Existing law requires agencies that employ peace officers to establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints by the public against peace officers and requires a written description of the procedure to be available to the public.

This bill would require each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. The bill would require the policy to be developed in collaboration with accordance with specified acts governing employee organizations, with designated representatives of nonsupervisory officers and to include certain provisions, including, among others, the duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational. The bill would also require the policy to be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

Existing law requires agencies that employ peace officers to establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints by the public against peace officers and requires a written description of the procedure to be available to the public.

This bill would require each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. The bill would require the policy to be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory officers and to include certain provisions, including, among others, the duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational. The bill would also require the policy to be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

Existing law requires agencies that employ peace officers to establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints by the public against peace officers and requires a written description of the procedure to be available to the public.

This bill would require each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. The bill would require the policy to be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory officers and to include certain provisions, including, among others, the duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational. The bill would also require the policy to be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

Existing law requires agencies that employ peace officers to establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints by the public against peace officers and requires a written description of the procedure to be available to the public.

This bill would require each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. The bill would require the policy to be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory officers and to include certain provisions, including, among others, the duration, time, and place when that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational. The bill would also require the policy to be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

Existing law requires agencies that employ peace officers to establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints by the public against peace officers and requires a written description of the procedure to be available to the public.

This bill would require each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. The bill would require the policy to be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory officers and to include certain provisions, including, among others, the duration, time, and place when body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational. The bill would also require the policy to be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 175

Author:(Huff and Gaines)

As Amended Ver:August 17, 2015

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUMMARY: Requires each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the policy shall be developed in accordance with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, the Education Employee Relations Act, or the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, as applicable, with designated representatives of nonsupervisory officers.

2. States that the policy shall include, at minimum, all of the following:

   1. The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational;

   2. The length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency;

   3. The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras, in accordance with the California Public Records Act;

   4. The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed; and,

   5. The training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras.

3. Provides that the policy shall be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

2. Defines "confidential communication" to include any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any circumstance that the parties may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

3. Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "As pivotal events surrounding police use of force has become the focus of important national debate, it is necessary to explore law enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC technology is relatively new and some agencies have started using BWC's without providing comprehensive policies for their use.

"BWC technology will only be as effective as its policies and procedure are. Having talked with members of numerous law enforcement agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is unacceptable. Many agencies have already begun reaching out to community leaders and other agencies to provide policy recommendations regarding privacy rights, data storage, and accountability measures. It is vital that any legislative framework regarding BWC policies remain flexible so that local agencies can develop policies and procedures that lineup with community needs and agency resources.

"SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their departments and the public that they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the natural. This particular Senate Bill is an essential forum from which to demonstrate the Legislature's commitment to keeping the discussion focused on the public safety and privacy rights of all citizens, including our peace officers, who are tasked with enormous responsibility to protect and to serve, while preserving the public's trust."

Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001325

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 175

Author:(Huff and Gaines)

As Amended Ver:June 18, 2015

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUMMARY: Requires each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the policy shall be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory officers.

2. States that the policy shall include, at minimum, all of the following:

   1. The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational;

   2. The length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency;

   3. The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras, in accordance with the California Public Records Act;

   4. The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed; and,

   5. The training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras.

3. Provides that the policy shall be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

2. Defines "confidential communication" to include any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any circumstance that the parties may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

3. Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "As pivotal events surrounding police use of force has become the focus of important national debate, it is necessary to explore law enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC technology is relatively new and some agencies have started using BWC's without providing comprehensive policies for their use.

"BWC technology will only be as effective as its policies and procedure are. Having talked with members of numerous law enforcement agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is unacceptable. Many agencies have already begun reaching out to community leaders and other agencies to provide policy recommendations regarding privacy rights, data storage, and accountability measures. It is vital that any legislative framework regarding BWC policies remain flexible so that local agencies can develop policies and procedures that lineup with community needs and agency resources.

"SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their departments and the public that they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the natural. This particular Senate Bill is an essential forum from which to demonstrate the Legislature's commitment to keeping the discussion focused on the public safety and privacy rights of all citizens, including our peace officers, who are tasked with enormous responsibility to protect and to serve, while preserving the public's trust."

Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001220

Date of Hearing: July 7, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mike Gatto, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 175

Author:(Huff) – As Amended Ver:June 18, 2015

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: Peace officers: body-worn cameras.

SUMMARY: Requires law enforcement departments and agencies that use body-worn cameras to develop a policy for their use, and requires the policy to address the operational use of the cameras, storage of data, provisions for internal and public access and review of data, and training. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras.

2. Requires the policy to be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory peace officers.

3. Requires the policy to specify the following:

   1. The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational.

2. The length of time video collected by officers will be stored.

3. The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras.

4. The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed.

5. The training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras.

4. Requires that the policy be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it a crime to intentionally record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. (Penal Code (PC) Section 632(a))

2. Exempts specified peace officers from consent requirements for the recording of confidential communications if they are acting within the scope of their authority. (PC 633)

3. Generally requires, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), that public agencies disclose a government record to the public upon request, unless there is a specific reason to withhold it or if a public agency can establish that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. (Government Code Section 6250, et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed nonfiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill is intended to require the creation of a formal policy governing the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies and requires that policy to address a variety of issues regarding use of the camera and access to the data, but without specifying what those policies should be. SB 175 is author-sponsored.

2. Author's statement. According to the author, "As pivotal events surrounding police use of force have become the focus of important national debate, it is necessary to explore law enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC technology is relatively new and some agencies have started using BWC’s without providing comprehensive policies for their use..."
   
   "SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their departments and the public they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the natural…

"According to PORAC in a letter dated March 2, 2015 to Senator Huff and Assemblymember Weber, 'Unfortunately, there are also agencies that have begun the use of body cameras with no structured polices in place, putting the privacy of officers and the public in jeopardy, and leaving officers unprotected when it comes to potential personnel issues. We are learning as an organization from the experiences of our members on the ground.'

"…[E]stablishing a BWC program should be done at the local level with local stakeholders and local policymakers. In order for BWC programs to be successful, the program needs support from the community and the frontline officers who will be wearing the cameras."

3. The use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. As a result of a string of well-publicized incidents involving the use of force by law enforcement officers against African-American men, beginning with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014, a public debate has emerged over the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are no fewer than 30 states currently considering some form of legislation on the topic.
   
   A body-worn camera is a small video camera – typically attached to an officer's clothing, helmet or sunglasses – that can capture, from an officer's point of view, video and audio recordings of activities, including traffic stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, and critical incidents such as officer-involved shootings.
   
   There is substantial evidence to suggest that body-worn cameras can have positive effects on policing. A 2012 study of the Rialto, CA police department's use of body-worn cameras found that the devices were correlated with a 60% reduction in officer use of force incidents following camera deployment, with twice the number of use of force incidents reported among the group of officers without cameras. The report also found an 88% reduction in the number of citizens' complaints in the year after cameras were introduced. To explain the effect of body-worn cameras, the Rialto Chief of Police was quoted as saying, "Whether the reduced number of complaints was because of the officers behaving better or the citizens behaving better – well, it was probably a little bit of both."
   
   According to a November 2014, report by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum, a broad survey of police departments that had deployed body-worn cameras has many benefits: "body-worn cameras are useful for documenting evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police transparency, performance and accountability...body-worn cameras [also] help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer's perspective." However, the report also notes that "[t]he use of body-worn cameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust."

4. The California Public Records Act. Video and audio data produced by peace officers with body-worn cameras is considered a public record under the CPRA, and is therefore subject to disclosure to the public unless otherwise exempt.
   
   The CPRA generally requires public agencies to respond to a records request within 10 days, and make eligible public records promptly available to a requester who pays the direct costs of duplication. In order to withhold a record, a public agency must demonstrate that a record is exempt under express provisions of the CPRA, or else must show that "on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." Whenever a state or local agency discloses a public record that would otherwise be exempt, that disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemption.
   
   The CPRA provides a detailed list of information and documents that are exempt from disclosure, including: personnel files and records of complaints or investigatory or security files complied by state or local law enforcement agencies, although specified written information must be provided regarding the individuals involved in those incidents or investigations.
   
   

5. Arguments in support. According to the California Police Chiefs Association, "We concur that agencies that elect to utilize body worn cameras should have an inclusive and vetted policy in place prior to the implementation of the agency's body worn camera program. SB 175 allows for local discretion in the creation of agency policies. This approach allows each agency to develop and implement the best policy for their department and community."
   
   The League of California Cities writes, "This measure is an important initial step in assisting local governments, and local agencies specifically, in managing the voluntary acquisition and use of this technology…It is significant that this legislation specifies that the body camera policy is to be developed in collaboration with non-supervisory officers, and that it otherwise lays out broad guidelines for the components of the policy. The former provision can be expected to promote the acceptance of any policy by peace officers unions, assisting the management within police departments in implementing this transition. The latter provision provides much needed local flexibility."
   
   

6. Related Legislation. AB 65 (Alejo) redirects funds from the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund and allocates that money to the Board of State and Community Corrections to be used to fund local law enforcement agencies to operate a body-worn camera program. AB 65 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 66 (Weber) establishes mandatory requirements and recommended guidelines for the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers and the handling of the resulting video and audio data. AB 66 was passed by this Committee on a 6-0 vote, and was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee

AB 69 (Rodriguez) specifies a set of best practices that a law enforcement agency, department or entity establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system must consider. AB 69 was passed by this Committee on an 11-0 vote, and is set for hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 17, 2015.

AB 1246 (Quirk) prohibits the disclosure of a recording made by a body-worn camera, except to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera. AB 1246 was held in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

7. Double-referral. This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where it was heard on June 16, 2015, and passed on a 7-0 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Peace Officers' Association

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police

City of Santa Barbara

League of California Cities

Long Beach Police Officers Association

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Hank Dempsey / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015

Counsel: Stella Choe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Bill Quirk, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 175

Author:(Huff) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2015

SUMMARY: Requires each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the policy shall be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory officers.
   
   

2. States that the policy shall include, at minimum, all of the following:
   
   

   1. The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational;
      
      

   2. The length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency;

3. The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras, in accordance with the California Public Records Act;
   
   

4. The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed; and,

5. The training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras.
   
   

1. Provides that the policy shall be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 632, subd. (a).)

2. Defines "confidential communication" to include any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any circumstance that the parties may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. (Pen. Code, § 632, subd. (c).)

3. Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record. (Pen. Code, § 633.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "As pivotal events surrounding police use of force has become the focus of important national debate, it is necessary to explore law enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC technology is relatively new and some agencies have started using BWC's without providing comprehensive policies for their use.
   
   

"BWC technology will only be as effective as its policies and procedure are. Having talked with members of numerous law enforcement agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is unacceptable. Many agencies have already begun reaching out to community leaders and other agencies to provide policy recommendations regarding privacy rights, data storage, and accountability measures. It is vital that any legislative framework regarding BWC policies remain flexible so that local agencies can develop policies and procedures that lineup with community needs and agency resources.

"SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their departments and the public that they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the natural. This particular Senate Bill is an essential forum from which to demonstrate the Legislature's commitment to keeping the discussion focused on the public safety and privacy rights of all citizens, including our peace officers, who are tasked with enormous responsibility to protect and to serve, while preserving the public's trust."

2. Background: A recent report released by U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum studied the use of body-worn cameras by police agencies. This research included a survey of 250 police agencies, interviews with more than 40 police executives, a review of 20 existing body-camera policies, and a national conference at which more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, federal justice representatives, and other experts shared their knowledge of and experiences with body-worn cameras. The report shows that body-worn cameras can help agencies demonstrate transparency and address the community's questions about controversial events. Among other reported benefits are that the presence of a body-worn camera have helped strengthen officer professionalism and helped to de-escalate contentious situations, and when questions do arise following an event or encounter, police having a video record helps lead to a quicker resolution. (Miller and Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, Police Executive Research Forum (Nov. 2014).)
   
   The report recommends that each agency develop its own comprehensive written policy to govern body-worn camera usage, that includes the following:

1. Basic camera usage, including who will be assigned to wear the cameras and where on the body the cameras are authorized to be placed;
   
   
   

2. The designated staff member(s) responsible for ensuring cameras are charged and in proper working order, for reporting and documenting problems with cameras, and for reissuing working cameras to avert malfunction claims if critical footage is not captured;
   
   
   

3. Recording protocols, including when to activate the camera, when to turn it off, and the types of circumstances in which recording is required, allowed, or prohibited;
   
   
   

4. The process for downloading recorded data from the camera, including who is responsible for downloading, when data must be downloaded, where data will be stored, and how to safeguard against data tampering or deletion;
   
   
   

5. The method for documenting chain of custody;
   
   
   

6. The length of time recorded data will be retained by the agency in various circumstances;
   
   
   

7. The process and policies for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data can be reviewed;
   
   
   

8. Policies for releasing recorded data to the public, including protocols regarding redactions and responding to public disclosure requests; and,
   
   
   

9. Policies requiring that any contracts with a third-party vendor for cloud storage explicitly state that the videos are owned by the police agency and that its use and access are governed by agency policy.

(Id. at pp. 37-38.)

This bill seeks to implement some of these recommendations, by requiring any agency that uses body-worn cameras to have a policy specifying: the duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras must be worn and operational; the length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency; the procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras, provided that those procedures and limitations are in accordance with state law that governs public access to records; and the process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed.

The report also highlighted the need for training on the use of body-worn cameras and the applicable procedures and policies. (Id. at pp. 47-48) This bill states that the policy developed by each agency must include the training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras. Lastly, the bill requires that each officer who has to wear a body-worn camera must be provided with a copy of the policies.

3. Argument in Support: According to the California Police Chiefs' Association, "SB 175 would require every agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. We concur that agencies that elect to utilize body worn cameras should have an inclusive and vetted policy in place prior to the implementation of the agency's body worn camera program.
   
   "SB 175 allows for local discretion in the creation of agency policies. This approach allows each agency to develop and implement the best policy for their department and community."
   
   

4. Related Legislation:
   
   

   1. AB 65 (Alejo), would redirect funds from the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund and allocates that money to the Board of State and Community Corrections to be used to fund local law enforcement agencies to operate a body worn camera program. AB 65 was held on the Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
      
      

   2. AB 66 (Weber), would create statewide policies and guidelines for law enforcement agencies that require its officers to wear body-worn cameras. AB 66 is pending hearing by the Committee on Appropriations.

3. AB 69 (Rodriguez), would require law enforcement agencies to consider specified best practices when establishing policies and procedures for downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras. AB 69 is pending referral by the Senate Rules Committee.
   
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association

California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police

City of Santa Barbara

City of Visalia

League of California Cities

Long Beach Police Officers Association

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 175

Author: Huff (R) and Gaines (R), et al.

Amended: 4/21/15

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15

AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, McGuire, Monning, Stone

NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu

SUBJECT: Peace officers: body-worn cameras

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires every law enforcement department and agency that requires its peace officers to wear body-cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of those cameras, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Makes it a crime for a person, intentionally and without requisite consent, to eavesdrop on a confidential communication by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device. (Penal Code § 632.)

2. Exempts a number of law enforcement agencies from the prohibition in Penal Code Section 632, including the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority. (Penal Code § 633.)

This bill requires each department or agency that employs peace officers and elects to require those officers to wear a body-worn camera to develop a policy relating to the use of those cameras. This policy must be developed in collaboration with non-supervisory officers and include:

1. The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras must be worn and operational;

2. The length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency;

3. The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras;

4. The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed; and,

5. The training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras.

NOTE: See Senate Public Safety Committee analysis for a complete discussion of this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/15)

California Peace Officers Association

California Police Chiefs Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/15)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Police Chiefs Association, this bill would require every agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. We concur that agencies that elect to utilize body worn cameras should have an inclusive and vetted policy in place prior to the implementation of the agency’s body worn camera program.

SB 175 allows for local discretion in the creation of agency policies. This approach allows each agency to develop and implement the best policy for their department and community.

Prepared by: Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /

4/28/15 15:31:28

SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 175 Hearing Date: April 14, 2015

Subject: Peace Officers: Body-Worn Cameras.

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: None known

Support: California Peace Officers Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Public Defenders Association (support if amended)

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this legislation is to require every law enforcement department and agency that requires its peace officers to wear body-cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of those cameras, as specified.

Existing law defines “peace officer,” as specified (Penal Code § 830, et seq.)

Existing law makes it a crime for a person, intentionally and without requisite consent, to eavesdrop on a confidential communication by means of any electronic amplifying or recording

device. (Penal Code § 632.)

Existing law exempts a number of law enforcement agencies from the prohibition in Penal Code section 632,¹ including the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority. (Penal Code § 633.)

This bill would require each department or agency that employs peace officers and elects to require those officers to wear a body-worn camera to develop a policy relating to the use of those cameras. This policy must be developed in collaboration with non-supervisory officers and include: (1) the duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras must be worn and operational; (2) the length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency; and (3) the procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;

• 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,

• 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;

• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;

• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;

• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and

• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

As pivotal events surrounding police use of force have become the focus of important national debate, it is necessary to explore law enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC technology is relatively new and some agencies have started using BWC’s without providing comprehensive policies for their use.

BWC technology will only be as effective as its policies and procedures are. Having talked with members of numerous law enforcement agencies, a one-size-fits-all approach is unacceptable. Many agencies have already begun reaching out to community leaders and other agencies to provide policy recommendations regarding privacy rights, data storage and accountability measures.

SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their departments and the public they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the natural. This particular Senate bill is an essential forum from which to demonstrate the Legislature’s commitment to keeping the discussion focused on the public safety and privacy rights of all citizens, including our peace officers who are tasked with enormous responsibility to protect and to serve, while preserving the public’s trust.

According to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) 2014, law enforcement agencies that require officers to use BWCs, report that the technology definitely improves community relationships by improving the performance of officers as well as the conduct of the community members who are recorded. . .

Procedural and constitutional privacy concerns must be addressed by carefully crafting thorough departmental policies with the implementation of body camera technology. PERF Executive Director, Chuck Wexler recommends in the 2014 project supported by the US Department of Justice, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program, Recommendations and Lessons Learned, “body-worn cameras can increase accountability, but police agencies also must find a way to preserve the informal and unique relationships between police officers and community members.”

2. Effect of the Legislation

A number of law enforcement agencies are currently permitted to utilize body-worn cameras. Existing law, however, does not require these agencies to have a policy prior to utilizing them. The need for such a policy was discussed in a recent study released by the Department of Justice and PERF:

When implemented correctly, body-worn cameras can help strengthen the policing profession. These cameras can help promote agency accountability and transparency, and they can be useful tools for increasing officer professionalism, improving officer training, preserving evidence, and documenting encounters with the public. However, they also raise issues as a practical matter and at the policy level, both of which agencies must thoughtfully examine. Police agencies must determine what adopting body-worn cameras will mean in terms of police-community relationships, privacy, trust and legitimacy, and internal procedural justice for officers.

Police agencies should adopt an incremental approach to implementing a body-worn camera program. This means testing the camera in pilot programs and engaging officers and the community during implementation. It also means carefully crafting body-worn camera policies that balance accountability, transparency, and privacy rights, as well as preserving the important relationships that exist between officers and members of the community.

(Miller, Lindsay, Jessica Toliver, and Police Executive Research Forum. 2014. Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, page 51; emphasis added.)

The report recommends that each agency develop its own comprehensive written policy to govern body-worn camera usage, that includes the following:

• Basic camera usage, including who will be assigned to wear the cameras and where on the body the cameras are authorized to be placed;

• The designated staff member(s) responsible for ensuring cameras are charged and in proper working order, for reporting and documenting problems with cameras, and for reissuing working cameras to avert malfunction claims if critical footage is not captured;

• Recording protocols, including when to activate the camera, when to turn it off, and the types of circumstances in which recording is required, allowed, or prohibited;

• The process for downloading recorded data from the camera, including who is responsible for downloading, when data must be downloaded, where data will be stored, and how to safeguard against data tampering or deletion;

• The method for documenting chain of custody;

• The length of time recorded data will be retained by the agency in various circumstances;

• The process and policies for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data can be reviewed;

• Policies for releasing recorded data to the public, including protocols regarding redactions and responding to public disclosure requests; and

• Policies requiring that any contracts with a third-party vendor for cloud storage explicitly state that the videos are owned by the police agency and that its use and access are governed by agency policy.

(Id. at 37.)

This legislation seeks to implement some of these recommendations, by requiring any agency that utilizes body-worn cameras to have a policy specifying:

• The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras must be worn and operational;

• The length of time video collected by officers will be stored by the department or agency; and

• The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras.

The legislation would also require that each officer who has to wear a body-worn camera be provided with a copy of the policies. This legislation, however, does not require an agency to have a policy on (1) officer access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras, or (2) training officers on the use of body-worn cameras.

Officer Access to Recordings Taken by Body-worn Cameras

In addition to the recommendation in the report, a February 26, 2015 letter from the California State Sheriffs’ Association underscores the complex nature of officer access to body-worn camera footage:

One particular issue that has seen wide discussion is whether or not law enforcement officers should be allowed to view footage from a body worn camera prior to writing a report and whether such policies should be subject to collective bargaining. In most cases, it would be detrimental to a law enforcement investigation to prohibit officers from viewing video of questioning before writing a report; it would be akin to prohibiting an officer from reviewing field notes before writing a report. However, while law enforcement officers should not be prohibited from viewing recorded video before making a report, we would also be concerned about any policies that mandate that management allow employees to watch recorded video in every situation, including situations in which an officer is subject to an investigation involving employee or criminal misconduct.

Members may wish to consider whether agencies should also be required to develop a policy specifying the process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data can be reviewed.

Training Officers on the use of Body-worn Cameras

The DOJ and the PERF report recommend that before agency personnel are equipped with body-worn cameras, they receive training on:

• All practices and protocols covered by the agency’s body-worn camera policy (which should be distributed to all personnel during training);

• An overview of relevant state laws governing consent, evidence, privacy, and public disclosure;

• Procedures for operating the equipment safely and effectively;

• Scenario-based exercises that replicate situations that officers might encounter in the field;

• Procedures for downloading and tagging recorded data;

• Procedures for accessing and reviewing recorded data (only for personnel authorized to access the data);

• Procedures for preparing and presenting digital evidence for court; and

• Procedures for documenting and reporting any malfunctioning device or supporting system;

(Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program, Supra, at 47-48.)

Members may wish to consider whether agencies should be required to develop a policy specifying what training will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras.

3. Argument in Support

According to the California Police Chiefs Association:

SB 175 would require every agency that employs peace officers and that elects to requires those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. We concur that agencies that elect to utilize body worn cameras should have an includes and vetted policy in place prior to the implementation of the agency’s body worn camera program.

SB 175 allows for local discretion in the creation of agency policies. This approach allows each agency to develop and implement the best policy for their department and community.

-- END --