Existing law requires law enforcement agencies, departments, or entities to consider specified best practices regarding the downloading and storage of body-worn camera data when establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, as specified.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish policies and procedures to address issues related to body-worn cameras.

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 955

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2017

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Allows a person convicted of bribing or offering to bribe specified public officials to be punished with a restitution fine of not less than four thousand dollars ($4,000) or not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or four thousand dollars ($4,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), whichever is greater.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies that a person who gives or offers to give a bribe to a Member of the Legislature, to a member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, or to another person for the member, or attempts by specified unlawful means, to influence a member in giving or withholding his or her vote, or in not attending the house or any committee of which he or she is a member, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four  years. (Pen. Code, § 85.)
   
2. States it is a felony for a Member of either house of the Legislature, or member of specified count and local legislative bodies, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall give, in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he or she may be required to act in his or her official capacity, or gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or specified public offices, shall give this vote either upon the same or another question. (Pen. Code, § 86.)
   
3. Provides that the felony conduct of public officials described above is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four  years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than four thousand dollars ($4,000) or not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or four thousand dollars ($4,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), whichever is greater. (Pen. Code, § 86.)
   
4. Requires in every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b).)
   
5. States that the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. If the person is convicted of a felony, the fine shall not be less than three hundred dollars ($300) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).)
   
6. States that if the person is convicted of a misdemeanor, the restitution fine shall not be less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).)
   
7. Specifies that in setting a felony restitution fine, the court may determine the amount of the fine as the product of the specified minimum fine multiplied by the number of years of imprisonment the defendant is ordered to serve, multiplied by the number of felony counts of which the defendant is convicted. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(2).)
   
8. Requires the court to impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (c).)
   
9. States that a defendant's inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine, but that inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (c).)
   
10. Provides that setting the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine, the court shall consider any relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the defendant's inability to pay, the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, any economic gain derived by the defendant as a result of the crime, the extent to which any other person suffered losses as a result of the crime, and the number of victims involved in the crime. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (d).)
    
11. Specifies that the restitution fine shall not be subject to penalty assessments, or the state surcharge, and shall be deposited in the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Political pay-to-play corruption is but one face of the deepening culture of corruption that has become an endemic feature of an American society, a society increasingly controlled of the 1%. Not a week goes by without a media exposé of yet another corruption scandal involving a politician, corporate executive, revolving-door opportunist or a local landlord or businessman. America’s culture of corruption seems to penetrate all nearly aspects of economic relations.
   
   “Pay-to-play politics is a bi-partisan game that operates at all levels of government and, occasionally, some of those with the dirtiest hands are exposed.
   
   “A recent study by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) found that between 1976 and 2013 the three top states in terms of public corruption convictions were New York (2,657), California (2,549 and Illinois (1,982).
   
   “The fairly recent suspensions and subsequent convictions of California State Senators Leland Yee, Ron Calderon, and Roderick Wright due to separate corruption charges have led to a surge in media and public concern over public corruption and campaign finance laws. According to a recent poll, 84% of Californians are concerned about public corruption, with 51% being “very concerned.”
   
   “Political scandals in California, or elsewhere in America, aren’t very different from our rich history of corporate fraud, except maybe in scale.
   
   “After decades of scandals involving California’s police, lawmakers, and judges, we must continually recognize corruption’s detrimental effects on public trust, and must take actions that discourage persons from engaging in corrupt activities with our public officials.”
   
2. Existing Law Punishes Public Officials Who Accept a Bribe with a Higher Fine than the Individual Who Bribes the Public Official: Current law punishes public officials that misuse their office with an elevated restitution fine. Generally, a felony conviction has a minimum restitution fine of $300 and a maximum fine of $10,000. When a public official is convicted of accepting a bribe or agreeing to accept a bribe, existing law requires the court to set a restitution fine of not less than four thousand dollars ($4,000) or not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or four thousand dollars ($4,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), whichever is greater. Current law lacks parity in terms the punishment imposed on the person that bribes or attempts to bribe the public official. Currently a the criminal responsible for bribing or attempting to bribe the public official does not face an increased fine, even though they are part of the same criminal conduct as the elected official accepting the bribe. This bill would allow the same restitution fine to be imposed on individuals who bribe or attempt to bribe a public official.
   
3. Proposed Amendments to be Adopted in Committee: The proposed amendments:
   
   1. Authorize a restitution fine of not less than four thousand dollars ($4,000) or not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or four thousand dollars ($4,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), whichever is greater, when an individual is convicted of bribing or attempting to bribe a public official.
      
   2. Delete language increasing the potential prison sentence for crimes involving bribing public officials.
      
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 1308 (Battin), Chapter 435, Statutes of 2006, Expanded the scope of laws prohibiting bribery of public officials.
      
   2. AB 1666 (Garcia), Chapter 881, Statutes of 2014, increased restitution fines for the crime of public officers accepting a bribe or agreeing to accept a bribe and prohibited the use of campaign funds to pay for such fines.
      
   3. AB 1692 (Garcia), Chapter 884, Statutes of 2014, limited the use of campaign funds and legal defense funds to pay fines and penalties that are imposed for an improper personal use of campaign funds, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by:

David Billingsley / PUB. S. /

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 955

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2017

PULLED BY COMMITTEE

Analysis Prepared by:

David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744