Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding these interceptions, as specified. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Existing law makes these provisions effective until January 1, 2025.

This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030. By extending the operation of provisions of law creating a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding these interceptions, as specified. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Existing law makes these provisions effective until January 1, 2025.

This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030. By extending the operation of provisions of law creating a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding these interceptions, as specified. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Existing law makes these provisions effective until January 1, 2025.

This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030. By extending the operation of provisions of law creating a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 514

Author:(Archuleta)

As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Extends the sunset date for the provisions that authorize law enforcement authorities to wiretap and otherwise intercept electronic communications to January 1, 2030.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

California Electronic Interceptions: In general, California law prohibits wiretapping and other forms of intercepting electronic communications. (Penal Code Section 631.) Under current law, a judge may authorize an electronic interception if there is probable cause to believe that 1) an individual is going to commit a specified crime such as murder or a gang-related offense; 2) the communication relates to the illegal activity; 3) the communication device will be used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted; and, 4) normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or be too dangerous. (Pen. Code, Section 629.52; People v. Leon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 376, 384.)

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), court-authorized electronic interceptions are a vital law enforcement tool. (DOJ. California Electronic Interceptions Report: Annual Report 2022. (hereafter 2022 Interception Report) <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/annual-rept-legislature-2022.pdf> [as of Jul. 3, 2023] at p. 1.) Due to the fact that dangerous individuals and criminal entities, such as drug trafficking organizations and criminal street gangs frequently use telecommunications to advance their criminal objectives, electronic interceptions are critical in identifying, disrupting, and preventing crimes. (Ibid.) In 2022, California judges approved 468 interception orders out of 468 applications submitted. (Ibid.) Authorized interceptions led to 250 total arrests; these arrests were predominantly for murder (151), narcotics offenses (89), and gang-related offenses (6). (Id. at 2.)

However, even with such stringent requirements, the potential for abuse exists, as highlighted in 2014 in Riverside County. (Guerrero v. Hestrin, (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 172.)

In 2014, a single Riverside County Superior Court judge signed 602 orders authorizing wiretaps. To put that in perspective, all other judges in the state authorized 245 wiretaps that year. And the 602 wiretaps that year comprised approximately 17 percent of all the wiretaps authorized by all the state and federal courts in the nation. The next year, that same judge and one other authorized 640 wiretaps, the rest of the state authorized 505, and the 640 wiretaps comprised roughly 15 percent of all wiretaps in the country…

In 2014 and 2015, two Riverside County judges authorized over 1,200 wiretaps that have since been the subject of public scrutiny and consternation. One federal judge has stated that 'the sheer volume of wiretaps applied for and approved in Riverside County suggests that constitutional requirements cannot have been met…' (U.S. Mattingly (W.D.Ky. 2016) 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86489, p. 27), and journalists have reported that the wiretaps 'allowed investigators… to intercept more than 2 million conversations involving 44,000 people' (Heath and Kelman, Justice officials fear nation's biggest wiretap operation my not be legal, USA Today (Nov. 11, 2015) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/11/dea-wiretap-operation-riverside-california/75484076/ [as of Oct. 21, 2020]; see also Ibid. [reporting that federal prosecutors 'have mostly refused to use the results in federal court because they have concluded the state court's eavesdropping orders are unlikely to withstand a legal challenge'].)

(Guerrero v. Hestrin, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at 181.)

This bill would extend the sunset provision that allows specified law enforcement authorities to intercept electronic communications until January 1, 2030.

According to the Author

"Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. When this was authorized, these provisions were made effective until January 1, 2025. This bill would simply extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030.

"The interception of wire and electronic communications is a vital tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. We know that these tools are important in keeping our communities safe. We must continue to support our Law Enforcement Officers being able to effectively serve California."

Arguments in Support

According to the bill's sponsor, the California District Attorneys Association, "California Penal Code Sections 629.50 [to] 629.98 (Chapter 1.4), collectively known as the 'wiretap statutes,' allow designated law enforcement officers to intercept electronic communications. These statutes are set to be repealed on January 1, 2025, by their own terms.

"As you know, electronic interceptions are an invaluable investigative tool for law enforcement when all other conventional investigative tools have been exhausted. Utilization of electronic interceptions provides a multitude of benefits which directly lead to the success of law enforcement investigations and, in turn, provides a significant benefit to the public. Wiretaps, as authorized in the California Penal Code, permit their use, upon authorization of a court, for evidence collection, to protect the safety of those suspected of crimes as well as law enforcement officers, and the interdiction of drug-trafficking organizations and criminal street gangs."

Arguments in Opposition

None Submitted.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal cases based on evidence obtained through wiretapping. Actual costs will depend on the number of future arrests resulting from wiretapping evidence, prosecutorial discretion, and the amount of time needed to adjudicate each case. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reported 15 convictions in 2022 that resulted from authorized electronic interceptions. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If four cases resulting from intercepted electronic evidence proceed to trial, and each trial requires one week of court time, the resulting court costs would be approximately $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The 2023-24 budget includes $105 million from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
2. Costs (General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted using evidence obtained via authorized wiretaps. According to a 2022 estimate by the Legislative Analyst's Office, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $106,000. If four people are convicted and sentenced to prison based on wiretap evidence, it would cost CDCR about $464,000 annually to incarcerate them.
3. Costs (General Fund) to DOJ to complete the required annual report. DOJ reports workload costs of approximately $43,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2024-24, $140,000 in FY 2024-29, and $49,000 in FY 2029-30 to compile data, write, and publish the report.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Alanis, Bonta, Bryan, Lackey, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Soria, Weber, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: February 14, 2023

CONSULTANT: Mureed Rasool / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001463

Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 514

Author:(Archuleta) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date for the statutes that authorize a prosecutor to seek court approval to wiretap or otherwise intercept electronic communications during a criminal investigation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal cases based on evidence obtained through wiretapping. Actual costs will depend on the number of future arrests resulting from wiretapping evidence, prosecutorial discretion, and the amount of time needed to adjudicate each case. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reported 15 convictions in 2022 that resulted from authorized electronic interceptions. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If four cases resulting from intercepted electronic evidence proceed to trial, and each trial requires one week of court time, the resulting court costs would be approximately $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The 2023-24 budget includes $105 million from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
2. Costs (General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted using evidence obtained via authorized wiretaps. According to a 2022 estimate by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $106,000. If four people are convicted and sentenced to prison based on wiretap evidence, it would cost CDCR about $464,000 annually to incarcerate them.
3. Costs (General Fund) to DOJ to complete the required annual report. DOJ reports workload costs of approximately $43,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2024-24, $140,000 in FY 2024-29, and $49,000 in FY 2029-30 to compile data, write, and publish the report.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. When this was authorized, these provisions were made effective until January 1, 2025. This bill would simply extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030. The interception of wire and electronic communications is a vital tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. We know that these tools are important in keeping our communities safe. We must continue to support our Law Enforcement Officers being able to effectively serve California.

1. Background. In general, it is illegal for someone to wiretap or otherwise intercept another person’s electronic communications in California. This includes phone conversations and text messages sent via cellphone. However, a court can authorize a law enforcement agency to intercept someone’s electronic communications if a prosecutor makes certain showings of probable cause pertaining to criminal activities and demonstrates either that normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or that such procedures appear unlikely to succeed or are too dangerous to try. Each year, DOJ is required to submit a report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that provides information about wiretap authorization requests submitted, orders issued, and resulting arrests and convictions. In its most recent report, DOJ stated that in 2022,

California judges approved 468 orders authorizing electronic interceptions out of 468 applications submitted. In 2021, 416 orders were approved out of 417 applications submitted. The 468 orders approving electronic interception in 2022 marks a roughly 13% increase from 2021. Wiretap orders were issued in 19 of California’s 58 counties, compared to 15 counties in 2021. The greatest numbers of orders authorizing electronic interceptions were issued in Riverside, Los Angeles, and Kern Counties, with 200, 173, and 18 orders, respectively….Authorized interceptions in 2022 resulted in 250 total arrests[]. These arrests were predominantly for murder (151), narcotics offenses (89), and gang-related offenses (6).

This bill extends, for another five years, the sunset on the statutes that allow prosecutors to seek authorization for wiretapping and other interception of electronic communications, allow courts to grant such authorization, and require DOJ’s annual report about wiretapping.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 304 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 607, Statutes of 2019, extended the sunset on the wiretapping law until January 1, 2025.

SB 35 (Pavley), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2014, extended the sunset date on California’s wiretapping law until January 1, 2020.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 11, 2023

Counsel: Mureed Rasool

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 514

Author:(Archuleta) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date for the provisions that authorize law enforcement authorities to wiretap and otherwise intercept electronic communications to January 1, 2030.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that people have a right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches; and that a warrant may not be issued except upon probable cause, supported by an oath, and particularly describing the nature of the search or seizure. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.)
   
2. Declares that:
   
3. Scientific and technological advancements have led to the development of new techniques to surreptitiously listen in on previously private communications;
4. The continual use of such techniques poses a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties to such a degree that it constitutes an invasion of privacy; and,
5. Such techniques cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society, and must be prohibited except for the necessary exemption for law enforcement officials legitimately investigating and apprehending criminal offenders. (Pen. Code, § 630.)
   
6. Prohibits the unlawful interception of wire or electronic communications and specifies that a violation can lead to imprisonment in county jail for up to three years. (Pen. Code, § 629.84.)
   
7. Defines, for the purposes of the intercepting wire or electronic communications, the following:
   
8. “Wire communication” as any aural transfer that is transmitted by aid of wire, cable, or other similar connection that is operated by a provider;
9. “Electronic communication” as any transfer of signs, writings, images, sounds, or other data of any nature through the use of wire, radio, or photo-optical system that does not include tracking devices, wire communications, or fund transfer information stored by a financial institution;
   
10. “Tracking device” as a device permitting the tracking of the movement of a person or object; and,
11. “Aural transfer” as a transfer containing a human voice at any point between and including the points of origin and reception (Pen. Code, § 629.51, subd. (a).)
    
12. Outlines the manner in which a specified law enforcement authority may request to lawfully intercept a wire or electronic communication, which includes:
    
13. The identity of the law enforcement officer requesting the interception;
14. Details of the offense committed or to be committed;
15. Reasons as to why conventional investigative techniques are or appear unlikely to succeed;
16. A particular description of the type of communication to be intercepted;
17. The period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained;
18. An application for an extension and reason for failing to obtain results within the period of time initially allotted; and,
19. Any additional information a judge deems necessary to support the interception. (Pen. Code, § 629.50.)
    
20. Requires that, before authorizing an interception of a communication within the territorial jurisdiction the judge sits in, the judge must determine the following:
    
21. Probable cause exists to believe an individual has, is currently, or will commit:
    
    • 1. A specified transportation or possession for sales violation for substances wherein the substance exceeds 10 gallons or 3 pounds by weight;
         
      2. Murder, solicitation for murder, kidnap for gain or rape, or a specified destructive device crime;
         
      3. A felony gang-related crime;
         
      4. A crime pertaining to weapons of mass destruction, or restricted biological agents;
         
      5. Human trafficking; or,
         
      6. Or any conspiracy thereof.
         
    1. There is probable cause that the interception will result in information related to the above-mentioned illegal activities;
       
    2. There is probable cause that the communications from the targeted facility or individual is connected with the commission of the above-mentioned illegal activities; and,
       
    3. Normal investigative procedures have failed or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed or are too dangerous. (Pen. Code, § 629.52.)
       
22. Specifies that an order authorizing the interception of any wire or electronic communication shall include, among other things, the identity of the person whose communications are intercepted, the nature and location of the interceptions, the identity of the agency and person making the interception application, and the length of the interception, among other things. (Pen. Code, § 629.54.)
    
23. Authorizes a judge to orally approve an interception if, among other things, there is probable cause that an emergency situation exists with respect to the investigation and the situation poses a substantial danger to life or limb. (Pen. Code, § 629.56.)
    
24. Limits the time period of an interception to only what is necessary, and in no event longer than 30 days before an extension is required. Further limits interceptions to be executed as soon as practicable and in a manner to minimize interceptions of other communications that are not the primary target. An order granting an interception terminates immediately upon attainment of the authorized objective. (Pen. Code, § 629.58.)
    
25. Requires that reports of the interception be filed with the court at intervals no less frequent than 10 days that show the number of communications intercepted, and a statement detailing what progress has been made or an explanation for a lack thereof. If a judge finds no progress has been made and the explanation is unsatisfactory, the judge must immediately terminate the interception. (Pen. Code, § 629.60.)
    
26. Requires law enforcement to issue a report to the Attorney General (AG) regarding interception orders, as specified, and requires AG to issue an annual report regarding such interceptions. (Pen. Code, §§ 629.61 & 629.62.)
    
27. Requires intercepted communications to be recorded, if possible, and to be protected from editing or alterations, be kept in a location required by the judge, and be kept for 10 years, among other things. (Pen. Code, § 629.64.)
    
28. States that interception applications and orders must be sealed by the judge and only opened upon good cause, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 629.66.)
    
29. Requires that within a reasonable time, but no later than 90 days after the cessation of an interception, the issuing judge must order the requesting agency to serve all known parties whose communications were intercepted with notice of the existence of the interception, as well as time period and whether any communications were intercepted. (Pen. Code, § 629.68.)
    
30. Requires a defendant to be notified if they were identified as a result of an interception prior to any plea, hearing or trial, among other things. (Pen. Code, § 629.70.)
    
31. Permits any person to move to suppress evidence of, or deriving from, an intercepted wire or electronic communication that was obtained in violation of the federal Fourth Amendment or in violation of the Penal Code, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 629.72.)
    
32. Authorizes any specified persons who have obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire or electronic communication, to use such knowledge as appropriate to the proper performance of their duties and as otherwise specified. (Pen. Code, § 629.76.)
    
33. Specifies that privileged information overheard during an interception does not result in the information losing its privilege and outlines how officers are to deal with such situations. (Pen. Code, § 629.80.)
    
34. States that if an officer learns of an offense other than that specified in the interception order, the officer may inform other specified law enforcement authorities of such offense to prevent the commission of a public offense, among other things. (Pen. Code, § 629.82.)
    
35. Provides persons whose communications were unlawfully intercepted, a civil cause of action except if the interception was made based upon a good faith reliance of a court order. (Pen. Code, § 629.86.)
    
36. Prohibits an interception order from, either directly or indirectly, authorizing covert entry into a specified premise to facilitate an interception. (Pen. Code, § 629.89.)
    
37. States that a court ordering an interception may take any evidence, make any finding, or issue any order required to ensure the interception is lawful under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or specified state law. (Pen. Code, § 629.92.)
    
38. Requires the AG to set minimum certification and recertification standards that must be attained before specified law enforcement officers can apply for and conduct interceptions. (Pen. Code, § 629.94.)
    
39. Sunsets the provisions allowing law enforcement to intercept electronic communications on January 1, 2025. (Pen. Code, § 629.98.)
    

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. When this was authorized, these provisions were made effective until January 1, 2025. This bill would simply extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030.

“The interception of wire and electronic communications is a vital tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. We know that these tools are important in keeping our communities safe. We must continue to support our Law Enforcement Officers being able to effectively serve California.”

1. California Electronic Interceptions: In general, California law prohibits wiretapping and other forms of intercepting electronic communications. (Pen. Code, § 631.) Under current law, a judge may authorize an electronic interception if there is probable cause to believe that 1) an individual is going to commit a specified crime such as murder or a gang-related offense; 2) the communication relates to the illegal activity; 3) the communication device will be used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted; and, 4) normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or be too dangerous. (Pen. Code, § 629.52; People v. Leon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 376, 384.)
   
   According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), court-authorized electronic interceptions are a vital law enforcement tool. (DOJ. California Electronic Interceptions Report: Annual Report 2022. (hereafter 2022 Interception Report) <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/annual-rept-legislature-2022.pdf> [as of Jul. 3, 2023] at p. 1.) Due to the fact that dangerous individuals and criminal entities, such as drug trafficking organizations and criminal street gangs frequently use telecommunications to advance their criminal objectives, electronic interceptions are critical in identifying, disrupting, and preventing crimes. (Ibid.) In 2022, California judges approved 468 interception orders out of 468 applications submitted. (Ibid.) Authorized interceptions led to 250 total arrests; these arrests were predominantly for murder (151), narcotics offenses (89), and gang-related offenses (6). (Id. at 2.)
   
   However, even with such stringent requirements, the potential for abuse exists, as highlighted in 2014 in Riverside County. (Guerrero v. Hestrin, (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 172.)

“In 2014, a single Riverside County Superior Court judge signed 602 orders authorizing wiretaps. To put that in perspective, all other judges in the state authorized 245 wiretaps that year. And the 602 wiretaps that year comprised approximately 17 percent of all the wiretaps authorized by all the state and federal courts in the nation. The next year, that same judge and one other authorized 640 wiretaps, the rest of the state authorized 505, and the 640 wiretaps comprised roughly 15 percent of all wiretaps in the country…

In 2014 and 2015, two Riverside County judges authorized over 1,200 wiretaps that have since been the subject of public scrutiny and consternation. One federal judge has stated that ‘the sheer volume of wiretaps applied for and approved in Riverside County suggests that constitutional requirements cannot have been met…’ (U.S. Mattingly (W.D.Ky. 2016) 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86489, p. 27), and journalists have reported that the wiretaps ‘allowed investigators… to intercept more than 2 million conversations involving 44,000 people’ (Heath and Kelman, Justice officials fear nation’s biggest wiretap operation my not be legal, USA Today (Nov. 11, 2015) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/11/dea-wiretap-operation-riverside-california/75484076/ [as of Oct. 21, 2020]; see also Ibid. [reporting that federal prosecutors ‘have mostly refused to use the results in federal court because they have concluded the state court’s eavesdropping orders are unlikely to withstand a legal challenge’].)”

(Guerrero v. Hestrin, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at 181.)

This bill would extend the sunset provision that allows specified law enforcement authorities to intercept electronic communications until January 1, 2030.

1. Argument in Support: According to the bill’s sponsor, the California District Attorneys Association, “California Penal Code sections 629.50 – 629.98 (Chapter 1.4), collectively known as the ‘wiretap statutes,’ allow designated law enforcement officers to intercept electronic communications. These statutes are set to be repealed on January 1, 2025 by their own terms.
   
   “As you know, electronic interceptions are an invaluable investigative tool for law enforcement when all other conventional investigative tools have been exhausted. Utilization of electronic interceptions provides a multitude of benefits which directly lead to the success of law enforcement investigations and, in turn, provides a signficant benefit to the public. Wiretaps, as authorized in the California Penal Code, permit their use, upon authorization of a court, for evidence collection, to protect the safety of those suspected of crimes as well as law enforcement officers, and the interdiction of drug-trafficking organizations and criminal street gangs.”
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 304 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 607, Statutes of 2019, extended the sunset provision for communication interceptions to January 1, 2025.
      
   2. SB 35 (Pavley), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2014, extended the sunset provision for communication interceptions to January 1, 2020.
      
   3. SB 61 (Pavley), Chapter 663, Statutes of 2011, among other things, extended the sunset provision for communication interceptions to January 1, 2015.
      
   4. AB 569 (Portantino), Chapter 391, Statutes of 2007, extended the sunset provision for communication interceptions to January 1, 2012.
      
   5. AB 74 (Washington), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2002, among other things, extended the sunset provision for communication interceptions to January 1, 2008.
      
   6. SB 688 (Ayala), Chapter 355, Statutes of 1997, among other things, extended the sunset provision for communication interceptions to January 1, 2003.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association (Sponsor)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California State Sheriffs' Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Inglewood Police Officers Association

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Assocation

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Upland Police Officers Association

Opposition

None received.

Analysis Prepared by: Mureed Rasool / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 514

Author: Archuleta (D)

Introduced: 2/14/23

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/21/23

AYES: Wahab, Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

SUBJECT: Wiretapping: authorization

SOURCE: California District Attorneys Association

DIGEST:

This bill extends the sunset date until January 1, 2030 on provisions of California law which authorize the Attorney General (AG), chief deputy attorney general, chief assistant attorney general, district attorney or the district attorney's designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic communications under specified circumstances.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the AG, chief deputy attorney general, chief assistant attorney general, district attorney or the district attorney’s designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic communications under specified circumstances. (Penal Code §§ 629.50 et. seq.)
2. Specifies the crimes for which an interception order may be sought: murder, kidnapping, bombing, criminal gangs, and possession for sale, sale, transportation, or manufacturing of more than three pounds of cocaine, heroin, PCP, methamphetamine or its precursors, fentanyl, possession of a destructive device, weapons of mass destruction, restricted biological agents or human trafficking. (Penal Code § 629.52.)
3. Provides that the court may grant oral approval for an emergency interception of wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone communications without an order as specified. Approval for an oral interception shall be conditioned upon filing with the court, within 48 hours of the oral approval, a written application for an order. Approval of the ex parte order shall be conditioned upon filing with the judge within 48 hours of the oral approval. (Penal Code § 629.56.)
4. Provides that no order entered under this chapter shall authorize the interception of any wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than 30 days. (Penal Code §629.58.)
5. Requires that written reports showing what progress has been made toward the achievement of the authorized objective, including the number of intercepted communications, be submitted at least every 10 days to the judge who issued the order allowing the interception. (Penal Code § 629.60.)
6. Requires the AG to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court on interceptions conducted under the authority of the wiretap provisions and specifies what the report shall include. (Penal Code § 629.62.)
7. Provides that applications made and orders granted shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be where the judge orders. The applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a judge and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years. (Penal Code § 629.66.) Existing law provides that a defendant shall be notified that he or she was identified as the result of an interception prior to the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or at least 10 days, prior to any trial, hearing or proceedings in the case other than an arraignment or grand jury proceeding. Within 10 days prior to trial, hearing or proceeding the prosecution shall provide to the defendant a copy of all recorded interceptions from which evidence against the defendant was derived, including a copy of the court order, accompanying application and monitory logs. (Penal Code § 629.70.)
8. Provides that any person may move to suppress intercepted communications on the basis that the contents or evidence were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or of California electronic surveillance provisions. (Penal Code § 629.72.)
9. Provides that the AG, any deputy attorney general, district attorney or deputy district attorney or any peace officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic pager, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose the contents to one of the individuals referred to in this section and to any investigative or law enforcement officer as defined in subdivision (7) of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United State Code to the extent that the disclosure is permitted pursuant to Section 629.82 and is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the individual making or receiving the disclosure. No other disclosure, except to a grand jury, of intercepted information is permitted prior to a public court hearing by any person regardless of how the person may have come into possession thereof. (Penal Code § 629.74.)
10. Provides that if a law enforcement officer overhears a communication relating to a crime that is not specified in the wiretap order, but is a crime for which a wiretap order could have been issued, the officer may only disclose the information and thereafter use the evidence, if, as soon as practical, he or she applies to the court for permission to use the information. If an officer overhears a communication relating to a crime that is not specified in the order, and not one for which a wiretap order could have been issued or any violent felony, the information may not be disclosed or used except to prevent the commission of a crime. No evidence derived from the wiretap can be used unless the officers can establish that the evidence was obtained through an independent source or inevitably would have been discovered. In all instances, the court may only authorize use of the information if it reviews the procedures used and determines that the interception was in accordance with state wiretap laws. (Penal Code § 629.82 (b).)
11. Provides that the provisions governing wiretaps sunsets on January 1, 2025. (Pen. Code, § 629.98.)

This bill extends the sunset to January 1, 2030.

Background

Federal Wiretapping Law

1. The Fourth Amendment Protects Telephone Communications. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.CT. 507, 19 L.ED.2D 576, that telephone conversations were protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Intercepting a conversation is a search and seizure similar to the search of a citizen’s home. Thus, law enforcement is constitutionally required to obtain a warrant based on probable cause and to give notice and inventory of the search.
2. Title III Allows Wiretapping Under Strict Conditions. In 1968, Congress authorized wiretapping by enacting Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. (See 18 USC Section 2510 et seq.) Out of concern that telephonic interceptions do not limit the search and seizure to only the party named in the warrant, federal law prohibits electronic surveillance except under carefully defined circumstances. The procedural steps provided in the Act require “strict adherence.” (United States v. Kalustian, 529 F.2d 585, 588 (9th Cir. 1976)), and “utmost scrutiny must be exercised to determine whether wiretap orders conform to Title III.”) Several of the relevant statutory requirements may be summarized as follows:
   1. Unlawfully intercepted communications or non-conformity with the order of authorization may result in the suppression of evidence.
   2. Civil and criminal penalties for statutory violations.
   3. Wiretapping is limited to enumerated serious felonies.
   4. Only the highest ranking prosecutor may apply for a wiretap order.
   5. Notice and inventory of a wiretap shall be served on specified persons within a reasonable time but not later than 90 days after the expiration of the order or denial of the application.
   6. Judges are required to report each individual interception. Prosecutors are required to report interceptions and statistics to allow public monitoring of government wiretapping.
3. The Necessity Requirement – Have Other Investigative Techniques Been Tried Before Applying to the Court for a Wiretap Order?

Wire or Electronic Communication

Under existing law, the AG or a district attorney may make an application to a judge of the superior court for an application authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone. The law regulates the issuance, duration and monitoring of these orders and imposes safeguards to protect the public from unreasonable interceptions. The law also limits which crimes for which an interception may be sought to the following:

1. Importation, possession for sale, transportation or sale of controlled substances;
2. Murder or solicitation of murder or commission of a felony involving a destructive device;
3. A felony in violation of prohibitions on criminal street gangs;
4. Possession or use of a weapon of mass destruction;
5. A violation of human trafficking and,
6. An attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above.

This bill extends the sunset on California’s existing wiretap provisions to January 1, 2030

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• CDCR: Unknown, potentially significant costs to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) due to new commitments to state prison that otherwise would not have resulted in incarceration absent evidence recovered through a wiretap (General Fund).*
  
• Judicial Branch: Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate charges brought against defendants who are charged with a crime based on evidence obtained by a state-authorized wiretap, that absent this measure would not have been charged (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund).*
  
• DOJ: Likely minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to create and publish annual reports related to wiretaps.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)

California District Attorneys Association (source)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California State Sheriffs' Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Inglewood Police Officers Association

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Upland Police Officers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)

None received

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

5/20/23 13:00:16

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 514 (Archuleta) - Wiretapping: authorization

Bill Summary:

The purpose of this bill is to extend the sunset date until January 1, 2030 on provisions of California law which authorize state and local prosecutors to apply for a court order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic communications under specified circumstances.

Fiscal Impact:

• CDCR: Unknown, potentially significant costs to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) due to new commitments to state prison that otherwise would not have resulted in incarceration absent evidence recovered through a wiretap (General Fund).*
  
• Judicial Branch: Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate charges brought against defendants who are charged with a crime based on evidence obtained by a state-authorized wiretap, that absent this measure would not have been charged (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund).*
  
• DOJ: Likely minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to create and publish annual reports related to wiretaps.

*See Staff Comments for additional details.

Background:

Under existing law, the AG or a district attorney may make an application to a judge of the superior court for an application authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone. The law regulates the issuance, duration and monitoring of these orders and imposes safeguards to protect the public from unreasonable interceptions. The law also limits which crimes for which an interception may be sought to the following:

• Importation, possession for sale, transportation or sale of controlled substances;
• Murder or solicitation of murder or commission of a felony involving a destructive device;
• A felony in violation of prohibitions on criminal street gangs;
• Possession or use of a weapon of mass destruction;
• A violation of human trafficking and,
• An attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above.

The existing California wiretap provisions sunset on January 1, 2025. This bill would extend that sunset to January 1, 2030.

Proposed Law:

This bill would extend, to January 1, 2030, the ability of the Attorney General and district attorneys to apply to the superior court for authorization to intercept a wire or electronic communication.

Related Legislation:

• AB 304 (Jones-Sawyer) Chapter 607, Stats. 2020 extended the sunset date on California’s wiretapping law until January 1, 2025.
• SB 35 (Pavley, Ch. 745, Stats. 2014) extended the sunset date on California’s wiretapping law until January 1, 2020.
• SB 61 (Pavley, Ch. 663, Stats. 2011) extended the sunset date on California’s wiretapping law until January 1, 2015.
• AB 569 (Portantino, Ch. 391, Stats. 2007) extended the sunset date on California wiretap law until January 1, 2012.
• AB 74 (Washington, Ch. 605, Stats. 2002) extended the sunset date on California wiretap law until January 1, 2008.

Staff Comments:

• CDCR: The fiscal impact of this bill cannot be known with certainty, as the actual impact will depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the amount and type of evidence uncovered due to wiretaps, prosecutorial and judicial discretion, the criminal history of the defendant, and the factors unique to each case. The proposed 2022-23 per capita cost to house a person in a state prison is $104,079 annually, with an annual marginal rate per inmate of approximately $10,000. According to the Attorney General annual report on Electronic Interceptions there were hundreds of arrests made as the result of electronic interceptions in 2021, including 108 arrests for murder charges.
• Judicial Branch: According to the Attorney General annual report on Electronic Interceptions there were 266 arrests made as a result of wiretaps in 2021. Those arrests resulted in 21 trials. It is unknown how many additional prosecutions would be brought as a result of the implementation of this bill. However, it generally costs about $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Consequently, if prosecutors filed charges as a result of wiretap evidence that otherwise would not have been discovered, and combined, those additional cases take 50 or more hours of court involvement, the cost pressures of this measure to the courts would surpass the Suspense File threshold.

Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund and staff workload may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund (GF) to perform existing duties. Numerous trial court operations are funded through the imposition and collection of criminal fines and fees. However, the Legislature has reduced and eliminated criminal fines and fees over the past five years. As a result, the 2023-24 proposed budget anticipates an ongoing annual allocation of $109.3 million from the GF to backfill in order to address declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 514 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023

Subject: Wiretapping: authorization

HISTORY

Source: California District Attorneys Association

Prior Legislation: AB 304 (Jones-Sawyer) Chapter 607, Stats. 2020

AB 1948 (Jones-Sawyer) Chapter 294, Stats. 2018

SB 955 (Mitchell) Chapter 712, Stats. 2014

SB 61 (Pavley) Chapter 663, Stats. 2011

SB 1428 (Pavley) Chapter. 707 Stats. 2010

AB 569 (Portantino) Chapter 307, Stats. 2007

AB 74 (Washington) Chapter. 605, Stats. 2002

Proposition 21 – approved March 7, 2000

SB 1016 (Boatwright) Chapter 971, Stats. 1995

SB 800 (Presley) Chapter 548, Stats. 1993

SB 1120 (Presley) – 1991

SB 83 – amended out in part and chaptered in part as SB 1499 (1988)

SB 1499 Chapter111, Stats. 1988

Support: Arcadia Police Officers' Association; Burbank Police Officers' Association; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California District Attorneys Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers' Association; Fullerton Police Officers' Association; Inglewood Police Officers Association; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Pomona Police Officers' Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Upland Police Officers Association

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to extend the sunset date until January 1, 2030 on provisions of California law which authorize the Attorney General (AG), chief deputy attorney general, chief assistant attorney general, district attorney or the district attorney's designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic communications under specified circumstances.

Existing law authorizes the AG, chief deputy attorney general, chief assistant attorney general, district attorney or the district attorney’s designee to apply to the presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing the interception of wire or electronic communications under specified circumstances. (Penal Code §§ 629.50 et. seq.)

Existing law specifies the crimes for which an interception order may be sought: murder, kidnapping, bombing, criminal gangs, and possession for sale, sale, transportation, or manufacturing of more than three pounds of cocaine, heroin, PCP, methamphetamine or its precursors, fentanyl, possession of a destructive device, weapons of mass destruction, restricted biological agents or human trafficking. (Penal Code § 629.52.)

Existing law provides that the court may grant oral approval for an emergency interception of wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone communications without an order as specified. Approval for an oral interception shall be conditioned upon filing with the court, within 48 hours of the oral approval, a written application for an order. Approval of the ex parte order shall be conditioned upon filing with the judge within 48 hours of the oral approval. (Penal Code § 629.56.)

Existing law provides that no order entered under this chapter shall authorize the interception of any wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than 30 days. (Penal Code §629.58.)

Existing law requires that written reports showing what progress has been made toward the achievement of the authorized objective, including the number of intercepted communications, be submitted at least every 10 days to the judge who issued the order allowing the interception. (Penal Code § 629.60.)

Existing law requires the AG to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court on interceptions conducted under the authority of the wiretap provisions and specifies what the report shall include. (Penal Code § 629.62.)

Existing law provides that applications made and orders granted shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be where the judge orders. The applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a judge and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years. (Penal Code § 629.66.) Existing law provides that a defendant shall be notified that he or she was identified as the result of an interception prior to the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or at least 10 days, prior to any trial, hearing or proceedings in the case other than an arraignment or grand jury proceeding. Within 10 days prior to trial, hearing or proceeding the prosecution shall provide to the defendant a copy of all recorded interceptions from which evidence against the defendant was derived, including a copy of the court order, accompanying application and monitory logs. (Penal Code § 629.70.)

Existing law provides that any person may move to suppress intercepted communications on the basis that the contents or evidence were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or of California electronic surveillance provisions. (Penal Code § 629.72.)

Existing law provides that the AG, any deputy attorney general, district attorney or deputy district attorney or any peace officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic pager, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose the contents to one of the individuals referred to in this section and to any investigative or law enforcement officer as defined in subdivision (7) of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United State Code to the extent that the disclosure is permitted pursuant to Section 629.82 and is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the individual making or receiving the disclosure. No other disclosure, except to a grand jury, of intercepted information is permitted prior to a public court hearing by any person regardless of how the person may have come into possession thereof. (Penal Code § 629.74.)

Existing law provides that if a law enforcement officer overhears a communication relating to a crime that is not specified in the wiretap order, but is a crime for which a wiretap order could have been issued, the officer may only disclose the information and thereafter use the evidence, if, as soon as practical, he or she applies to the court for permission to use the information. If an officer overhears a communication relating to a crime that is not specified in the order, and not one for which a wiretap order could have been issued or any violent felony, the information may not be disclosed or used except to prevent the commission of a crime. No evidence derived from the wiretap can be used unless the officers can establish that the evidence was obtained through an independent source or inevitably would have been discovered. In all instances, the court may only authorize use of the information if it reviews the procedures used and determines that the interception was in accordance with state wiretap laws. (Penal Code § 629.82 (b).)

Existing law provides that the provisions governing wiretaps sunsets on January 1, 2025. (Pen. Code, § 629.98.)

This bill extends the sunset to January 1, 2030.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Existing law establishes a procedure for a prosecutor to apply for, and the court to issue, an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept a wire or electronic communication. When this was authorized, these provisions were made effective until January 1, 2025.

This bill would simply extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2030. The interception of wire and electronic communications is a vital tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. We know that these tools are important in keeping our communities safe. We must continue to support our Law Enforcement Officers being able to effectively serve California.

2. Federal Wiretapping Law

1. The Fourth Amendment Protects Telephone Communications

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.CT. 507, 19 L.ED.2D 576, that telephone conversations were protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Intercepting a conversation is a search and seizure similar to the search of a citizen’s home. Thus, law enforcement is constitutionally required to obtain a warrant based on probable cause and to give notice and inventory of the search.

b) Title III Allows Wiretapping Under Strict Conditions

In 1968, Congress authorized wiretapping by enacting Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. (See 18 USC Section 2510 et seq.) Out of concern that telephonic interceptions do not limit the search and seizure to only the party named in the warrant, federal law prohibits electronic surveillance except under carefully defined circumstances. The procedural steps provided in the Act require “strict adherence.” (United States v. Kalustian, 529 F.2d 585, 588 (9th Cir. 1976)), and “utmost scrutiny must be exercised to determine whether wiretap orders conform to Title III.”) Several of the relevant statutory requirements may be summarized as follows:

i. Unlawfully intercepted communications or non-conformity with the order of authorization may result in the suppression of evidence.

ii. Civil and criminal penalties for statutory violations.

iii. Wiretapping is limited to enumerated serious felonies.

iv. Only the highest ranking prosecutor may apply for a wiretap order.

v. Notice and inventory of a wiretap shall be served on specified persons within a reasonable time but not later than 90 days after the expiration of the order or denial of the application.

vi. Judges are required to report each individual interception. Prosecutors are required to report interceptions and statistics to allow public monitoring of government wiretapping.

c) The Necessity Requirement – Have Other Investigative Techniques Been Tried Before Applying to the Court for a Wiretap Order?

3. Wire or Electronic Communication

Under existing law, the AG or a district attorney may make an application to a judge of the superior court for an application authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic pager or electronic cellular telephone. The law regulates the issuance, duration and monitoring of these orders and imposes safeguards to protect the public from unreasonable interceptions. The law also limits which crimes for which an interception may be sought to the following:

1. Importation, possession for sale, transportation or sale of controlled substances;
2. Murder or solicitation of murder or commission of a felony involving a destructive device;
3. A felony in violation of prohibitions on criminal street gangs;
4. Possession or use of a weapon of mass destruction;
5. A violation of human trafficking and,
6. An attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above.

4. Sunset

The existing California wiretap provisions sunset on January 1, 2020. This bill would extend that sunset to January 1, 2025.

-- END –