BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 955|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 955
Author: Mitchell (D) and Lieu (D), et al.
Amended: 8/18/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/8/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De Le�n, Knight, Liu, Mitchell,
Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/14
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 32-0, 5/27/14
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Block, Corbett, Correa, DeSaulnier,
Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill,
Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Knight, Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning,
Morrell, Nielsen, Padilla, Pavley, Roth, Steinberg, Torres,
Vidak, Walters, Wolk, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Calderon, Cannella, De Le�n, Lara,
Liu, Wright, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/20/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Interception of electronic communications
SOURCE : County of Los Angeles
DIGEST : This bill adds human trafficking to the list of
offenses for which interception of electronic communications may
be ordered, as specified.
CONTINUED
SB 955
Page
2
Assembly Amendments add a co-author and remove the sunset
extension for wiretapping.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Authorizes the Attorney General (AG), Chief Deputy AG, Chief
Assistant AG, District Attorney (DA) or the DA'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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Provides that the provisions governing wiretap sunsets on
January 1, 2015.
This bill adds "human trafficking" to the crimes for which an
interception order may be sought.
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
CONTINUED
SB 955
Page
3
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 on wiretap provisions to January 1, 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Increased and ongoing significant state costs (General Fund)
potentially in the millions of dollars, to the extent
expanding and continuing the current authorization for
electronic interceptions leads to additional state prison
commitments.
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 the DOJ for
its electronic interception efforts.
Minor annual costs to the DOJ, likely less than $50,000
(General Fund) for the detailed annual report.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/14)
County of Los Angeles (source)
Alameda County District Attorney
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California State Sheriffs' Association
CONTINUED
SB 955
Page
4
City of Long Beach
Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking
Los Angeles County District Attorney
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/20/14)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California State Sheriffs'
Association supports this bill stating, "Given the serious
nature of human trafficking and its recent growth in California,
it makes sense to allow law enforcement to use this highly
effective tool to prevent and stop it. The bill would retain
judicial authority over wiretap requests and make a modest yet
meaningful expansion of this important statute."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The ACLU opposes this bill stating,
"The ACLU has consistently opposed expansion of the state's
wiretap law. Our objections are based on the fact that
wiretapping violates basic privacy rights. A wiretap, because
it picks up both sides of all communications made by all persons
using wire or electronic communications under surveillance, by
definition constitutes a general search - committed not only
against the person under suspicion but against countless other
persons connected with the suspect only remotely or not at all."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/20/14
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, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A.
P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Grove, Vacancy
CONTINUED
SB 955
Page
5
JG:d 8/20/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED