Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Existing law generally makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements, except that a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined, may only be withheld temporarily under specified circumstances. If disclosure of a recording would violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject of the recording that cannot be adequately protected through redaction, existing law requires the recording to be disclosed, upon request, to the subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected. If disclosure to the person whose privacy is to be protected would substantially interfere with a criminal or administrative investigation, existing law requires the agency to provide the requester with the specific basis for making that determination. Under these circumstances, existing law purports to require the agency to both provide the video or audio recording and allow the agency to withhold the recording for 45 days, subject to extensions.

This bill would instead require the agency to provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording under these circumstances and would allow the agency to withhold the recording for the 45 day period, subject to extensions, as provided by existing law.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(Without Reference to File)

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 54

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:September 10, 2019

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY:

This bill updates a recycling pilot project program, extends the pilot program for an additional two years, and provides funding to support those pilot projects; authorizes the Director of Finance to provide financial assistance to recycling centers in the form of supplemental payments; and, exempts specified dealers from beverage container redemption requirements in unserved convenience zones until July 1, 2020.

The Senate Amendments:

Remove the Assembly version of the bill and instead:

1. Until March 1, 2020, exempt from beverage container redemption requirements certain dealers that are located in a convenience zone that was served by, or exempted because of, a recycling center that closed between August 1, 2019, and September 1, 2019, at the initiation of the recycler.
2. Exempt from beverage container redemption requirements dealers located in an unserved convenience zone if a completed application for a recycling center within the convenience zone is pending before CalRecycle and a letter is submitted to CalRecycle stating the recycling center's intent to serve that convenience zone. Sunset this provision July 1, 2020.
3. Extend the recycling pilot project provisions for two years, until January 1, 2022.
4. Make the following changes to the pilot projects program.
   1. Specify that a pilot project is not subject to hours of operation requirements that are generally applicable to certified recycling centers, and instead require that the pilot project recycler be open at least eight hours per week during the weekend;
   2. Require CalRecycle to establish an internet website to disseminate information regarding beverage container recycling opportunities;
   3. Eliminate the requirement that a convenience zone in the pilot project shall be served by only one pilot project recycler;
   4. Allow a pilot project recycler to be located anywhere within the pilot project area; and,
   5. Make related technical changes
5. Authorize, from the 2019-2020 fiscal year to the 2021-2022 fiscal year, CalRecycle to expend up to $5 million to support the recycling pilot projects. Declare the purpose of this appropriation is to ensure the continued support of, and to bolster, consumer redemption opportunities.
6. Authorize the Director of Finance to approve the expenditure of up to $5 million from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund (BCRF) for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
7. Contain an urgency clause.

COMMENTS:

This bill is intended to provide immediate and temporary relief to grocers from their consumer redemption duties and responsibilities, provide consumers with more redemption opportunities through funding of recycling pilot projects, and provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers in order to prevent additional recycling centers from closing. This bill does not address the underlying issues of California's Bottle Bill program. The administration, the Legislature, and stakeholders should work together to develop a more comprehensive proposal before the relief provided by this bill expires.

According to the Author:

The recent closure of hundreds of recycling centers highlights the urgency with which California must address its recycling challenges. Remaining recycling centers are now impacted by long lines and unable to serve consumers looking to get their redemptions, with many rural areas in the state left unserved. AB 54 would address these needs by funding pilot programs in areas impacted by these closures and provide additional funding for recycling centers.

Arguments in Support:

Supporters of the bill state that it makes targeted revisions to the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act to provide temporary relief from the requirements of the Act in light of the recent announcement of 250 closures of redemption centers at supermarket sites in California and makes a number of changes to the pilot program.

Arguments in Opposition:

None

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs of up to $5 million (BCRF) to support recycling pilot projects.
2. One-time costs of up to $5 million (BCRF) for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
3. Unknown but likely minor costs (BCRF) for CalRecycle to continue the administration of two existing programs.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-1

YES: Mark Stone, Gallagher, Chau, Chiu, Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Kiley, Maienschein, Obernolte, Reyes

ABS, ABST OR NV: Petrie-Norris

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-0-6

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Friedman, Carrillo, Jones-Sawyer, Diep, Gabriel, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Brough, Eggman, Fong, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-6-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Diep, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: Brough, Dahle, Mathis, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bigelow, Calderon, Chen, Cooper, Daly, Flora, Fong, Gabriel

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 10, 2019

CONSULTANT: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0002474

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 54

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 9/10/19 in Senate

Vote: 27 - Urgency

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/11/19

AYES: Allen, Bates, Dahle, Hill, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/12/19

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Jones, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill exempts certain dealers from beverage container redemption requirements in unserved convenience zones until July 1, 2020; expands the recycling pilot project program, extends that program for an additional two years, and provides funding to support those pilot projects; and authorizes the Director of Finance to provide financial assistance to recycling centers in the form of supplemental payments.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill):

1. Requires beverage containers, as defined, sold in-state to have a California redemption value (CRV) of five cents for containers that hold fewer than 24 ounces and 10 cents for containers that hold 24 ounces or more (Public Resources Code (PRC §14560). Requires distributors to pay a redemption payment to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for every beverage container sold in the state (PRC §14575).
2. Provides that these funds are continuously appropriated to CalRecycle for, among other things, the payment of refund values and processing fees (PRC §14581).
3. Requires CalRecycle to annually designate all “convenience zones,” as defined (PRC §§14509.4, 14571.1).
4. Requires, in a convenience zone where a recycling center or location does not exist and until one has been established in that zone, all dealers in the zone to either: (a) redeem empty beverage containers; or, (b) pay CalRecycle an in-lieu fee of $100/day until a recycling location is established (PRC §14571.6).
5. Defines “dealer” as a retail establishment which offers the sale of beverages in beverage containers to consumers. However, any lodging, eating, or drinking establishment, or soft drink vending machine operator who engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers to consumers are not deemed a dealer for purposes of the Bottle Bill (PRC §14510).
6. Defines “recycling center” as an operation which is certified by CalRecycle and which accepts from consumers, and pays or provides the refund value for empty beverage containers intended to be recycled (PRC §14520).
7. Requires CalRecycle to establish a processing payment for a beverage container covered under the program that has a scrap value less than the cost of recycling, to be determined as specified, that is at least equal to the difference between the scrap value of the material and the sum of the cost of recycling and a reasonable financial return (PRC §14575(b)).
8. Requires CalRecycle to pay handling fees to supermarket sites, non-profit convenience zone recyclers, and rural region recyclers to provide an incentive for the redemption of empty beverage containers in a convenience zone (PRC §14585).
9. Authorizes, until January 1, 2020, CalRecycle to approve up to five recycling pilot projects that meet certain criteria and which are designed to improve redemption opportunities in unserved convenience zones. Provides that it is the intent to create new, convenient recycling opportunities to improve consumer redemption of beverage containers and increase recycling rate in jurisdictions served by pilot projects.

This bill:

1. Exempts from beverage container redemption requirements, until March 1, 2020, certain dealers that are located in a convenience zone that was served by, or exempted because of, a recycling center that closed between August 1, 2019, and September 1, 2019, at the initiation of the recycler.
2. Exempts from beverage container redemption requirements dealers located in an unserved convenience zone if a completed application for a recycling center within the convenience zone is pending before CalRecycle and a letter is submitted to CalReccyle stating the recycling center’s intent to serve that convenience zone. Sunsets this provision July 1, 2020.
3. Authorizes CalRecycle to approve recycling pilot projects for an additional two years.
4. Makes the following changes to the pilot projects program:
   1. Specifies that a pilot project is not subject to hours of operation requirements that are generally applicable to certified recycling center but imposes other hours of operation requirements, including that the pilot project recycler be open at least eight hours per week during the weekend.
   2. Requires CalRecycle to establish an Internet Web site to disseminate information regarding beverage container recycling opportunities.
   3. Eliminates the requirement that a convenience zone in the pilot project shall be served by only one pilot project recycler.
   4. Allows a pilot project recycler to be located anywhere within the pilot project area.
   5. Makes other technical changes.
5. Authorizes, from the 2019-2020 fiscal year to the 2021-2022 fiscal year, CalRecycle to expend up to $5 million to support the recycling pilot projects. Declares the purpose of this appropriation is to ensure the continued support of, and to bolster, consumer redemption opportunities.
6. Authorizes the Director of Finance to approve the expenditure of up to $5 million from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
7. Contains an urgency clause.

Background

1. The Bottle Bill program. The Bottle Bill was established by AB 2020 (Margolin, Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986) to be a self-funded program that encourages consumers to recycle beverage containers to prevent littering. The program accomplishes this goal by requiring consumers to pay a deposit CRV for each eligible container purchased that is refunded when an eligible container is returned to a certified recycler. Statute includes two main goals for the program: (a) reducing litter; and, (b) achieving a recycling rate of 80 percent for eligible containers.
2. Recycling convenience zones. Convenience zones are intended to provide consumers opportunities to redeem containers near where beverages are purchased. According to CalRecycle, a convenience zone is typically a half-mile radius with the center point originating at a supermarket that: (a) is identified in the Progressive Grocer Marketing Guidebook; (b) has gross annual sales of $2 million or more; and, (c) is considered a “full-line” store that sells a line of dry groceries, canned goods, or non-food items and perishable items.

In some instances, a convenience zone may be larger than a half mile. For example, an interested person may petition CalRecycle for a three-mile convenience zone to be created in a rural region when there are at least two dealers within three miles of a singular recycling center, and where the dealers are a mile or less apart and have an aggregate sales volume of at least $2 million gross annual sales.

Recycling centers are privately owned and operated by individuals, profit, and nonprofit organizations. They are certified by CalRecycle and must adhere to standards to help provide the public the service they need, e.g. operating at least 30 hours per week and signs depicting prices paid for beverage containers.

Overlapping convenience zones are common in commercial zoning areas throughout the state. If a recycler is on-site at one convenience zone where one or more convenience zones overlap, each of these zones are served by this recycler. Accordingly, it is not necessary in such cases for each convenience zone to support its own recycling center.

A convenience zone may be exempt from the requirement to have a recycling center within its boundaries if one or more conditions are met, including: ease of access to redemption center by consumers, reasonable distance to next closest recycling center, consumers in area predominantly use curbside program for recycling, and recycling centers in the area fail to meet a sufficient volume for economic viability.

1. Handling fees. Handling fees are monthly payments made by CalRecycle to recycling centers that meet certain eligibility requirements. A recycler can receive a monthly handling fee payment for each eligible container redeemed at an eligible center. CalRecycle makes handling fee payments to recyclers to provide incentives for the convenient redemption of beverage containers. These payments encourage redemption and reward operational efficiency at supermarket site recycling centers, nonprofit convenience zone recycling centers, and rural region recycling centers operating within convenience zones. The amount of the base handling fee is determined by a cost survey to determine recycling costs per container.
2. Recent recycling center closures. In August, rePlanet closed all 284 of its centers in California. Before its closure, rePlanet was the largest recycling network in California. Following the closures, rePlanet stated, “With the continued reduction in State fees, the depressed pricing of recycled aluminum and PET plastic, and the rise in operating costs resulting from minimum wage increases and required health and workers compensation insurance, the Company has concluded that operation of these recycling centers is no longer sustainable.”

Various causes may have attributed to the closure of these recyclers. One reason may be attributed to the drop in commodity prices, which have been declining over several years. Also, oil prices have declined significantly and reached historically low levels in 2016. In 2011, PET plastic scrap prices were at a peak of $500/ton and have steadily dropped to $200 in 2016; a decline of 60 percent. New plastic is manufactured from oil, so when the price of oil is very low, using recycled plastic can be more expensive because it has to be sorted and cleaned.

Additionally, changes to processing payments have not kept pace with the decline in scrap values. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state subsidizes recycling by making “processing payments” to recyclers and processors. Processing payments are intended to cover the difference between a container’s scrap value and the cost of recycling it (including a reasonable rate of return). Both the costs of recycling and the scrap value of beverage containers can fluctuate significantly based on changing market prices. As a result, processing payments vary over time. Some contend that they have failed to keep up with real time pricing and includes a minimum three-month gap – this gap results in recycling centers receiving insufficient state payments to make up for the income they may lose from the decline in scrap value.

1. Unserved convenience zones: Option A & Option B. When a recycling center closes, the convenience zone in which it was located becomes “unserved.” When a dealer finds itself in an unserved convenience zone, the dealer has two choices: Option A, in which the dealer agrees to take back beverage containers in-store; or, Option B, in which the dealer agrees to pay an in-lieu fee of $100/day if they choose not to take back beverage containers in-store. These options serve as alternatives for fulfilling a duty to provide redemption opportunities to consumers.
2. Pilot programs. In 2017, former Governor Brown signed SB 458 (Wiener, Chapter 648, Statutes of 2017) authorizing CalRecycle to approve up to five pilot projects proposed by jurisdictions to provide convenient beverage container redemption in both urban and rural areas that do not have enough recycling opportunities. The law allows cities, counties, and companies to partner together to open new and innovative types of redemption opportunities to serve areas that do not have enough beverage container recycling locations. The innovative recycling centers can be mobile recycling centers, stationary staffed recycling centers, reverse vending machines, pick-up services, stationary drop-off sites, or any combination of these.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “The recent closure of 284 recycling centers highlights the urgency for California to address its recycling challenges. The remaining recycling centers are now impacted by long lines and unable to serve consumers looking to get their redemptions, and many rural areas in the state have been left unserved. AB 54 would address these needs by funding mobile recycling pilots in areas impacted by these closures and providing temporary relief to stores that are unprepared to provide redemption to consumers.”
2. Relief for recycling centers. In the Budget Act of 2019, $5 million was made available to CalRecycle to provide temporary assistance to low-volume recyclers in the form of a monthly supplemental payment. Since then rePlanet has closed all of its recycling centers. In an effort to prevent the further closures of recycling centers in the state and to help maintain the state’s recycling infrastructure, AB 54 makes available an additional $5 million for supplemental payments to recycling centers.
3. CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling Pilot Program. SB 458 (Wiener, Chapter 648, Statutes of 2017) enacted the pilot program with the goal of increasing the convenience of recycling in areas that do not have enough recycling centers. The program allows approved pilot project recyclers to have greater flexibility for how recycling centers choose to redeem beverage containers, including through mobile recycling and stationary drop-off locations. The program is set to expire January 1, 2020.

Recognizing the important role that the pilot program can play in providing consumer redemption opportunities, AB 54 extends the program to be operative for another two years, expands the program to allow for more flexibility in the types pilot projects that may be approved, and requires the pilot project recycler to meet certain weekend hours of operation requirements. Taken as a whole, these changes are intended to help increase and maintain consumer redemption opportunities throughout the state in light of recent recycling center closures.

1. More comprehensive reform is needed. Although this bill is intended to provide immediate and temporary relief to grocers from their consumer redemption duties and responsibilities, provide consumers with more redemption opportunities through funding of recycling pilot projects, and provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers in order to prevent additional recycling centers from closing; this bill should not be seen as the much needed “bottle bill fix.” This bill only provides temporary assistance. This bill does not fix the underlying issues of California’s Bottle Bill program. Stakeholders should work together diligently to tackle a more comprehensive fix over the interim.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 634 (Glazer, 2019) makes substantial changes to the Bottle Bill Program (1) by providing temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, in some cases, permanent exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements; and (2) by authorizing the director of CalRecycle to make changes to processing fees, handling fees, create supplemental recycling incentives, and establish PET quality incentive payments, as specified. SB 634 is referred to Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

SB 724 (Stern, 2010) would have amended the Bottle Bill Program to provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent, exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements. SB 724 was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 452 (Glazer, 2018) was nearly identical to SB 724 (Stern, 2019), also would have amended the Bottle Bill Program to provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent, exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements. SB 452 was vetoed by the Governor.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• One-time costs of up to $5 million (Beverage Container Recycling Fund [BCRF]) to support recycling pilot projects.
• One-time costs of up to $5 million (BCRF) for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
• Unknown but likely minor costs (BCRF) for CalRecycle to continue the administration of two existing programs.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/19)

California Grocers Association

City and County of San Francisco

The Association of Plastic Recyclers

TOMRA Americas

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/19)

None received

Prepared by: Genevieve M. Wong / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

9/12/19 15:15:49

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 54 (Ting) - The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act

Bill Summary:

This bill would exempt certain dealers from beverage container redemption requirements in unserved convenience zones until July 1, 2020; expand the recycling pilot project program, extend that program for an additional 2 years, and provide funding to support those pilot projects; and authorize the Director of Finance to provide financial assistance to recycling centers in the form of supplemental payments.

Fiscal Impact:

• One-time costs of up to $5 million (Beverage Container Recycling Fund [BCRF]) to support recycling pilot projects.
• One-time costs of up to $5 million (BCRF) for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
• Unknown but likely minor costs (BCRF) for CalRecycle to continue the administration of two existing programs.

Background:

Payments to CZ Recyclers From BCRF. The costs of recycling glass and, depending on global markets, plastics are greater than the scrap value that those recycled containers are worth. This means that, absent some additional financial support, accepting these containers from consumers and recycling them would be unprofitable for recyclers and processors, and they would be unlikely to do so. In addition, recycling these containers has benefits that are not reflected in their scrap value—such as reduced litter, environmental benefits like reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and preservation of the resources used to make virgin materials. For these reasons, the state subsidizes CZ recyclers to collect beverage containers with relatively low scrap values.

Handling Fees. CZ recyclers can qualify for a subsidy called a “handling fee” if they meet certain requirements, such as being located in the actual supermarket parking lot. Surveys have shown that CZ recyclers typically face higher costs of operation than traditional recyclers due to factors such as more expensive rent, costs to transport materials to processors, or less economies of scale due to lower volume of redeemed containers. The handling fee is intended to cover these higher costs. Currently, the fee is about one cent per redeemed container.

Relief for Recycling Centers. In the Budget Act of 2019, $5,000,000 was made available to CalRecycle to provide temporary assistance to low-volume recyclers in the form of a monthly supplemental payment. Since then, rePlanet has closed all of its recycling centers.

CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling Pilot Program. SB 458 (Wiener, Chapter 648, Statutes of 2017) enacted the pilot program with the goal of increasing the convenience of recycling in areas that do not have enough recycling centers. The program allows approved pilot project recyclers to have greater flexibility for how recycling centers choose to redeem beverage containers, including through mobile recycling and stationary drop-off locations. The program is set to expire January 1, 2020.

Proposed Law:

This bill: 

1. Exempts from beverage container redemption requirements, until March 1, 2020, certain dealers that are located in a convenience zone that was served by, or exempted because of, a recycling center that closed between August 1, 2019, and September 1, 2019, at the initiation of the recycler.
2. Exempts from beverage container redemption requirements dealers located in an unserved convenience zone if a completed application for a recycling center within the convenience zone is pending before CalRecycle and a letter is submitted to CalReccyle stating the recycling center’s intent to serve that convenience zone. Sunsets this provision July 1, 2020.
3. Authorizes CalRecycle to approve recycling pilot projects for an additional 2 years.
4. Makes the following changes to the pilot projects program:
   1. Specifies that a pilot project is not subject to hours of operation requirements that are generally applicable to certified recycling center but imposes other hours of operation requirements, including that the pilot project recycler be open at least 8 hours per week during the weekend.
   2. Requires CalRecycle to establish an internet website to disseminate information regarding beverage container recycling opportunities.
   3. Eliminates the requirement that a convenience zone in the pilot project shall be served by only one pilot project recycler.
   4. Allows a pilot project recycler to be located anywhere within the pilot project area.
   5. Makes other technical changes.
5. Authorizes, from the 2019-2020 fiscal year to the 2021-2022 fiscal year, CalRecycle to expend up to $5,000,000 to support the recycling pilot projects. Declares the purpose of this appropriation is to ensure the continued support of, and to bolster, consumer redemption opportunities.
6. Authorizes the Director of Finance to approve the expenditure of up to $5,000,000 from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
7. Contains an urgency clause.

Related Legislation:

SB 634 (Glazer) would make substantial changes to the Bottle Bill Program by (1) providing temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements; and (2) by authorizing the director of CalRecycle to make changes to processing fees, handling fees, create supplemental recycling incentives, and establish PET quality incentive payments, as specified.

SB 724 (Stern) would have amended the Bottle Bill Program to provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent, exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements. SB 724 was held in this committee.

SB 452 (Glazer, 2018) was nearly identical to SB 724 (Stern, 2019), also amending the Bottle Bill Program to provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent, exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements. SB 452 was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

Many Recycling Centers Have Closed. Since January 1, 2016, about 330 (or about 15 percent) “convenience zone” (CZ) recycling centers—those generally located within a half mile of supermarkets—have closed. CZ recycling centers are an important part of the state’s Beverage Container Recycling Program (BCRP). They provide a convenient location for consumers to recycle beverage containers and have their deposit—the California Redemption Value, or “CRV”—repaid. The closure of so many CZ recycling centers is problematic because it reduces consumers’ ability to easily redeem their containers. It also places a burden on supermarkets within the zone that, under existing law, must either pay a fee or take back containers themselves, which is generally more expensive.

Closures Particularly Affected Small and Rural Recyclers. Based on our conversations with the California Department of Resources and Recovery (CalRecycle), many of the CZ recycling center closures have been at rural, low-volume sites. This is likely because many low-volume recyclers have higher per-container recycling costs, which makes them more financially vulnerable to market changes. Based on surveys of recyclers conducted by CalRecycle, it costs small CZ recyclers over twice as much on average to recycle a container than large CZ recyclers. Payments from the state intended to cover recycling costs are based on a per-container statewide average rate, so they are usually less than a low-volume recycler’s actual costs.

AB 54 Would Supplement Existing Efforts. Similar to the funding made available in the Budget Act of 2019, AB 54 would make an additional $5 million available for supplemental payments to recycling centers. It would also extend the pilot program enacted by SB 458 to be operative for two more years, expand the program to allow for more flexibility in the types pilot projects that may be approved, and require the pilot project recycler to meet certain weekend hours of operation requirements. Taken as a whole, these changes are intended to help increase and maintain consumer redemption opportunities throughout the state in light of recent recycling center closures.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 54

SUBJECT: The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act

DIGEST: To exempt certain dealers from beverage container redemption requirements in unserved convenience zones until July 1, 2020; to expand the recycling pilot project program, extend that program for an additional 2 years, and provide funding to support those pilot projects; and to authorize the Director of Finance to provide financial assistance to recycling centers in the form of supplemental payments.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill):

1. Requires beverage containers, as defined, sold in-state to have a California redemption value (CRV) of 5 cents for containers that hold fewer than 24 ounces and 10 cents for containers that hold 24 ounces or more (Public Resources Code (PRC §14560). Requires distributors to pay a redemption payment to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for every beverage container sold in the state (PRC §14575).
   
2. Provides that these funds are continuously appropriated to CalRecycle for, among other things, the payment of refund values and processing fees (PRC §14581).
   
3. Requires CalRecycle to annually designate all “convenience zones,” as defined (PRC §§14509.4, 14571.1).
   
4. Requires, in a convenience zone where a recycling center or location does not exist and until one has been established in that zone, all dealers in the zone to either: a) redeem empty beverage containers; or, b) pay CalRecycle an in-lieu fee of $100/day until a recycling location is established (PRC §14571.6).
   
5. Defines “dealer” as a retail establishment which offers the sale of beverages in beverage containers to consumers. However, any lodging, eating, or drinking establishment, or soft drink vending machine operator who engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers to consumers are not deemed a dealer for purposes of the Bottle Bill (PRC §14510).
6. Defines “recycling center” as an operation which is certified by CalRecycle and which accepts from consumers, and pays or provides the refund value for empty beverage containers intended to be recycled (PRC §14520).
   
7. Requires CalRecycle to establish a processing payment for a beverage container covered under the program that has a scrap value less than the cost of recycling, to be determined as specified, that is at least equal to the difference between the scrap value of the material and the sum of the cost of recycling and a reasonable financial return (PRC §14575(b)).
8. Requires CalRecycle to pay handling fees to supermarket sites, non-profit convenience zone recyclers, and rural region recyclers to provide an incentive for the redemption of empty beverage containers in a convenience zone (PRC §14585).
   
9. Authorizes, until January 1, 2020, CalRecycle to approve up to 5 recycling pilot projects that meet certain criteria and which are designed to improve redemption opportunities in unserved convenience zones. Provides that it is the intent to create new, convenient recycling opportunities to improve consumer redemption of beverage containers and increase recycling rate in jurisdictions served by pilot projects.
   

This bill:

1. Exempts from beverage container redemption requirements, until March 1, 2020, certain dealers that are located in a convenience zone that was served by, or exempted because of, a recycling center that closed between August 1, 2019, and September 1, 2019, at the initiation of the recycler.
   
2. Exempts from beverage container redemption requirements dealers located in an unserved convenience zone if a completed application for a recycling center within the convenience zone is pending before CalRecycle and a letter is submitted to CalReccyle stating the recycling center’s intent to serve that convenience zone. Sunsets this provision July 1, 2020.
   
3. Authorizes CalRecycle to approve recycling pilot projects for an additional 2 years.
   
4. Makes the following changes to the pilot projects program:
   
   1. Specifies that a pilot project is not subject to hours of operation requirements that are generally applicable to certified recycling center but imposes other hours of operation requirements, including that the pilot project recycler be open at least 8 hours per week during the weekend.
   2. Requires CalRecycle to establish an internet website to disseminate information regarding beverage container recycling opportunities.
   3. Eliminates the requirement that a convenience zone in the pilot project shall be served by only one pilot project recycler.
   4. Allows a pilot project recycler to be located anywhere within the pilot project area.
   5. Makes other technical changes.
      
5. Authorizes, from the 2019-2020 fiscal year to the 2021-2022 fiscal year, CalRecycle to expend up to $5,000,000 to support the recycling pilot projects. Declares the purpose of this appropriation is to ensure the continued support of, and to bolster, consumer redemption opportunities.
   
6. Authorizes the Director of Finance to approve the expenditure of up to $5,000,000 from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund for supplemental payments to recycling centers, as specified.
   
7. Contains an urgency clause.
   

Background

1. Background on the Bottle Bill program. The Bottle Bill was established by AB 2020 (Margolin, Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986) to be a self-funded program that encourages consumers to recycle beverage containers to prevent littering. The program accomplishes this goal by requiring consumers to pay a deposit CRVfor each eligible container purchased that is refunded when an eligible container is returned to a certified recycler. Statute includes two main goals for the program: (1) reducing litter; and, (2) achieving a recycling rate of 80 percent for eligible containers.
   
2. Recycling convenience zones. Convenience zones are intended to provide consumers opportunities to redeem containers near where beverages are purchased. According to CalRecycle, a convenience zone is typically a half-mile radius with the center point originating at a supermarket that: a) is identified in the Progressive Grocer Marketing Guidebook; b) has gross annual sales of $2 million or more; and, c) is considered a “full-line” store that sells a line of dry groceries, canned goods, or non-food items and perishable items.
   
   In some instances, a convenience zone may be larger than a half mile. For example, an interested person may petition CalRecycle for a three-mile convenience zone to be created in a rural region when there are at least two dealers within three miles of a singular recycling center, and where the dealers are a mile or less apart and have an aggregate sales volume of at least $2 million gross annual sales.
   
   Recycling centers are privately owned and operated by individuals, profit, and nonprofit organizations. They are certified by CalRecycle and must adhere to standards to help provide the public the service they need, e.g. operating at least 30 hours per week and signs depicting prices paid for beverage containers.
   
   Overlapping convenience zones are common in commercial zoning areas throughout the state. If a recycler is on-site at one convenience zone where one or more convenience zones overlap, each of these zones are served by this recycler. Accordingly, it is not necessary in such cases for each convenience zone to support its own recycling center.
   

A convenience zone may be exempt from the requirement to have a recycling center within its boundaries if one or more conditions are met, including: ease of access to redemption center by consumers, reasonable distance to next closest recycling center, consumers in area predominantly use curbside program for recycling, and recycling centers in the area fail to meet a sufficient volume for economic viability.

1. Handling fees. Handling fees are monthly payments made by CalRecycle to recycling centers that meet certain eligibility requirements. A recycler can receive a monthly handling fee payment for each eligible container redeemed at an eligible center. CalRecycle makes handling fee payments to recyclers to provide incentives for the convenient redemption of beverage containers. These payments encourage redemption and reward operational efficiency at supermarket site recycling centers, nonprofit convenience zone recycling centers, and rural region recycling centers operating within convenience zones. The amount of the base handling fee is determined by a cost survey to determine recycling costs per container.
   
2. Recent recycling center closures. In August, rePlanet closed all 284 of its centers in California. Before its closure, rePlanet was the largest recycling network in California. Following the closures, rePlanet stated, “With the continued reduction in State fees, the depressed pricing of recycled aluminum and PET plastic, and the rise in operating costs resulting from minimum wage increases and required health and workers compensation insurance, the Company has concluded that operation of these recycling centers is no longer sustainable.”
   

Various causes may have attributed to the closure of these recyclers. One reason may be attributed to the drop in commodity prices, which have been declining over several years. Also, oil prices have declined significantly and reached historically low levels in 2016. In 2011, PET plastic scrap prices were at a peak of $500/ton and have steadily dropped to $200 in 2016; a decline of 60 percent. New plastic is manufactured from oil, so when the price of oil is very low, using recycled plastic can be more expensive because it has to be sorted and cleaned.

Additionally, changes to processing payments have not kept pace with the decline in scrap values. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state subsidizes recycling by making “processing payments” to recyclers and processors. Processing payments are intended to cover the difference between a container’s scrap value and the cost of recycling it (including a reasonable rate of return). Both the costs of recycling and the scrap value of beverage containers can fluctuate significantly based on changing market prices. As a result, processing payments vary over time. Some contend that they have failed to keep up with real time pricing and includes a minimum three-month gap – this gap results in recycling centers receiving insufficient state payments to make up for the income they may lose from the decline in scrap value.

1. Unserved convenience zones: Option A & Option B. When a recycling center closes, the convenience zone in which it was located becomes “unserved.” When a dealer finds itself in an unserved convenience zone, the dealer has 2 choices: Option A, in which the dealer agrees to take back beverage containers in-store; or, Option B, in which the dealer agrees to pay an in-lieu fee of $100/day if they choose not to take back beverage containers in-store. These options serve as alternatives for fulfilling a duty to provide redemption opportunities to consumers.
   
2. Pilot programs. In 2017, former Governor Brown signed SB 458 (Wiener, Chapter 648, Statutes of 2017) authorizing CalRecycle to approve up to 5 pilot projects proposed by jurisdictions to provide convenient beverage container redemption in both urban and rural areas that do not have enough recycling opportunities. The law allows cities, counties, and companies to partner together to open new and innovative types of redemption opportunities to serve areas that do not have enough beverage container recycling locations. The innovative recycling centers can be mobile recycling centers, stationary staffed recycling centers, reverse vending machines, pick-up services, stationary drop-off sites, or any combination of these.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “The recent closure of 284 recycling centers highlights the urgency for California to address its recycling challenges. The remaining recycling centers are now impacted by long lines and unable to serve consumers looking to get their redemptions, and many rural areas in the state have been left unserved. AB 54 would address these needs by funding mobile recycling pilots in areas impacted by these closures and providing temporary relief to stores that are unprepared to provide redemption to consumers.”
   
2. Relief for recycling centers. In the Budget Act of 2019, $5,000,000 was made available to CalRecycle to provide temporary assistance to low-volume recyclers in the form of a monthly supplemental payment. Since then rePlanet has closed all of its recycling centers. In an effort to prevent the further closures of recycling centers in the state and to help maintain the state’s recycling infrastructure, AB 54 would make available an additional $5,000,000 for supplemental payments to recycling centers.
   
3. CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling Pilot Program. SB 458 (Wiener, Chapter 648, Statutes of 2017) enacted the pilot program with the goal of increasing the convenience of recycling in areas that do not have enough recycling centers. The program allows approved pilot project recyclers to have greater flexibility for how recycling centers choose to redeem beverage containers, including through mobile recycling and stationary drop-off locations. The program is set to expire January 1, 2020.
   

Recognizing the important role that the pilot program can play in providing consumer redemption opportunities, AB 54 would extend the program to be operative for another 2 years, expand the program to allow for more flexibility in the types pilot projects that may be approved, and require the pilot project recycler to meet certain weekend hours of operation requirements. Taken as a whole, these changes are intended to help increase and maintain consumer redemption opportunities throughout the state in light of recent recycling center closures.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 634 (Glazer) would make substantial changes to the Bottle Bill Program by (1) providing temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, in some cases, permanent exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements; and (2) by authorizing the director of CalRecycle to make changes to processing fees, handling fees, create supplemental recycling incentives, and establish PET quality incentive payments, as specified. SB 634 is referred to Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

SB 724 (Stern) would have amended the Bottle Bill Program to provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent, exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements. SB 724 was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 452 (Glazer, 2018) was nearly identical to SB 724 (Stern, 2019), also amending the Bottle Bill Program to provide temporary financial assistance to recycling centers while providing, sometimes permanent, exemptions to dealers from CRV consumer redemption requirements. SB 452 was vetoed by the Governor.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

California Grocers Association

City and County of San Francisco

TOMRA Americas

OPPOSITION:

Californians Against Waste

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 54 Hearing Date: June 11, 2019

Subject: Peace Officers: Video and Audio Recording: Disclosure

HISTORY

Source: American Civil Liberties Union of California; California News Publishers Association

Prior Legislation: AB 748 (Ting), Ch. 960, Stats. 2018

SB 1421 (Skinner), Ch. 998, Stats. 2018

AB 459 (Chau), Ch. 291, Stats. 2017

AB 2611 (Low), 2016, failed passage in Assembly Judiciary

AB 2533 (Santiago), 2016, failed passage in Senate Public Safety

AB 1957 (Quirk), 2016, failed passage on the Assembly floor

AB 66 (Weber), 2016, failed passage in Assembly Appropriations

Support: California Civil Liberties Advocacy

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 65 - 6

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to clarify the procedure for a law enforcement agency to delay access to a video or audio recording that is otherwise required to disclose to certain individuals, as specified, under the California Public Records Act if release of the records would impede an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

Existing law establishes the California Public Records Act 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, § 6250 et seq.)

Existing law 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. (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.)

Existing law provides that commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording retained or owned by an agency at the time of the request that relates to a “critical incident,” as defined, must be disclosed unless the agency demonstrates that it is necessary to delay disclosure to ensure the successful completion of an investigation. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4).)

Existing law sets forth timing for disclosure of a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, allowing an agency to delay disclosure for 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and allowing an agency to continue delaying access to the record for longer if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(A)-(B).)

Existing law defines a critical incident as (i) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or (ii) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(c).)

Existing law specifies that after one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about a critical incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording in its custody only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(B).)

Existing law allows an agency to demonstrate, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording. In that case, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(B)(i).)

Existing law provides that if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:

1. The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative;
2. If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected; and,
3. If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(B)(ii).)

Existing law states that if an agency withholds a record from a specified individual who has a special right to access a recording of a critical incident, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for its determination to delay access, on the basis that disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and the agency should then “provide the video or audio recording.” (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(B)(iii).)

Existing law provides that specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records retained or owned by any state or local agency, including any video or audio recording of a critical incident, shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Pen. Code, § 832.7 (b)(i)(A)(i)-(ii).)

Existing law authorizes any person to 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 under this chapter. (Gov. Code, § 6258.)

This bill provides that a law enforcement agency may delay the disclosure of a video or audio recording to a person depicted in the record, or that person’s authorized representative, as specified, after 45 days from the date of the incident, if release of the record would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.

This bill requires a law enforcement agency to provide specified individuals with the estimated date for disclosure of a video or audio recording if the agency delays access to the record after 45 days from the date of the incident because disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.

This bill contains an urgency clause to require that this bill take effect immediately so that an agency may properly delay disclosure of records of a critical incident, as specified, that are subject to disclosure as of July 1, 2019.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author of this bill:

AB 54 corrects a drafting error from last session’s AB 748, which created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents. Reading through the narrative of AB 748, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation. This bill will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.

1. New Legislation Surrounding Law Enforcement Records

In 2018, two bills were passed by the Legislature opening law enforcement records to the public. AB 748 (Ting) and SB 1421 (Skinner) broadened the public’s ability to see law enforcement records. Prior to the passage of these bills, law enforcement agencies had wide discretion to deny the public access to law enforcement record deemed “investigatory”.

Specifically, AB 748, which becomes effective on July 1, 2019, provides a member of the public the right to request and access any video or audio related to a critical incident after 45 days from the date of the incident, unless access to that record by the public generally would invade a person depicted in the record’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In that case, the agency is required to redact or otherwise distort the record to protect that individual’s privacy rights and produce the record to the requester. If the agency is unable to protect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy by redacting or otherwise distorting the record, the agency may deny access to the requester. However, AB 748 contains a separate provision that establishes a special right of access for an individual depicted in the recording, or that person’s authorized representative, as specified.

AB 748 intended to permit an agency to delay producing a recording for longer than 45 days from the date of the incident, under the special right of access provision when disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. However, due to a drafting error, the law fails to recognize the agency’s right to delay disclosure after 45 days, and instead requires the agency to produce the record immediately despite the agency’s finding that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing investigation.

1. AB 748, 2018, Drafting Error

Assemblymember Ting wrote a letter to the Journal of the Assembly, stating that AB 748 contained a drafting error due to a missing, necessary clause, resulting in the law imposing conflicting instructions that an agency may delay disclosure of a record while also requiring it to immediately release the record.

Due to the legislative calendar, the author was unable to amend AB 748 to correct the drafting error last year. Accordingly, the author committed to fix this error in a letter to the Journal, printed on Friday, August 31, 2018. The letter states:

I am writing to clarify the wording of one sentence of my bill, AB 748. In Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii), the bill inadvertently states that a law enforcement agency would ‘‘provide the video or audio recording’’ if the agency determines that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.

This part of the bill is intended to mirror Government Code 6254(f)(4)(A)(ii) added in an earlier section of the bill. As such, the following phrase—“the estimated date for the disclosure of”—was unintentionally omitted from this subparagraph and should instead be drafted accordingly:

If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording.

Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A). Our intention in Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii) is to state that the agency would be able to withhold the recording if the disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and that the agency shall provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Reading through the narrative of the bill, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation.

I commit to immediately introduce clean-up urgency legislation this year when the legislature reconvenes, and before AB 748 takes effect on July 1, 2019, which would reflect the specific changes described in this letter. This clarification will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.

1. Urgency Clause

This bill contains an urgency clause to ensure that existing law, as established by AB 748, is amended prior to its implementation on July 1, 2019 to remove the conflicting instructions that permit, delay, and require simultaneous disclosure. If this bill is not passed prior to July 1, the law will technically require the immediate disclosure of a record to a person with an investigation.

1. Argument in Support

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California:

This bill fulfills your pledge to correct an inadvertent drafting error that went unnoticed in the enactment of your AB 748 last year, which provided important clarity in public access to law enforcement recordings, balancing transparency and privacy interests with the investigative needs of law enforcement. This follow-up bill is needed to avoid any potential misunderstanding. It is appropriate that this is an urgency measure to ensure that the error is corrected as soon as possible.

-- END –

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 54 (Author:Ting)

Version: December 3, 2018

Hearing Date: June 4, 2019

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: Yes

Consultant: MEC

SUBJECT

Peace officers: video and audio recording: disclosure

DIGEST

This bill is an urgency measure that corrects a drafting error in AB 748 (Ting, Ch. 960, Stats. 2018), the author’s law enforcement transparency bill. The author wishes to correct the drafting error prior to July 1, 2019, the day the provisions of AB 748 go into effect.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Last year the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 748 ((Ting) Ch. 960, Stats. 2018).  AB 748 authorizes a law enforcement agency to withhold an audio or video recording that relates to a “critical incident” for a specified period of time if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation.  A critical incident is defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.  The author promised to correct a drafting error as expeditiously as possible last year at the end of session, and submitted a letter to the journal to document the error and his commitment.  The bill error renders a provision nonsensical.  The provision now provides that a recording can be withheld for 45 days if it would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, while at the same time mandating that the recording be handed over immediately to the requester.  It makes no sense. 

This clean-up measure is sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Association of California and the California News Publishers Association. Both organizations sponsored AB 748. The only known opposition to this measure is from the California Narcotic Officers Association (CNOA).  CNOA focuses their opposition on the costs associated with the original bill.   CNOA writes, “AB 54 has not identified any financial resources for departments to properly address the requests that will come in.”

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Public Records Act (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 § 6250 et seq.)
   
2. 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. (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.)
   
3. Provides that commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording retained or owned by an agency at the time of the request that relates to a “critical incident,” as defined, must be disclosed unless the agency demonstrates that it is necessary to delay disclosure to ensure the successful completion of an investigation. (Gov. Code § 6254 (f)(4).)
   
4. Sets forth timing for disclosure of a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, allowing an agency to delay disclosure for 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and allowing an agency to continue delaying access to the record for longer if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Gov. Code § 6254 (f)(4)(A)-(B).)
   
5. Defines a critical incident as (i) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or (ii) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. (Gov. Code, § 6254 (f)(4)(c).)
   
6. Specifies that after one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about a critical incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording in its custody only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Gov. Code § 6254 (f)(4)(B).)
   
7. Allows an agency to demonstrate, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording. In that case, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. (Gov. Code § 6254 (f)(4)(B)(i).)
   
8. Provides that if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:
   
   1. The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or their authorized representative;
      
   2. If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected; and,
      
   3. If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected. (Gov. Code § 6254 (f)(4)(B)(ii).)
      
9. States that if an agency withholds a record from a specified individual who has a special right to access a recording of a critical incident, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for its determination to delay access, on the basis that disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and the agency should then “provide the video or audio recording.” (Gov. Code § 6254 (f)(4)(B)(iii).)
   
10. Provides that specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records retained or owned by any state or local agency, including any video or audio recording of a critical incident, shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the CPRA. (Pen. Code § 832.7 (b)(i)(A)(i)-(ii).)
    
11. Authorizes any person to institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce their right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records under this chapter. (Gov. Code § 6258.)

This bill is an urgency measure that restores the intent of the Legislature in AB 748 that law enforcement agencies may temporarily withhold recordings of critical incidents from release to the public during investigations of those incidents.

COMMENTS

1. Corrects a drafting error the author committed to expeditiously fix

According to the author:

AB 54 corrects a drafting error from last session’s AB 748, which created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents. Reading through the narrative of AB 748, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation. This bill will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.

Last year, the drafting error was caught late in the legislative session. As a result, the author could not amend the bill and instead committed to pursue a legislative fix as expeditiously as possible. True to his word, the author immediately introduced AB 54 with an urgency clause. The goal is to have the fix enacted prior to when the original bill, AB 748, takes effect on July 1, 2019. The author memorialized his intent to fix the drafting error in a letter he submitted to the Assembly Journal and that was printed on August 31, 2018. The letter reads as follows:

I am writing to clarify the wording of one sentence of my bill, AB 748. In Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii), the bill inadvertently states that a law enforcement agency would ‘‘provide the video or audio recording’’ if the agency determines that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.

This part of the bill is intended to mirror Government Code 6254(f)(4)(A)(ii) added in an earlier section of the bill. As such, the following phrase—“the estimated date for the disclosure of”—was unintentionally omitted from this subparagraph and should instead be drafted accordingly:

If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording.

Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A). Our intention in Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii) is to state that the agency would be able to withhold the recording if the disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and that the agency shall provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Reading through the narrative of the bill, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation.

I commit to immediately introduce clean-up urgency legislation this year when the legislature reconvenes, and before AB 748 takes effect on July 1, 2019, which would reflect the specific changes described in this letter. This clarification will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.

2. Leaving the seven words out would create confusion

The provision in question currently reads as follows:

(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).

The corrected provision would read as follows, with the addition of the words in bold print:

(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).

If the provision is not cleaned up, the agency would have to provide a written basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure of the recording would substantially interfere with the investigation while simultaneously providing the recordings yet authorizing the recording to be withheld by the agency for 45 additional calendar days. This makes no sense. The fix in this bill would make clear that the agency would have to provide a written basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure of the recording would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date the recordings will be disclosed, thus allowing the recordings to be withheld and not provided at that time.

SUPPORT

American Civil Liberties Union of California (sponsor)
California News Publishers Association (sponsor)

California Civil Liberties Advocacy

California Faculty Association

OPPOSITION

California Narcotic Officers Association

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known

Prior Legislation:

SB 1421 (Skinner, Ch. 988, Stats. 2018) permits inspection of certain peace and custodial officer records pursuant to the CPRA and specifies that records related to law enforcement reports, investigations, or findings must be disclosed if they involve any of the following: 1) incidents involving the discharge of a firearm or electronic control weapons by an officer; 2) incidents involving strikes of impact weapons or projectiles to the head or neck area; 3) incidents of deadly force or serious bodily injury by an officer; 4) incidents of sustained sexual assault by an officer; or 5) incidents relating to sustained findings of dishonesty by a peace officer.

AB 748 (Ting, Ch. 960, Stats. 2018) authorizes a law enforcement agency to withhold an audio or video recording that relates to a “critical incident” for a specified period of time if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation.  A critical incident is an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.

AB 459 (Chau, Ch. 291, Stats. 2017) 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. The agency is required 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, as specified. Public agencies are required to permit a victim of a crime depicted in such videos to inspect the recording and obtain a copy.

AB 1940 (Cooper, 2016) would have exempted body-worn camera recordings that depict the use of force resulting in serious injury or death from public disclosure pursuant to the CPRA, unless a judicial determination were made, after the adjudication of any civil or criminal proceeding related to the use of force incident, that the interest in public disclosure outweighs the need to protect the individual right to privacy. AB 1940 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 1957 (Quirk, 2016) would have required a state or local law enforcement agency to make available, upon request, footage from a law enforcement body-worn camera 60 days after the commencement of an investigation into misconduct that uses or involves that footage. AB 1957 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2533 (Santiago, 2016) would have provided that a public safety officer shall be entitled to 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. The bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

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. AB 2611 died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee because the concurrence hearing was canceled at the request of the author.

SB 175 (Huff, Gaines, 2015) sought to require each police department using body-worn cameras to adopt a policy relating to the use of those cameras. It also would have required that the policies be developed in accordance with specified acts governing employee organizations, with designated representatives of nonsupervisory officers. SB 175 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

AB 66 (Weber, 2015) 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. AB 66 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 69 (Rodriguez, Ch. 461, Stats. 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, including, among other things, prohibiting the unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of the data, and to establish storage periods for evidentiary and non-evidentiary data, as defined.

AB 1246 (Quirk, 2015) 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. AB 1246 died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee because the hearing of the bill was canceled at the request of the author.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 65, Noes 6)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Public Safety Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)

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

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 54

Author:(Ting)

As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY:

Clarifies the procedure for a law enforcement agency to delay access to a video or audio recording that it is otherwise required to disclose to certain individuals, as specified, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) if release of the record would impede an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that a law enforcement agency may delay the disclosure of a video or audio recording to a person depicted in the record, or that persons authorized representative, as specified, after 45 days from the date of the incident, if release of the record would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.
2. Requires a law enforcement agency to provide specified individuals with the estimated date for disclosure of a video or audio recording if the agency delays access to the record after 45 days from the date of the incident because disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.
3. Contains an urgency clause to require that this bill take effect immediately so that an agency may properly delay disclosure of records of a critical incident, as specified, that are subject to disclosure as of July 1, 2019.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"AB 54 corrects a drafting error from last sessions AB 748 [(Ting), Chapter 960, Statutes of 2018], which created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents. Reading through the narrative of AB 748, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation. This bill will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the publics right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748."

Arguments in Support:

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California, "This bill fulfills your pledge to correct an inadvertent drafting error that went unnoticed in the enactment of your AB 748 last year, which provided important clarity in public access to law enforcement recordings, balancing transparency and privacy interests with the investigative needs of law enforcement. This follow-up bill is needed to avoid any potential misunderstanding. It is appropriate that this is an urgency measure to ensure that the error is corrected as soon as possible."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, "As far as PORAC understands, the bills author has not identified any financial resources for departments to properly address the requests that will come in. PORAC knows firsthand the amount of work required to release information to public, as seen in last years SB 1421 by Senator Skinner [Chapter 988, Statutes of 2018]. San Diego Police Department, for example, has roughly 120 officers working at any one time per shift in the field, 3 shifts per day, and this does not include specialized units. Each officer works approximately 10 hours per day and the agency is struggling to fulfill the requests presented through SB 1421. LAPD has a special unit with over 100 officers whose job is to process PRA and video requests. PORAC member associations will find it nearly impossible to afford the requirements of AB 54."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, likely minor absorbable costs to state and local agencies responsible for providing audio or video recordings responsive to a California Public Records Act request. This bill does not appear to create new costs beyond what those costs already occurring pursuant to AB 748 of 2018.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-1

YES: Mark Stone, Gallagher, Chau, Chiu, Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Kiley, Maienschein, Obernolte, Reyes

ABS, ABST OR NV: Petrie-Norris

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-0-6

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Friedman, Carrillo, Jones-Sawyer, Diep, Gabriel, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Brough, Eggman, Fong, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein

UPDATED:

VERSION: December 3, 2018

CONSULTANT: Nikki Moore (Counsel) / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000059

Date of Hearing: March 20, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 54

Author:(Ting) – As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires that when a law enforcement agency receives a request for inspection or production of audio or video recordings pertaining to a critical incident and determines that disclosure of the recording would interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation resulting in delay of disclosure, the agency shall notify the requester of the specific reason for the delay and provide an estimated date of disclosure to the requestor.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Likely minor absorbable costs to state and local agencies responsible for providing audio or video recordings responsive to a California Public Records Act request. This bill does not appear to create new costs beyond what those costs already occurring pursuant to AB 748 (Ting), Chapter 91, Stat. 2018.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 54 corrects a drafting error from last session’s AB 748, which created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents. Reading through the narrative of AB 748, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation. This bill will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.

1. Background. AB 748 (Ting), Chapter 91, Statutes of 2018, authorized release of otherwise confidential law enforcement audio and video recordings pertaining to “critical incidents” of events, including officer-involved shootings and other use of force incidents. Agencies may only delay release of audio or video recordings of critical incidents for up to 45 days after the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident. If the agency decides to delay production, it must notify the requester and state the reason for the delay.
   
   Assemblymember Ting submitted a letter to the Assembly Journal explaining that AB 748 contained a drafting error in Government Code section 6254, subdivision (f)(4)(B)(iii) wherein the phrase “the estimated date of disclosure of” was inadvertently omitted.
2. Support. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California:

This bill fulfills your pledge to correct an inadvertent drafting error that went unnoticed in the enactment of your AB 748 last year, which provided important clarity in public access to law enforcement recordings, balancing transparency and privacy interests with the investigative needs of law enforcement. This follow-up bill is needed to avoid any potential misunderstanding. It is appropriate that this is an urgency measure to ensure that the error is corrected as soon as possible.

1. Opposition. According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California:
   

As far as PORAC understands, the bill’s author has not identified any financial resources for departments to properly address the requests that will come in. PORAC knows firsthand the amount of work required to release information to public, as seen in last year’s SB 1421 by Senator Skinner. San Diego Police Department, for example, has roughly 120 officers working at any one time per shift in the field, 3 shifts per day, and this does not include specialized units. Each officer works approximately 10 hours per day and the agency is struggling to fulfill the requests presented through SB 1421. LAPD has a special unit with over 100 officers whose job is to process PRA and video requests. PORAC member associations will find it nearly impossible to afford the requirements of AB 54.

1. Prior Legislation.
   
   1. AB 748 (Ting), Chapter 960, Statutes of 2018, requires disclosure of video and audio recordings that depict a use of force including the discharge of a firearm or force that results in great bodily injury or death.
      
   2. SB 1421 (Skinner), Chapter 998, Statutes of 2018, establishes a right to access specified police records, including video or audio footage of an incident regarding a police use of force that includes the discharge of a firearm or results in great bodily injury or death.
      
   3. AB 459 (Chau), Chapter 291, Statutes of 2017, 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, as specified.
      
   4. AB 1957 (Quirk), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have required a state or local law enforcement agency to make available, upon request, footage from a law enforcement body-worn camera 60 days after the commencement of an investigation into misconduct that uses or involves that footage. AB 1957 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 12, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 54

Author:(Ting) – As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

SUBJECT: PEACE OFFICERS: VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDING: DISCLOSURE

KEY ISSUE: should a drafting error in last year’s AB 748, requiring the release of certain records about critical incidents that the legislature intended to remain confidential during the investigation of such incidents, be corrected prior to AB 748 taking effect in July of 2019?

SYNOPSIS

This purpose of this bill merely is to correct a drafting error in last year’s AB 748, Chap. 960, Stats. 2018, also authored by the author of this bill, in order to carry out the intent of AB 748. AB 748 created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents, such as the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer at a person. Unfortunately, the last set of amendments to AB 748 included a significant drafting error. While it was the intent of AB 748 to allow a law enforcement agency to withhold a law enforcement recording of a critical incident from disclosure to the public if there were a law enforcement investigation about that incident pending at the time of the request, and the agency demonstrated that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, the plain language of AB 748 requires law enforcement agencies to release such a recording. This bill restores the intent of the Legislature in AB 748 that law enforcement agencies may temporarily withhold recordings of critical incidents from release to the public during investigations of those incidents. The bill has an urgency clause so that it will take effect immediately upon being signed into law, presumably before the date when AB 748 becomes effective: July 1, 2019. This bill is supported by groups that supported AB 748, including American Civil Liberties Union California and California News Publishers Association. It is opposed by the Police Officers Research Association of California, which opposed AB 748.

SUMMARY: Allows a law enforcement agency to delay releasing a video or audio recording for more than 45 days after the date of the incident under limited circumstances. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a law enforcement agency may delay the disclosure of a video or audio recording to a person depicted in the record, or that person’s authorized representative, as specified, after 45 days from the date of the incident, if release of the record would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.
2. Requires a law enforcement agency to provide specified individuals with the estimated date for disclosure of a video or audio recording if the agency delays access to the record after 45 days from the date of the incident pursuant to 1), above.
3. Contains an urgency clause that requires this bill to take effect immediately for the following reason: so that an agency may properly delay disclosure of records of a critical incident that are subject to disclosure as of July 1, 2019, pursuant to 1), above.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the California Public Records Act (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, unless otherwise indicated.)
2. 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. (Section 6250 et seq.)
3. Provides that commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording retained or owned by an agency at the time of the request that relates to a “critical incident,” as defined, must be disclosed unless the agency demonstrates that it is necessary to delay disclosure to ensure the successful completion of an investigation. (Section 6254 (f)(4).)
4. Sets forth timing for disclosure of a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, allowing an agency to delay disclosure for 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and allowing an agency to continue delaying access to the record for longer if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Section 6254 (f)(4)(A)-(B).)
5. Defines a critical incident as (i) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or (ii) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. (Section 6254 (f)(4)).)
6. Specifies that after one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about a critical incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording in its custody only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Section 6254 (f)(4)(B).)
7. Allows an agency to demonstrate, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording. In that case, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. (Section 6254 (f)(4)(B)(i).)
8. Provides that if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:
   1. The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative;
   2. If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected; and,
   3. If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected. (Section 6254 (f)(4)(B)(ii).)
9. States that if an agency withholds a record from a specified individual who has a special right to access a recording of a critical incident, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for its determination to delay access, on the basis that disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and the agency should then “provide the video or audio recording.” (Section 6254 (f)(4)(B)(iii).)
10. Authorizes any person to 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 under this chapter. (Section 6258.)
11. Provides that the specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records retained or owned by any state or local agency, including any video or audio recording of a critical incident, shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Pen. Code Section 832.7 (b)(i)(A)(i)-(ii).)

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

COMMENTS: Last year’s AB 748, Chap. 960, Stats. 2018, by the author of this bill, was ground-breaking legislation that created the first statewide standard for the disclosure of law enforcement video or audio recordings of “critical incidents.” AB 748 defined a “critical incident” as one of the following:

1. An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or
2. An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. (Section 6254 (f)(4)).)

Unfortunately, the last set of amendments to AB 748 included a significant drafting error. It clearly was the intent of AB 748 to allow a law enforcement agency to temporarily withhold a recording of a critical incident from disclosure to the public in response to a request for public records if a law enforcement investigation of the incident were pending at the time of the request and the agency demonstrated that disclosure of the recording would substantially interfere with the investigation. But the plain language of the bill requires a law enforcement agency to release a recording of a critical incident, even if disclosure of the recording would substantially interfere with a pending investigation of the incident. The purpose of this bill is to correct that drafting error in AB 748 so the new law can take effect as intended by the Legislature. This bill has an urgency clause, allowing it to take effect immediately upon being signed by the governor. As a result, the error in AB 748 should be corrected before the date on which that law takes effect: July 1, 2019. According to the author:

AB 54 corrects a drafting error from last session’s AB 748, which created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents. Reading through the narrative of AB 748, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation. This bill will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748. 

Competing Public Interests in Policy Regarding If and When to Release Audio and Video Recordings of Critical Incidents. A 2016 Time Magazine article detailed the various concerns that law enforcement agencies have with releasing footage from body-worn cameras. The concerns include a fear that released footage will affect future trials of officers involved, thus compromising their right to a fair trial, as well as a potential for tainting a jury pool. (Sanburn, Why Police Departments Don't Always Release Body Cam Footage, Time Magazine (Aug. 17, 2016).) Still another concern with the release of footage is the effect on the right to privacy of victims and bystanders. However, those advocating for greater transparency in law enforcement point to police shootings in Milwaukee and Chicago, where repeated requests for recordings were denied, in essence prohibiting a thorough understanding of what transpired to cause officers to use deadly force. (Ibid.) A coherent policy detailing the procedures for public access to body-worn camera recordings can help balance the many competing interests involved. (Ibid.) The author’s prior bill of last year, AB 748, sought to establish a consistent statewide policy for the release of audio and video recordings of critical incidents taken by body-worn cameras and microphones. Unfortunately, because of the drafting error in AB 748, that intended policy—if it were to take effect—would be frustrated.

Letter to the Journal by the Author of AB 748. The author of AB 748, who is also the author of this bill, wrote a letter to the Journal of the Assembly in 2018, stating that AB 748 contained a drafting error as the result of the lack of a critical clause. According to the letter, the plain language of the bill requires a law enforcement agency immediately to release a recording of a critical incident, even if the agency established that an investigation about the incident was pending and disclosure of the recording would interfere with the investigation.

Because the drafting error in AB 748 was discovered too late in the last legislative session for the bill to be amended, the author was unable to correct the error in AB 748. Accordingly, the author committed to fix this error in a letter to the Journal, printed on Friday, August 31, 2018. That letter states the following:

I am writing to clarify the wording of one sentence of my bill, AB 748. In Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii), the bill inadvertently states that a law enforcement agency would ‘‘provide the video or audio recording’’ if the agency determines that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.

This part of the bill is intended to mirror Government Code 6254(f)(4)(A)(ii) added in an earlier section of the bill. As such, the following phrase—“the estimated date for the disclosure of”—was unintentionally omitted from this subparagraph and should instead be drafted accordingly:

If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording.

Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A). Our intention in Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii) is to state that the agency would be able to withhold the recording if the disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and that the agency shall provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Reading through the narrative of the bill, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation.

I commit to immediately introduce clean-up urgency legislation this year when the legislature reconvenes, and before AB 748 takes effect on July 1, 2019, which would reflect the specific changes described in this letter. This clarification will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.

Urgency Clause. This bill contains an urgency clause designed to ensure that existing law, as established by AB 748, is changed prior to the date on which AB 748 will take effect: July 1, 2019. If this bill does not take effect by July 1, state law will require a law enforcement agency to immediately disclose a recording of a critical incident, even if the agency established that an investigation were pending at the time of the request for the recording and release of the recording would interfere with the ongoing investigation.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The American Civil Liberties Union of California writes, in support of the bill that, “This bill fulfills your pledge to correct an inadvertent drafting error that went unnoticed in the enactment of your AB 748 last year, which provided important clarity in public access to law enforcement recordings, balancing transparency and privacy interests with the investigative needs of law enforcement.” Likewise, the California News Publishers Association describes AB 43 as “a common sense fix to an inadvertent error, and it furthers the intent of last year’s AB 748 (Ting).” Finally, the California Civil Liberties Advocacy offers that AB 54 “has the potential to increase transparency in law enforcement, thus easing possible tensions between the police and the public they serve.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Despite the fact that the bill will allow law enforcement to withhold recordings of critical incidents during the period when a law enforcement investigation is pending and that investigation could be compromised by the release of the recordings, the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) opposes the bill, apparently because of fiscal concerns with the requirements of existing law. PORAC writes, “As far as PORAC understands, the bill’s author has not identified any financial resources for departments to properly address the requests that will come in. PORAC knows firsthand the amount of work required to release information to public, as seen in last year’s SB 1421 by Senator Skinner. San Diego Police Department, for example, has roughly 120 officers working at any one time per shift in the field, 3 shifts per day, and this does not include specialized units. Each officer works approximately 10 hours per day and the agency is struggling to fulfill the requests presented through SB 1421. LAPD has a special unit with over 100 officers whose job is to process PRA and video requests. PORAC member associations will find it nearly impossible to afford the requirements of AB 54.”

Prior Related Legislation: SB 1421 (Skinner, Chap. 988, Stats. 2018) permitted inspection of certain peace and custodial officer records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and specified that records related to law enforcement  reports, investigations, or findings must be disclosed if they involve any of the following: 1) incidents involving the discharge of a firearm or electronic control weapons by an officer; 2) incidents involving strikes of impact weapons or projectiles to the head or neck area; 3) incidents of deadly force or serious bodily injury by an officer; 4) incidents of sustained sexual assault by an officer; or 5) incidents relating to sustained findings of dishonesty by a peace officer.

AB 2611 (Low, 2016) would have prohibited a public agency from disclosing a visual or audio recording depicting of the death of a peace officer killed in the line of duty, unless the disclosure is authorized to be released by the peace officer’s immediate family. AB 2611 died when the Assembly Judiciary Committee did not concur in the Senate amendments to the bill.

AB 2533 (Santiago, 2016) would have required a public safety officer to be provided 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. AB 2353 died when it failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 1957 (Quirk, 2016) would have required a state or local law enforcement agency to make available, upon request, footage from a law enforcement body-worn camera 60 days after the commencement of an investigation into misconduct that uses or involves that footage. AB 1957 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

AB 1940 (Cooper, 2016) would have exempted body-worn camera recordings that depict the use of force resulting in serious injury or death from public disclosure pursuant to the CPRA, unless a judicial determination were made, after the adjudication of any civil or criminal proceeding related to the use of force incident, that the interest in public disclosure outweighs the need to protect the individual right to privacy. AB 1940 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 1246 (Quirk, 2015) would have prohibited, notwithstanding any other law, the disclosure of a recording made by a body worn camera, as defined, 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.

AB 69 (Rodriguez, Chap. 461, Stats. of 2015) required law enforcement agencies to consider specified best practices when establishing policies and procedures for downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras, including, among other things, prohibiting the unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of the data, and to establish storage periods for evidentiary and non-evidentiary data, as defined.

AB 66 (Weber, 2015) would have established statewide policies and guidelines for law enforcement agencies that require its officers to wear body-worn cameras. AB 66 died without a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union California

California News Publishers Association

California Civil Liberties Advocacy

Opposition

Police Officers Research Association of California

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

Date of Hearing: February 26, 2019

Counsel: Nikki Moore

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 54

Author:(Ting) – As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

SUMMARY:

Clarifies the procedure for a law enforcement agency to delay access to a video or audio recording that it is otherwise required to disclose to certain individuals, as specified, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) if release of the record would impede an ongoing law enforcement investigation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a law enforcement agency may delay the disclosure of a video or audio recording to a person depicted in the record, or that person’s authorized representative, as specified, after 45 days from the date of the incident, if release of the record would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.
   
2. Requires a law enforcement agency to provide specified individuals with the estimated date for disclosure of a video or audio recording if the agency delays access to the record after 45 days from the date of the incident because disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation.
   
3. Contains an urgency clause to require that this bill take effect immediately so that an agency may properly delay disclosure of records of a critical incident, as specified, that are subject to disclosure as of July 1, 2019.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the California Public Records Act 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, § 6250 et seq.)
   
2. 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. (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.)
   
3. Provides that commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording retained or owned by an agency at the time of the request that relates to a “critical incident,” as defined, must be disclosed unless the agency demonstrates that it is necessary to delay disclosure to ensure the successful completion of an investigation. (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4).)
   
4. Sets forth timing for disclosure of a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, allowing an agency to delay disclosure for 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and allowing an agency to continue delaying access to the record for longer if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4)(A)-(B).)
   
5. Defines a critical incident as (i) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or (ii) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4)(c).)
   
6. Specifies that after one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about a critical incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording in its custody only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4)(B).)
   
7. Allows an agency to demonstrate, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording. In that case, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4)(B)(i).)
   
8. Provides that if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:
   
   1. The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative;
      
   2. If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected; and,
      
   3. If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected. (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4)(B)(ii).)
      
9. States that if an agency withholds a record from a specified individual who has a special right to access a recording of a critical incident, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for its determination to delay access, on the basis that disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and the agency should then “provide the video or audio recording.” (Gov. Code, § 6254 subd. (f)(4)(B)(iii).)
   
10. Provides that specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records retained or owned by any state or local agency, including any video or audio recording of a critical incident, shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Pen. Code, § 832.7 subd. (b)(i)(A)(i)-(ii).)
    
11. Authorizes any person to 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 under this chapter. (Gov. Code, § 6258.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 54 corrects a drafting error from last session’s AB 748, which created the first statewide standard for disclosure of police recordings of critical incidents. Reading through the narrative of AB 748, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation. This bill will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.”
   
2. New Public and Individual Right to Access Law Enforcement Records: Last year, AB 748 (Ting) created a new right for the public to access law enforcement records related to a critical incident, as specified, under the CPRA. Prior to the passage of AB 748 and also SB 1421 (Skinner), which amended Penal Code Section 832.7, law enforcement agencies had wide discretion to deny the public access to any law enforcement record deemed “investigatory.” AB 748 and SB 1421 repealed this discretion to withhold certain investigatory and personnel records in response to a CPRA request, providing new mandates for law enforcement agencies to timely release records, including audio or video recordings, in certain cases as specified, including critical incidents.
   
   AB 748, which becomes effective on July 1, 2019, provides a member of the public the right to request and access any video or audio recording related to a critical incident after 45 days from the date of the incident, unless access to that record by the public generally would invade a person depicted in the record’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In that case, the agency is required to redact or otherwise distort the record to protect that individual’s privacy rights and produce the record to the requester. If the agency is unable to protect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy by redacting or otherwise distorting the record, the agency may deny access to the requester. However, AB 748 contains a separate provision that establishes a special right of access for an individual depicted in the recording, or that person’s authorized representative, as specified.
   
   AB 748 intended to permit an agency to delay producing a recording for longer than 45 days from the date of the incident, under the special right of access provision when disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. However, due to a drafting error, the law fails to recognize the agency’s right to delay disclosure after 45 days, and instead requires the agency to produce the record immediately despite the agency’s finding that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing investigation.
   
3. Clerical Error in AB 748: The intent of AB 748 was to provide access to a video or audio recording of a critical incident on a specified timeline, generally requiring disclosure 45 days after the date of the critical incident, unless interests in protecting an ongoing investigation warrant additional delay, in which case, the agency may delay access indefinitely, until the interest in protecting the investigation has extinguished. AB 748 reflects this intent by allowing an agency to delay disclosure to the public generally on the basis that disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. However, the section that provides an individual depicted in the recording with a special right to access the recording, when the public generally cannot access it, does not mirror this intent. As drafted, AB 748 states that when a law enforcement agency determines that disclosure of the video or audio record to a specified individual would substantially impede an investigation, the agency shall notify the requester of this fact and then “provide the video or audio recording.”
   
   This is contrary to the intent of the law. Read literally, AB 748 as drafted leads to absurd results—providing an agency both permission to delay disclosure while simultaneously mandating the agency disclose the recording. This bill seeks to rectify that drafting error and provides that an agency may delay disclosure of a video or audio recording to specified persons if disclosure after 45 days from the date of the incident would impede an ongoing investigation. This would bill require the responding agency to provide the requester with an estimated date for disclosure of the record, eliminating the requirement that the agency produce the record immediately.
   
4. Letter to the Journal: Assemblymember Ting wrote a letter to the Journal of the Assembly, stating that AB 748 contained a drafting error due to a missing, necessary clause, resulting in the law imposing conflicting instructions that an agency may delay disclosure of a record while also requiring it to immediately release the record.
   
   Due to the legislative calendar, the author was unable to amend AB 748 to correct the drafting error last year. Accordingly, the author committed to fix this error in a letter to the Journal, printed on Friday, August 31, 2018. The letter states:
   
   I am writing to clarify the wording of one sentence of my bill, AB 748. In Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii), the bill inadvertently states that a law enforcement agency would ‘‘provide the video or audio recording’’ if the agency determines that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.
   
   This part of the bill is intended to mirror Government Code 6254(f)(4)(A)(ii) added in an earlier section of the bill. As such, the following phrase—“the estimated date for the disclosure of”—was unintentionally omitted from this subparagraph and should instead be drafted accordingly:
   
   If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording.
   
   Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A). Our intention in Government Code 6254(f)(4)(B)(iii) is to state that the agency would be able to withhold the recording if the disclosure would substantially interfere with an investigation, and that the agency shall provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Reading through the narrative of the bill, especially in the context of the Public Records Act, it is otherwise very clear that the intent is not to require disclosure of footage in instances when doing so would interfere with an investigation.
   
   I commit to immediately introduce clean-up urgency legislation this year when the legislature reconvenes, and before AB 748 takes effect on July 1, 2019, which would reflect the specific changes described in this letter. This clarification will provide flexibility for law enforcement agencies while protecting the public’s right to transparency in order to fully realize the intent of AB 748.
   
5. Urgency Clause: This bill contains an urgency clause to ensure that existing law, as established by AB 748, is amended prior to its implementation on July 1, 2019 to remove the conflicting instructions that permit delay and require simultaneous disclosure. If this bill is not passed prior to July 1, the law will technically require the immediate disclosure of a record to a person with a special right to access that record, even if the release of the record would interfere with an investigation.
   
6. Argument in Support: According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California, “This bill fulfills your pledge to correct an inadvertent drafting error that went unnoticed in the enactment of your AB 748 last year, which provided important clarity in public access to law enforcement recordings, balancing transparency and privacy interests with the investigative needs of law enforcement. This follow-up bill is needed to avoid any potential misunderstanding. It is appropriate that this is an urgency measure to ensure that the error is corrected as soon as possible.”
   
7. Argument in Opposition: According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, “As far as PORAC understands, the bill’s author has not identified any financial resources for departments to properly address the requests that will come in. PORAC knows firsthand the amount of work required to release information to public, as seen in last year’s SB 1421 by Senator Skinner. San Diego Police Department, for example, has roughly 120 officers working at any one time per shift in the field, 3 shifts per day, and this does not include specialized units. Each officer works approximately 10 hours per day and the agency is struggling to fulfill the requests presented through SB 1421. LAPD has a special unit with over 100 officers whose job is to process PRA and video requests. PORAC member associations will find it nearly impossible to afford the requirements of AB 54.”
   
8. Related Legislation: None
   
9. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 748 (Ting), Chapter 960, Statutes of 2018, requires disclosure of video and audio recordings that depict a use of force including the discharge of a firearm or force that results in great bodily injury or death.
      
   2. SB 1421 (Skinner), Chapter 998, Statutes of 2018, establishes a right to access specified police records, including video or audio footage of an incident regarding a police use of force that includes the discharge of a firearm or results in great bodily injury or death.
      
   3. AB 459 (Chau), Chapter 291, Statutes of 2017, 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, as specified.
      
   4. AB 1957 (Quirk), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have required a state or local law enforcement agency to make available, upon request, footage from a law enforcement body-worn camera 60 days after the commencement of an investigation into misconduct that uses or involves that footage. AB 1957 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
      
   5. AB 66 (Weber), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have established statewide policies and guidelines for law enforcement agencies that require its officers to wear body-worn cameras. AB 66 was not taken up in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California News Publishers Association

Opposition

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Analysis Prepared by:

Nikki Moore / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744