcotic proceeds in Los
Angeles County alone.
JG:nl 1/23/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED