Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would specify that the act does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. The bill would require an agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. The bill would require the agency to consider specified factors when balancing the public interests. The bill would authorize a victim who is a subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subjects next of kin, or a subjects legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. By imposing new duties upon local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would specify that the act does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. The bill would require an agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. The bill would require the agency to consider specified factors when balancing the public interests. The bill would authorize a victim who is a subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subjects next of kin, or a subjects legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. By imposing new duties upon local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would specify that the act does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. The bill would require an agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. The bill would require the agency to consider specified factors when balancing the public interests. The bill would authorize a victim who is a subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subjects next of kin, or a subjects legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. By imposing new duties upon local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would authorize a state or local law enforcement agency to refuse to disclose specify that the act does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording if it demonstrates, recording. The bill would require an agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing disclosure of the recording. The bill would require the agency to consider specified factors when balancing the public interests. The bill would authorize a victim who is a subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subjects next of kin, or a subjects legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would prohibit unredacted video and audio files from a body-worn camera created by a peace officer of authorize a state or local law enforcement agency that depict any victim to refuse to disclose a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse during the commission of the crime or the immediate aftermath from being disclosed pursuant to the act, unless the victim or victims depicted or the victims or victims parents, guardians, or next of kin provide express written consent. that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording if it demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing the recording. The bill would require the agency to consider specified factors when balancing the public interests. The bill would authorize a victim who is a subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subjects next of kin, or a subjects legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would exempt prohibit unredacted video and audio files from a body-worn camera created by a peace officer of a state or local law enforcement agency that depict any victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse during the commission of the crime or the immediate aftermath from disclosure being disclosed pursuant to the act, unless the victim or victims depicted or the victims or victims parents, guardians, or next of kin provide express written consent.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.

This bill would exempt video and audio files from a body-worn camera created by a peace officer of a state or local law enforcement agency that depict any victim of rape, incest, domestic violence, or child abuse from disclosure pursuant to the act, unless the victim or victims depicted provide express written consent.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 459

Author:(Chau)

As Amended Ver:June 15, 2017

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: P. & C.P.

SUMMARY: Restricts, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), the public disclosure of video and audio recordings held by law enforcement that depict a victim of sexual or domestic violence, and requires that the victim or victim's family be given access to a copy of the recording.

The Senate amendments clarify that the provisions of this bill cannot be construed to affect any other exemptions to the CPRA.

EXISTING LAW: Generally requires, pursuant to the 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: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, any additional state costs are not significant and do not and will not require the appropriation of additional state funds, and the bill will cause no significant reduction in revenues.

COMMENTS:

This bill is intended to provide victims of sexual or domestic violence with greater certainty that unredacted body-worn camera footage depicting them won't be disclosed to the public by law enforcement, while also giving the victim the right to inspect the footage and secure of a copy without putting the records into the public domain. This bill is author-sponsored.

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.

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."

As noted above, the 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 requires public agencies to generally 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.

Research by the NCSL shows that 18 states and the District of Columbia have statutes regulating how body-worn camera footage is disclosed under open record laws, including at least six that exclude body-worn camera footage entirely from open record requests. Similar to this bill, the state of Connecticut excludes specific incidents from its open records laws including footage depicting victims of domestic or sexual abuse, homicide, suicide or accidental death.

Analysis Prepared by: Hank Dempsey / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0001435

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: AB 459

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/27/17

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Stern, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Monning

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/11/17

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/18/17 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill provides that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. This bill requires the agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. This bill provides factors for the agency to consider in making such a determination. This bill requires public agencies to permit a victim of a crime depicted in such videos to inspect the recording and obtain a copy.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Declares the people’s right to transparency in government. (“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny....”) (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3.)
2. Provides individuals an express right to privacy specifically designed to “prevent government ... from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve another purpose.” (Cal. Const., art. I., Sec. 1; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774.)
3. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. (Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.)
4. Provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record, that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemptions as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.5.)
5. Provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253(a).)
6. Provides that any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records, and authorizes an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation, and those costs and fees are required to be paid by the public agency, as specified. (Gov. Code Secs. 6258, 6259(d).) The test for determining whether a record may be withheld from public access is whether the public’s interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public’s interest in withholding disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)
7. Requires that a statute that limits the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Const., art. 1, Sec. 3(b)(2).)

This bill:

1. Provides that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. An agency is required to justify withholding the video or audio recording by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 of the Government Code, that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.
2. Requires an agency to consider the following factors when balancing the public interests in disclosure and nondisclosure:

• the constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording; and
• whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

1. Requires public agencies to permit a victim of a crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. This bill provides that disclosure pursuant to this provision does not constitute a waiver of any exemptions for other members of the public pursuant to Section 6254.5 of the Government Code.
2. Provides that nothing therein can be construed to affect any other exemptions to the CPRA.
3. Makes findings required by the California Constitution.

Background

The CPRA governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information. Unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information.

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri during the course of an arrest for an alleged robbery. While Wilson was not indicted for his actions, the incident, and the many similar incidents since, demonstrated the tremendous difficulties in determining crucial facts related to use of force by police against members of the public.

In the wake of Ferguson and other incidences involving allegations of police misconduct, communities across the country have begun outfitting police forces with body cameras. In fact, body cameras have emerged as a rare point of agreement between many reform advocates and law enforcement officials. Many officers report that the equipment changes citizen behavior and helps deescalate confrontations between civilians and police. They also claim that body cameras improve evidence collection, and help them more accurately recollect events and fill out reports. (Wing, Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras (2015) Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ entry/police-body-camera-study_us_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56 [as of August 21, 2017].)

However, body cameras also pose a threat to privacy. With an activated camera constantly documenting everything a police officer sees and does, sensitive content, such as the interior of private residences, interviews with victims, and discussions with confidential informants, may be recorded and potentially preserved for public inspection. Thus, in order for body cameras to both increase police accountability and protect privacy rights, the Legislature must balance what footage should be available for public review versus the footage that should be kept confidential.

This bill provides that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts certain features of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. This bill requires the agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. This bill provides factors for the agency to consider in making such a determination.

Comments

The author writes:

In the wake of high-profile use of force incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore and elsewhere, body-worn cameras (BWC) have been swiftly deployed by law enforcement agencies across the country. Body-worn cameras help promote transparency, accountability and credibility between law enforcement and the public.

However with rapid adoption of BWCs, concerns have emerged about the consistency of use, transparency and privacy. Eighteen states have legislated how body-worn camera data is treated under open record laws. In California, video and audio data held in law enforcement custody can be considered a public record under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test. If it is deemed that the public interest warrants the release of the video or audio files, the agency shall consider redaction to prevent release of personally identifiable characteristics. Furthermore, AB 459 enhances the rights of the victim or victims of these crimes by permitting the inspection of the recording and the right to obtain a copy. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections and prevent further harm to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.

Adjusting treatment of specified recordings under the CPRA. The CPRA provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency, and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless otherwise exempted from disclosure. Existing law further provides that in the event that a record contains non-disclosable information, “any reasonably segregable portion of the record shall be available” to the requestor. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253.)

Relevant here, records of complaints and investigations conducted by various police agencies, or any investigatory or security files compiled by those agencies are exempted from disclosure under the CPRA. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254(f).) However, state and local law enforcement agencies are required to disclose certain information, such as the names of persons involved in, or witnesses to, the incident, certain details of the incident, and statements related to the incident. But even that information can be withheld if the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.

With regard to records that are not covered by an exemption, agencies may withhold any record if “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by the disclosure of the record.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)

This bill adds another category of records exempt from disclosure requirements. This bill provides that video or audio recordings that are created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse are not required to be disclosed if they depict the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording.

However, the exemption only applies where the agency can justify withholding the video or audio recording “by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 [of the Government Code], that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.” Section 6255 of the Government Code already allows an agency to withhold any record by “demonstrating . . . 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.” Therefore, this provision does not create any new basis to withhold the recordings specified.

However, the bill adds two specific factors that must be considered by an agency when balancing the competing public interests: “(1) The constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording”; and, “(2) Whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.” This provision of the bill provides additional guidance to agencies when determining whether to disclose such recordings.

Presumably, if the agency decided to redact or distort a recording, as suggested by one of these listed considerations, the agency still needs to justify such redaction or distortion through one of the two circumstances provided in this bill.

Enhancing the rights of victims. This bill requires public agencies to permit a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. Currently, requests from these persons for these recordings could be denied under the various provisions of the CPRA. This bill therefore bars the application of any exemptions, or the balancing test laid out in Section 6255 of the Government Code, to requests made by victims, and the other persons specified, in relation to these video or audio recordings.

Section 6254.5 of the Government Code currently provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the relevant exemptions, as specified. This bill provides that disclosure to a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, pursuant to this bill, does not require that the record be made available to the public pursuant to Section 6254.5.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/17)

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Crime Victims United of California

Fraternal Order of Police

Long Beach Police Officers Association

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence writes that “[i]t is vital that as policies for body camera use are created and implemented in California, victims’ safety be taken into consideration.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/18/17

AYES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Cervantes, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Chau, Frazier, Friedman, Gipson, Gloria, Holden, Mullin, Santiago, Rendon

Prepared by: Christian Kurpiewski / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/25/17 11:08:12

**** END ****

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 459

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/27/17

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Stern, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Monning

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/11/17

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/18/17 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill provides that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. This bill requires the agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. This bill provides factors for the agency to consider in making such a determination. This bill requires public agencies to permit a victim of a crime depicted in such videos to inspect the recording and obtain a copy.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Declares the people’s right to transparency in government. (“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny....”) (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3.)
2. Provides individuals an express right to privacy specifically designed to “prevent government ... from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve another purpose.” (Cal. Const., art. I., Sec. 1; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774.)
3. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. (Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.)
4. Provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record, that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemptions as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.5.)
5. Provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253(a).)
6. Provides that any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records, and authorizes an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation, and those costs and fees are required to be paid by the public agency, as specified. (Gov. Code Secs. 6258, 6259(d).) The test for determining whether a record may be withheld from public access is whether the public’s interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public’s interest in withholding disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)
7. Requires that a statute that limits the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Const., art. 1, Sec. 3(b)(2).)

This bill:

1. Provides that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. An agency is required to justify withholding the video or audio recording by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 of the Government Code, that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.
2. Requires an agency to consider the following factors when balancing the public interests in disclosure and nondisclosure:

• the constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording; and
• whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

1. Requires public agencies to permit a victim of a crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. This bill provides that disclosure pursuant to this provision does not constitute a waiver of any exemptions for other members of the public pursuant to Section 6254.5 of the Government Code.
2. Provides that nothing therein can be construed to affect any other exemptions to the CPRA.
3. Makes findings required by the California Constitution.

Background

The CPRA governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information. Unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information.

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri during the course of an arrest for an alleged robbery. While Wilson was not indicted for his actions, the incident, and the many similar incidents since, demonstrated the tremendous difficulties in determining crucial facts related to use of force by police against members of the public.

In the wake of Ferguson and other incidences involving allegations of police misconduct, communities across the country have begun outfitting police forces with body cameras. In fact, body cameras have emerged as a rare point of agreement between many reform advocates and law enforcement officials. Many officers report that the equipment changes citizen behavior and helps deescalate confrontations between civilians and police. They also claim that body cameras improve evidence collection, and help them more accurately recollect events and fill out reports. (Wing, Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras (2015) Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ entry/police-body-camera-study_us_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56 [as of August 21, 2017].)

However, body cameras also pose a threat to privacy. With an activated camera constantly documenting everything a police officer sees and does, sensitive content, such as the interior of private residences, interviews with victims, and discussions with confidential informants, may be recorded and potentially preserved for public inspection. Thus, in order for body cameras to both increase police accountability and protect privacy rights, the Legislature must balance what footage should be available for public review versus the footage that should be kept confidential.

This bill provides that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts certain features of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. This bill requires the agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. This bill provides factors for the agency to consider in making such a determination.

Comments

The author writes:

In the wake of high-profile use of force incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore and elsewhere, body-worn cameras (BWC) have been swiftly deployed by law enforcement agencies across the country. Body-worn cameras help promote transparency, accountability and credibility between law enforcement and the public.

However with rapid adoption of BWCs, concerns have emerged about the consistency of use, transparency and privacy. Eighteen states have legislated how body-worn camera data is treated under open record laws. In California, video and audio data held in law enforcement custody can be considered a public record under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test. If it is deemed that the public interest warrants the release of the video or audio files, the agency shall consider redaction to prevent release of personally identifiable characteristics. Furthermore, AB 459 enhances the rights of the victim or victims of these crimes by permitting the inspection of the recording and the right to obtain a copy. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections and prevent further harm to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.

Adjusting treatment of specified recordings under the CPRA. The CPRA provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency, and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless otherwise exempted from disclosure. Existing law further provides that in the event that a record contains non-disclosable information, “any reasonably segregable portion of the record shall be available” to the requestor. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253.)

Relevant here, records of complaints and investigations conducted by various police agencies, or any investigatory or security files compiled by those agencies are exempted from disclosure under the CPRA. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254(f).) However, state and local law enforcement agencies are required to disclose certain information, such as the names of persons involved in, or witnesses to, the incident, certain details of the incident, and statements related to the incident. But even that information can be withheld if the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.

With regard to records that are not covered by an exemption, agencies may withhold any record if “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by the disclosure of the record.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)

This bill adds another category of records exempt from disclosure requirements. This bill provides that video or audio recordings that are created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse are not required to be disclosed if they depict the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording.

However, the exemption only applies where the agency can justify withholding the video or audio recording “by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 [of the Government Code], that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.” Section 6255 of the Government Code already allows an agency to withhold any record by “demonstrating . . . 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.” Therefore, this provision does not create any new basis to withhold the recordings specified.

However, the bill adds two specific factors that must be considered by an agency when balancing the competing public interests: “(1) The constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording”; and, “(2) Whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.” This provision of the bill provides additional guidance to agencies when determining whether to disclose such recordings.

Presumably, if the agency decided to redact or distort a recording, as suggested by one of these listed considerations, the agency still needs to justify such redaction or distortion through one of the two circumstances provided in this bill.

Enhancing the rights of victims. This bill requires public agencies to permit a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. Currently, requests from these persons for these recordings could be denied under the various provisions of the CPRA. This bill therefore bars the application of any exemptions, or the balancing test laid out in Section 6255 of the Government Code, to requests made by victims, and the other persons specified, in relation to these video or audio recordings.

Section 6254.5 of the Government Code currently provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the relevant exemptions, as specified. This bill provides that disclosure to a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, pursuant to this bill, does not require that the record be made available to the public pursuant to Section 6254.5.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/17)

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Crime Victims United of California

Fraternal Order of Police

Long Beach Police Officers Association

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence writes that “[i]t is vital that as policies for body camera use are created and implemented in California, victims’ safety be taken into consideration.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/18/17

AYES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Cervantes, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Chau, Frazier, Friedman, Gipson, Gloria, Holden, Mullin, Santiago, Rendon

Prepared by:

8/22/17 16:44:33

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 459 Hearing Date: July 11, 2017

Subject: Public Records: Video or Audio Recordings: Crime

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 2611 (Low), 2016, failed in Assembly Judiciary

AB 2533 (Santiago), 2016, failed in this committee

AB 69 (Rodriguez), 2015, Ch. 461, Stats. of 2015

SB 175 (Huff), 2015, failed on the Assembly Floor

AB 1940 (Cooper), 2015, failed in this committee

Support: Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California Statewide Law Enforcement Association; Chief Probation Officers of California; Crime Victims United of California; Fraternal Order of Police; Long Beach Police Officers Association; National Association of Social Workers; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 69 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to provide that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault; domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the victim of the incident, as specified.

Existing law, under the California Constitution, declares the people’s right to transparency in government. (“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny....”) (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3.)

Existing law provides individuals an express right to privacy specifically designed to “prevent government ... from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve another purpose.” (Cal. Const., art. I., Sec. 1; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774.)

Existing law, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. (Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.)

Existing law provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record, that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemptions as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.5.)

Existing law provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253(a).)

Existing law provides that any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records, and authorizes an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation, and those costs and fees are required to be paid by the public agency, as specified. (Gov. Code Secs. 6258, 6259(d).) The test for determining whether a record may be withheld from public access is whether the public’s interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public’s interest in withholding disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)

This bill would provide that the CPRA does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. An agency would be required to justify withholding the video or audio recording by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 of the Government Code, that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.

This bill would require an agency to consider the following factors when balancing the public interests in disclosure and nondisclosure:

• the constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording; and
• whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

This bill would require public agencies to permit a victim of a crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. This bill would provide that disclosure pursuant to this provision does not constitute a waiver of any exemptions for other members of the public pursuant to Section 6254.5 of the Government Code.

This bill would provide that nothing therein can be construed to affect any other exemptions to the CPRA.

Existing law, under the California Constitution, requires that a statute that limits the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Const., art. 1, Sec. 3(b)(2).)

This bill would make findings required by the California Constitution.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

In the wake of high-profile use of force incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore and elsewhere, body-worn cameras (BWC) have been swiftly deployed by law enforcement agencies across the country. Body-worn cameras help promote transparency, accountability and credibility between law enforcement and the public.

However with rapid adoption of BWCs, concerns have emerged about the consistency of use, transparency and privacy. Eighteen states have legislated how body-worn camera data is treated under open record laws. In California, video and audio data held in law enforcement custody can be considered a public record under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

The CRPA generally requires that public agencies make public records available to the public upon request, unless exempted by law. However, it also gives public agencies some flexibility to exempt some documents from disclosure in cases where "the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record". That decision must be made on a case by case basis by the disclosing agency.

Nevertheless, due to the unusually sensitive nature of audio and video recordings showing victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse, often at one of the worst moments of the person's life, these individuals deserve greater assurance that their privacy will be protected. Public release of these images and sounds could cause further physical or mental harm to the victim and should be minimized.

AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test. If it is deemed that the public interest warrants the release of the video or audio files, the agency shall consider redaction to prevent release of personally identifiable characteristics. Furthermore, AB 459 enhances the rights of the victim or victims of these crimes by permitting the inspection of the recording and the right to obtain a copy. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections and prevent further harm to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legislated how body-worn camera data is addressed under open record laws. In particular Oklahoma and Connecticut have passed laws that provide additional protection for victims of sexual or domestic violence. In Connecticut, HB 7103 (2015) requires that no data of a scene that involves a victim of domestic or sexual abuse shall be subject to public disclosure if it is an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In Oklahoma, footage can be redacted if it portrays a victim of sex crimes and domestic violence. In response to the increased use of body-worn cameras, other states have given extra protections to victims. Given the widespread adaption of body-worn cameras in police departments across the state, California should also protect the privacy of victims of sexual and domestic violence.

2. Recent Body Worn-Camera Legislative Efforts in California

Law enforcement agencies across California have elected to use body-worn cameras to record their daily interactions with the public. Since the rise to prominence of this practice, there have been various attempts at passing legislation to codify the process for accessing the footage recorded by the cameras. Presently, there is no uniform set of procedures that police departments must follow in deciding whether to release footage. However, recordings are often withheld from the public on the grounds that they are “investigative records” and therefore exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to the CPRA. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 (f).)

The CPRA requires disclosure of public records upon a reasonably focused and specific request, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253 (b).) When a record is not specifically exempt from disclosure, the CPRA provides a balancing test to be used when determining whether records should be released. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.16 (f).) If the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the records will not be released. (American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cal. v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 62.) Currently, law enforcement investigative records are exempt from mandated disclosure under the CPRA. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 (f).) This includes records of complaints, preliminary inquiries to determine if a crime has been committed, and full-scale investigations, as well as closure memoranda. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.)

In 2015, AB 66 (Weber) sought to tackle the issue of access to body-camera recordings by requiring that law enforcement agencies comply with set guidelines, including a mandate that policies be posted conspicuously on the agency’s website, and a prohibition on the copying of camera files for personal use. The bill also provided a list of suggested guidelines that law enforcement agencies must consider in adopting their own policies. That bill failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Another bill from 2015, AB 1246 (Quirk), aimed to prohibit the disclosure of a recording made by a body-worn camera, except to the person whose image is recorded by the camera. That bill failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. SB 175 (Huff and Gaines), also from 2015, sought to require each police department using body-worn cameras to adopt a policy relating to the use of those cameras. It also required that the policies were developed in accordance with specified acts governing employee organizations, with designated representatives of nonsupervisory officers. That bill failed on the Assembly Floor.

In 2016, AB 1940 (Cooper) again attempted to require police departments which use body-worn cameras to adopt a policy pertaining to the use of the cameras. Among its objectives was to require law enforcement agencies to have a policy to prohibit a peace officer from making a video or audio recording in a health facility or medical office when a patient may be in the view of the body-worn camera, or when a health care practitioner is providing care to an individual. However, that bill required that officers be permitted to view body camera footage prior to the drafting of police reports. That bill, like its predecessors, did not become law. It failed passage in this committee. AB 2533 (Santiago) sought to require that a police officer be provided with a minimum of three business days’ notice before a public safety department or other public agency releases, on the Internet, any audio or video of the officer recorded by the officer. This bill also failed in this committee. Finally, AB 2611 (Low, 2016) sought to amend the CPRA to prohibit disclosure of any audio or video recording depicting the death of a peace officer unless authorized by the officer’s immediate family. That bill failed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, given that it prohibited disclosure of the recordings, unlike the bill’s original form in which it passed the Committee, which would have exempted such recordings from mandatory disclosure, but still allowed an agency to disclose them when the public interest in withholding the recordings did not clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosing them.

Similar to AB 1246 (Quirk, 2015); AB 1940 (Cooper, 2016), and AB 2611 (Low, 2016), which all sought to protect the privacy interests of persons depicted in recordings, this bill seeks specifically to protect the privacy of victims of serious crimes by specifying that the CPRA does not require the release of video or audio recordings created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depict the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. It also would require, consistent with current law, an agency that withholds such a recording to demonstrate that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing it. In balancing these interests, police departments must consider the victim’s constitutional right to privacy, and whether the harm to the subject of the recording can be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure sensitive images and/or distorting the victim’s voice. It further authorizes a victim who is the subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subject’s next of kin, or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. The bill also makes various legislative findings concerning the Constitutional interests involved in preventing the release of public records as required by the state constitution. (Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 1.)

3. California Public Records Act and Specified Recordings

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency, and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless otherwise exempted from disclosure. Existing law further provides that in the event that a record contains non-disclosable information, “any reasonably segregable portion of the record shall be available” to the requestor. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253.)

Relevant here, records of complaints and investigations conducted by various police agencies, or any investigatory or security files compiled by those agencies are exempted from disclosure under the CPRA. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254(f).) However, state and local law enforcement agencies are required to disclose certain information, such as the names of persons involved in, or witnesses to, the incident, certain details of the incident, and statements related to the incident. But even that information can be withheld if the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.

With regard to records that are not covered by an exemption, agencies may withhold any record if “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by the disclosure of the record.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)

This bill would add another category of records exempt from disclosure requirements. This bill would provide that video or audio recordings that are created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse are not required to be disclosed if they depict the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording.

However, the exemption would only apply where the agency can justify withholding the video or audio recording “by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 [of the Government Code], that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.” Section 6255 of the Government Code already allows an agency to withhold any record by “demonstrating . . . 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.” Therefore, this provision would not create any new basis to withhold the recordings specified.

However, the bill would add two specific factors that must be considered by an agency when balancing the competing public interests: “(1) The constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording”; and, “(2) Whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.” This provision of the bill would provide additional guidance to agencies when determining whether to disclose such recordings.

Presumably, if the agency decided to redact or distort a recording, as suggested by one of these listed considerations, the agency would still need to justify such redaction or distortion through one of the two circumstances provided in this bill.

4. Enhancing the Rights of Victims

This bill would require public agencies to permit a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. Currently, requests from these persons for these recordings could be denied under the various provisions of the CPRA. This bill would therefore bar the application of any exemptions, or the balancing test laid out in Section 6255 of the Government Code, to requests made by victims, and the other persons specified, in relation to these video or audio recordings.

Section 6254.5 of the Government Code currently provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the relevant exemptions, as specified. This bill would provide that disclosure to a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, pursuant to this bill, does not require that the record be made available to the public pursuant to Section 6254.5.

-- END –

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 459 (Author:Chau)

Version: June 15, 2017

Hearing Date: June 27, 2017

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Public records: video or audio recordings: crime

DESCRIPTION

This bill would provide that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. This bill would require the agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. This bill would provide factors for the agency to consider in making such a determination. This bill would require public agencies to permit a victim of a crime depicted in such videos to inspect the recording and obtain a copy.

BACKGROUND

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information. Unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information.

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri during the course of an arrest for an alleged robbery. While Wilson was not indicted for his actions, the incident, and the many similar incidents since, demonstrated the tremendous difficulties in determining crucial facts related to use of force by police against members of the public.

In the wake of Ferguson and other incidences involving allegations of police misconduct, communities across the country have begun outfitting police forces with body cameras. In fact, body cameras have emerged as a rare point of agreement between many reform advocates and law enforcement officials. Many officers report that the equipment changes citizen behavior and helps deescalate confrontations between civilians and police. They also claim that body cameras improve evidence collection, and help them more accurately recollect events and fill out reports. (Wing, Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras (2015) Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-body-camera-study_us_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56> [as of June 10, 2017].)

That being said, body cameras also pose a threat to privacy. With an activated camera constantly documenting everything a police officer sees and does, sensitive content, such as the interior of private residences, interviews with victims, and discussions with confidential informants, may be recorded and potentially preserved for public inspection. Thus, in order for body cameras to both increase police accountability and protect privacy rights, the Legislature must balance what footage should be available for public review versus the footage that should be kept confidential.

This bill, which has been double referred to the Senate Committee on Public Safety, would provide that public agencies are not required to disclose video or audio created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts certain features of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. This bill would require the agency to justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating that the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording. This bill would provide factors for the agency to consider in making such a determination.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law, the California Constitution, declares the people’s right to transparency in government. (“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny....”) (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3.)

Existing law provides individuals an express right to privacy specifically designed to “prevent government ... from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve another purpose.” (Cal. Const., art. I., Sec. 1; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774.)

Existing law, the California Public Records Act (CPRA), governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. (Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30 general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.)

Existing law provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record, that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemptions as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.5.)

Existing law provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253(a).)

Existing law provides that any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records, and authorizes an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation, and those costs and fees are required to be paid by the public agency, as specified. (Gov. Code Secs. 6258, 6259(d).) The test for determining whether a record may be withheld from public access is whether the public’s interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public’s interest in withholding disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)

This bill would provide that the CPRA does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. An agency would be required to justify withholding the video or audio recording by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 of the Government Code, that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.

This bill would require an agency to consider the following factors when balancing the public interests in disclosure and nondisclosure:

• the constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording; and
• whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

This bill would require public agencies to permit a victim of a crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. This bill would provide that disclosure pursuant to this provision does not constitute a waiver of any exemptions for other members of the public pursuant to Section 6254.5 of the Government Code.

This bill would provide that nothing therein can be construed to affect any other exemptions to the CPRA.

Existing law, the California Constitution, requires that a statute that limits the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Const., art. 1, Sec. 3(b)(2).)

This bill would make findings required by the California Constitution.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

In the wake of high-profile use of force incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore and elsewhere, body-worn cameras (BWC) have been swiftly deployed by law enforcement agencies across the country. Body-worn cameras help promote transparency, accountability and credibility between law enforcement and the public.

However with rapid adoption of BWCs, concerns have emerged about the consistency of use, transparency and privacy. Eighteen states have legislated how body-worn camera data is treated under open record laws. In California, video and audio data held in law enforcement custody can be considered a public record under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test. If it is deemed that the public interest warrants the release of the video or audio files, the agency shall consider redaction to prevent release of personally identifiable characteristics. Furthermore, AB 459 enhances the rights of the victim or victims of these crimes by permitting the inspection of the recording and the right to obtain a copy. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections and prevent further harm to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.

2. Adjusting treatment of specified recordings under the CPRA

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency, and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless otherwise exempted from disclosure. Existing law further provides that in the event that a record contains non-disclosable information, “any reasonably segregable portion of the record shall be available” to the requestor. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253.)

Relevant here, records of complaints and investigations conducted by various police agencies, or any investigatory or security files compiled by those agencies are exempted from disclosure under the CPRA. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254(f).) However, state and local law enforcement agencies are required to disclose certain information, such as the names of persons involved in, or witnesses to, the incident, certain details of the incident, and statements related to the incident. But even that information can be withheld if the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.

With regard to records that are not covered by an exemption, agencies may withhold any record if “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by the disclosure of the record.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.)

This bill would add another category of records exempt from disclosure requirements. This bill would provide that video or audio recordings that are created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse are not required to be disclosed if they depict the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording.

However, the exemption would only apply where the agency can justify withholding the video or audio recording “by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255 [of the Government Code], that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.” Section 6255 of the Government Code already allows an agency to withhold any record by “demonstrating . . . 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.” Therefore, this provision would not create any new basis to withhold the recordings specified.

However, the bill would add two specific factors that must be considered by an agency when balancing the competing public interests: “(1) The constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording”; and, “(2) Whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.” This provision of the bill would provide additional guidance to agencies when determining whether to disclose such recordings.

Presumably, if the agency decided to redact or distort a recording, as suggested by one of these listed considerations, the agency would still need to justify such redaction or distortion through one of the two circumstances provided in this bill.

3. Enhancing the rights of victims

This bill would require public agencies to permit a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. Currently, requests from these persons for these recordings could be denied under the various provisions of the CPRA. This bill would therefore bar the application of any exemptions, or the balancing test laid out in Section 6255 of the Government Code, to requests made by victims, and the other persons specified, in relation to these video or audio recordings.

Section 6254.5 of the Government Code currently provides that if a state or local agency discloses a public record that is otherwise exempt, to a member of the public, the disclosure constitutes a waiver of the relevant exemptions, as specified. This bill would provide that disclosure to a victim of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse, who is a subject of a recording; the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject; a deceased subject’s next of kin; or a subject’s legally authorized designee, pursuant to this bill, does not require that the record be made available to the public pursuant to Section 6254.5.

Support: Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California Statewide Law Enforcement Association; Crime Victims United of California; Fraternal Order of Police; Long Beach Police Officers Association; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: Author

Related Pending Legislation: AB 748 (Ting, 2017) 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 setting forth the procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras. This bill is currently in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Prior Legislation:

SB 175 (Huff and Gaines, 2015) would have required 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. This bill died on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2611 (Low, 2016) would have prohibited from disclosure under the CPRA any investigatory or security audio or video recording that shows gruesome injuries, or the death of a peace officer who is killed in the line of duty without authorization from the officer’s immediate family. This bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

AB 2533 (Santiago, 2016) would have entitled an officer to at least three-day’s notice before an agency releases an audio or video recording of the officer recorded by that officer on the Internet. This bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 69 (Rodriguez, Chapter 461, Statutes of 2015) requires law enforcement agencies to consider specified best practices when establishing policies and procedures for downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras.

AB 1940 (Cooper, 2015) would have required a law enforcement agency, department, or entity that employs peace officers and uses body-worn cameras for those officers, to develop a body-worn camera policy allowing a peace officer to review his or her body-worn camera video and audio recordings before making a report, giving an internal affairs statement, or before any criminal or civil proceeding. This bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 1246 (Quirk, 2015) would have prohibited, in response to a CPRA request, the disclosure of a recording made by a body worn camera, except to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera. This bill died without a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 69, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 459

Author:(Chau) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill protects the privacy of victims of certain crimes by specifying that certain recordings that contain their images or voices are not required to be released by public entities in response to a request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). This bill specifies information that must be considered by the public entity in conducting a balancing test of whether information is required to be released under CPRA. In addition, this bill gives victims a right to inspect any such recordings without having to first make a CPRA request.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible fiscal effect.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Existing law generally requires, pursuant to the 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. Under CPRA, a public record includes recordings, such as video or audio recordings. As a result of law enforcement agencies in the state beginning to adopt the use of body-worn cameras, these agencies sometimes obtain video or audio recordings of a crime that can depict the identity of victim and details of the crime they suffered. Currently, there is no uniform set of procedures that law enforcement agencies must follow in deciding whether to release footage from a body-worn camera under a CPRA request.
2. Purpose. This bill is intended to provide victims of sexual or domestic violence with greater certainty that unredacted body-worn camera footage depicting them won't be disclosed to the public by law enforcement, while also giving the victim the right to inspect the footage and secure of a copy without putting the records into the public domain. According to the author, "AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test.”

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 459

Author:(Chau) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)

SUBJECT: PUBLIC RECORDS: AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS

KEY ISSUE: should THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT a video or audio recording created during the commission or investiGation of A serious crime IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST for public records, but MUST BE DISCLOSED TO THE VICTIM who is depicted IN such a recording?

SYNOPSIS

Recent years have seen mounting civil unrest over police brutality and use of fatal force against members of the public during traffic stops and other routine interactions between law enforcement and the public. In an effort to make daily police interactions more transparent and thus increase trust in the law enforcement system among members of the public, various law enforcement agencies across California have elected to require their officers to use body-worn cameras that record their interactions with the public. Still, these agencies often do not have policies concerning procedures for public access to the recordings taken by the cameras. As a result, there is often confusion among members of the public who seek to access the recordings about what information they are entitled to access and how to request and obtain recordings.

A number of recent legislative efforts to adopt statewide policies regarding the use of body cameras and release of recordings by such cameras have failed to become law. This bill, supported by law enforcement agencies and victims’ rights advocates, seeks to specify that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does not require the release of video or audio recordings created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording in response to a CPRA request. It also would require, consistent with current law, an agency that withholds such a recording to demonstrate that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing it. It further authorizes a victim who is the subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subject’s next of kin, or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. The author proposes minor clarifying amendments to the bill so that its language is consistent with other provisions of the CPRA. Those amendments are reflected in this analysis. The bill is supported by a number of law enforcement and crime victim advocacy organizations. There is no reported opposition to the bill.

SUMMARY: Seeks to protect victims of crime by specifying that certain recordings that contain their images or voices are not required to be released by public entities in response to a request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording is not required to be disclosed in response to a CPRA request.
2. Requires a public agency that withholds such a recording to justify doing so by demonstrating, pursuant to Government Code Section 6255, that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.
3. Requires the public agency, when balancing the public interests described above to consider the following when determining whether to release the recording:
4. The constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording; and
5. Whether the potential harm caused to the victim by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim or by distorting portions of the recording containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording.
6. Authorizes a victim who is the subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subject’s next of kin, or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording.
7. Makes legislative findings demonstrating the interests served in limiting access to public meetings or writings of public officials, and ensuring that the confidentiality of certain video or audio recordings furthers the purposes of Section 3 of Article 1 of the California Constitution.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, in the California Constitution, that “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights” and among these are “privacy.” (Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 1.)
2. Provides, in the California Constitution, that “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore . . . the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 3, subd. (b), par. (1).)
3. Requires, pursuant to the California Constitution, that “A state, court rule, or other authority . . . that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 3, subd. (b), par. (2).)
4. Requires, when establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, law enforcement agencies, departments, or entities to consider the best practices as specified regarding the downloading and storage of body-worn camera data, including designating the person responsible for downloading the recorded data from the body-worn camera and specifically stating the length of time that recorded data is to be stored. (Penal Code Section 832.18.)
5. Establishes the CPRA and provides that the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code, Section 6250 et seq. All further statutory references are to this code section, unless otherwise indicated.)
6. Defines “public records” as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” “Writing” means “any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” (Section 6252.)
7. Provides that, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so. (Section 6253 (b).)
8. States that, except as in other sections of the CPRA, this chapter does not require the disclosure of specified records, which includes among other things: records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by specified agencies, including any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. (Section 6254.)
9. Provides, notwithstanding any other law, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:
   1. The full name and booking information of all persons arrested;
   2. Calls for service logs and crime reports, subject to protections for protecting the confidentiality of victims; and,
   3. The addresses of individuals arrested by the agency and victims of a crime, where the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator. (Section 6254 (f).)
10. Requires the agency to justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or 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. (Section 6255.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Law enforcement agencies across California have elected to use body-worn cameras to record their daily interactions with the public. Since the rise to prominence of this practice, there have been various attempts at passing legislation to codify the process for accessing the footage recorded by the cameras. Presently, there is no uniform set of procedures that police departments must follow in deciding whether to release footage. However, recordings are often withheld from the public on the grounds that they are “investigative records” and therefore exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to the CPRA. (Section 6254 (f).)

The CPRA requires disclosure of public records upon a reasonably focused and specific request, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. (Section 6253 (b).) When a record is not specifically exempt from disclosure, the CPRA provides a balancing test to be used when determining whether records should be released. (Section 6254.16 (f).) If the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the records will not be released. (American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cal. v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 62.) Currently, law enforcement investigative records are exempt from mandated disclosure under the CPRA. (Section 6254 (f).) This includes records of complaints, preliminary inquiries to determine if a crime has been committed, and full-scale investigations, as well as closure memoranda. (Section 6254.)

In 2015, AB 66 (Weber) sought to tackle the issue of access to body-camera recordings by requiring that law enforcement agencies comply with set guidelines, including a mandate that policies be posted conspicuously on the agency’s website, and a prohibition on the copying of camera files for personal use. The bill also provided a list of suggested guidelines that law enforcement agencies must consider in adopting their own policies. That bill died in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Another bill from 2015, AB 1246 (Quirk), aimed to prohibit the disclosure of a recording made by a body-worn camera, except to the person whose image is recorded by the camera. That bill died in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. SB 175 (Huff and Gaines), also from 2015, sought to require each police department using body-worn cameras to adopt a policy relating to the use of those cameras. It also required that the policies were developed in accordance with specified acts governing employee organizations, with designated representatives of nonsupervisory officers. That bill died on the Assembly Floor.

In 2016, AB 1940 (Cooper) again attempted to require police departments which use body-worn cameras to adopt a policy pertaining to the use of the cameras. Among its objectives was to require law enforcement agencies to have a policy to prohibit a peace officer from making a video or audio recording in a health facility or medical office when a patient may be in the view of the body-worn camera, or when a health care practitioner is providing care to an individual. This bill, like its predecessors, did not become law. It died in the Senate Committee on Public Safety. AB 2533 (Santiago) sought to require that a police officer be provided with a minimum of three business days’ notice before a public safety department or other public agency releases, on the Internet, any audio or video of the officer recorded by the officer. This bill also died in the Senate Committee on Public Safety. Finally, AB 2611 (Low, 2016) sought to amend the CPRA to prohibit disclosure of any audio or video recording depicting the death of a peace officer unless authorized by the officer’s immediate family. That bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, given that it prohibited disclosure of the recordings, unlike the bill’s original form in which it passed the Committee, which would have exempted such recordings from mandatory disclosure, but still allowed an agency to disclose them when the public interest in withholding the recordings did not clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosing them.

Similar to AB 1246 (Quirk, 2015); AB 1940 (Cooper, 2016), and AB 2611 (Low, 2016), which all sought to protect the privacy interests of persons depicted in recordings, this bill seeks specifically to protect the privacy of victims of serious crimes by specifying that the CPRA does not require the release of video or audio recordings created during the commission or investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depict the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording. It also would require, consistent with current law, an agency that withholds such a recording to demonstrate that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing it. In balancing these interests, police departments must consider the victim’s constitutional right to privacy, and whether the harm to the subject of the recording can be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure sensitive images and/or distorting the victim’s voice. It further authorizes a victim who is the subject of such a recording, the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subject’s next of kin, or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to be permitted to inspect the recording and to obtain a copy of the recording. The bill also makes various legislative findings concerning the Constitutional interests involved in preventing the release of public records as required by the state constitution. (Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 1.)

Author’s statement. The author states in support of his bill:

In the wake of high-profile use of force incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore and elsewhere, body-worn cameras (BWC) have been swiftly deployed by law enforcement agencies across the country. Body-worn cameras help promote transparency, accountability and credibility between law enforcement and the public.

However with rapid adoption of BWCs, concerns have emerged about the consistency of use, transparency and privacy. Eighteen states have legislated how body-worn camera data is treated under open record laws. In California, video and audio data held in law enforcement custody can be considered a public record under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test. If it is deemed that the public interest warrants the release of the video or audio files, the agency shall consider redaction to prevent release of personally identifiable characteristics. Furthermore, AB 459 enhances the rights of the victim or victims of these crimes by permitting the inspection of the recording and the right to obtain a copy. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections and prevent further harm to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.

Thus, this bill aims to find the appropriate balance between the privacy interests of crime victims and the public’s right to access footage pertaining to daily police interactions with civilians by allowing police officers to refuse to release the footage, or if appropriate, to redact the footage such that the harm to the victim is prevented.

Author’s Minor Clarifying Amendments. The author proposes the following minor clarifying amendments to the bill so that its language is consistent with other provisions of the CPRA:

6254.4.5.  (a) An agency may refuse to disclose This chapter does not require disclosure of a video or audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording if it demonstrates,.  An agency shall justify withholding such a video or audio recording by demonstrating, pursuant to Section 6255, that on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing disclosure of the recording.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA), Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS), Long Beach Police Officers Association (LBPOA), and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SCDSA) support AB 459 because it protects “California’s most vulnerable victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse.”

The National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter (NASW-CA) supports the bill because “victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and child abuse have been traumatized enough and we must respect their desire for privacy. If we ignore the wishes of survivors, we can compound the trauma they have already suffered. This bill is a common sense measure that should be enacted.”

Finally, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence supports AB 459 because “such sensitive recordings of a survivor at such a vulnerable time should be treated with care and a focus on the needs and wishes of the survivor.”

Pending Related Legislation: AB 748 (Ting, 2017), which was heard and approved by this Committee, seeks to require those police departments that have elected to use body-worn cameras to adopt a policy, to be posted conspicuously on their website, regarding public access to the recordings. AB 748 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Crime Victims United of California

Fraternal Order of Police

Long Beach Police Officers Association

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Lusine Chinkezian and Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 459 (

Author:Chau) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

SUBJECT: Public records:video or audio recordings: crime

SUMMARY: Restricts the public disclosure of video and audio recordings held by law enforcement that depict a victim of sexual or domestic violence, and requires that the victim or victim's family be given access to a copy of the recording. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes an agency to refuse to disclose a video and audio recording that was created during the commission or investigation of the crime of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse that depicts the face, intimate body part, or voice of a victim of the incident depicted in the recording if it demonstrates that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the recording clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the recording.
   
2. Requires an agency, when balancing the public interests as required, to consider:
   
   1. The constitutional right to privacy of the person or persons depicted in the recording; and,
      
   2. Whether the potential harm to the victim caused by disclosing the recording may be mitigated by redacting the recording to obscure images showing intimate body parts and personally identifying characteristics of the victim, or distorting portions of the recoding containing the victim’s voice, provided that the redaction does not prevent a viewer from being able to fully and accurately perceive the events captured on the recording. The recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.
      
3. Requires an agency to permit a victim who is the subject of a recording, or the parent or legal guardian of a minor subject, a deceased subject’s next of kin, or a subject’s legally authorized designee, to inspect the recording and obtain a copy of the recording without making the recording a public document.
   
4. Makes findings and declarations that the need to protect the privacy of victims of serious crimes from the public disclosure of images captured in video or audio recordings outweighs the interest in public disclosure of that information.
5. Makes findings and declarations that because video and audio files may contain sensitive information that could compromise important police work in addition to information that is highly private for victims of certain crimes, requiring local agencies to maintain the confidentiality of certain video or audio recordings furthers the purposes of the California Constitution.
6. Declares that no reimbursement is required pursuant to the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this bill would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of the California Constitution.

EXISTING LAW 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: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill: This bill is intended to provide victims of sexual or domestic violence with greater certainty that unredacted body-worn camera footage depicting them won't be disclosed to the public by law enforcement, while also giving the victim the right to inspect the footage and secure of a copy without putting the records into the public domain. AB 459 is author-sponsored.
2. Author's Statement: According to the author, "In the wake of high-profile use of force incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore and elsewhere, body-worn cameras (BWC) have been swiftly deployed by law enforcement agencies across the country. Body-worn cameras help promote transparency, accountability and credibility between law enforcement and the public."

"However with rapid adoption of BWCs, concerns have emerged about the consistency of use, transparency and privacy. Eighteen states have legislated how body-worn camera data is treated under open record laws. In California, video and audio data held in law enforcement custody can be considered a public record under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

"AB 459 urges agencies to withhold video and audio files that were created during the commission of the crime or the subsequent investigation of the crimes of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse from being subject to public disclosure. While the CPRA requires a balancing test between the public interest to disclose versus withhold, the individual right to privacy is considered during this test. Victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse are placed in a particularly vulnerable situation and deserve strong privacy protections when agencies consider the balancing test. If it is deemed that the public interest warrants the release of the video or audio files, the agency shall consider redaction to prevent release of personally identifiable characteristics. Furthermore, AB 459 enhances the rights of the victim or victims of these crimes by permitting the inspection of the recording and the right to obtain a copy. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections and prevent further harm to the victims of sexual and domestic violence."

1. 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 (NCSL), 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.
   
   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."
2. The California Public Records Act: As noted above, the 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 requires public agencies to generally 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.
   
   Research by the NCSL shows that 18 states and the District of Columbia have statutes regulating how body-worn camera footage is disclosed under open record laws, including at least six that exclude body-worn camera footage entirely from open record requests. Similar to this bill, the state of Connecticut excludes specific incidents from its open records laws including footage depicting victims of domestic or sexual abuse, homicide, suicide or accidental death. 
3. Arguments in support: According to the National Association of Social Workers, "This law will follow the lead of 18 other states that have passed legislation to protect the privacy of how this data is treated under open record laws. Victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and child abuse have been traumatized enough and we must respect their desire for privacy. If we ignore the wishes of survivors, we can compound the trauma they have already suffered. This bill is a common sense measure that should be enacted."
   
   The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence writes "Body cameras are increasingly prevalent among law enforcement, and these cameras may capture survivors of these serious crimes during a moment of crisis, interacting with law enforcement immediately after victimization. Such sensitive recordings of a survivor at such a vulnerable time should be treated with care and a focus on the needs and wishes of the survivor. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), some of the primary concerns related to body-worn camera footage of survivors is addressing who will have access to these videos. NNEDV recommends that access to the public should be limited with policies that ensure access to these videos are limited and the privacy of victims, witnesses and bystanders be considered."
4. Related Legislation: AB 748 (Ting) would require law enforcement agencies that deploy body-worn cameras to develop a usage policy and disclose that policy on its public website. AB 748 is currently pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
5. Previous Legislation: AB 66 (Weber) would have placed certain restrictions on the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers, and exempted from public disclosure body-worn camera files that depict any victim of rape, incest, domestic violence, or child abuse, if the footage relates to any of those incidents. AB 66 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 69 (Rodriguez), Chapter 461, Statutes of 2016, 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 should consider.

AB 1246 (Quirk) would have prohibited 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.

1. Double-referral: This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, where it will be heard if passed by this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Crime Victims United of California

Fraternal Order of Police

Long Beach Police Officers Association

National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter

Peace Officers Research Association

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Hank Dempsey / P. & C.P. /