BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 175 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 7, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Mike Gatto, Chair SB 175 (Huff) - As Amended June 18, 2015 SENATE VOTE: 36-0 SUBJECT: Peace officers: body-worn cameras. SUMMARY: Requires law enforcement departments and agencies that use body-worn cameras to develop a policy for their use, and requires the policy to address the operational use of the cameras, storage of data, provisions for internal and public access and review of data, and training. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires each department or agency that employs peace officers and that elects to require those peace officers to wear body-worn cameras to develop a policy relating to the use of body-worn cameras. 2)Requires the policy to be developed in collaboration with nonsupervisory peace officers. 3)Requires the policy to specify the following: SB 175 Page 2 a) The duration, time, and place that body-worn cameras shall be worn and operational. b) The length of time video collected by officers will be stored. c) The procedures for, and limitations on, public access to recordings taken by body-worn cameras. d) The process for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including, but not limited to, the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data may be reviewed. e) The training that will be provided on the use of body-worn cameras. 4)Requires that the policy be provided to each officer required to wear a body-worn camera. EXISTING LAW: 1)Makes it a crime to intentionally record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. (Penal Code (PC) Section 632(a)) 2)Exempts specified peace officers from consent requirements for SB 175 Page 3 the recording of confidential communications if they are acting within the scope of their authority. (PC 633) 3)Generally requires, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), that public agencies disclose a government record to the public upon request, unless there is a specific reason to withhold it or if a public agency can establish that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. (Government Code Section 6250, et seq.) FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed nonfiscal by the Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose of this bill . This bill is intended to require the creation of a formal policy governing the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies and requires that policy to address a variety of issues regarding use of the camera and access to the data, but without specifying what those policies should be. SB 175 is author-sponsored. 2)Author's statement . According to the author, "As pivotal events surrounding police use of force have become the focus of important national debate, it is necessary to explore law enforcement use of body worn camera (BWC) technology as a statewide concern. SB 175 addresses the fact that BWC technology is relatively new and some agencies have started using BWC's without providing comprehensive policies for their use..." SB 175 Page 4 "SB 175 demonstrates an even-handed approach to a serious public safety issue. While it is clear that law enforcement agencies welcome BWC technology for the good of their departments and the public they serve, it is obvious that subsequent policies will eventually be developed on the natural? "According to PORAC in a letter dated March 2, 2015 to Senator Huff and Assemblymember Weber, 'Unfortunately, there are also agencies that have begun the use of body cameras with no structured polices in place, putting the privacy of officers and the public in jeopardy, and leaving officers unprotected when it comes to potential personnel issues. We are learning as an organization from the experiences of our members on the ground.' "?[E]stablishing a BWC program should be done at the local level with local stakeholders and local policymakers. In order for BWC programs to be successful, the program needs support from the community and the frontline officers who will be wearing the cameras." 3)The use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement . As a result of a string of well-publicized incidents involving the use of force by law enforcement officers against African-American men, beginning with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014, a public debate has emerged over the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are no fewer than 30 states currently considering some form of legislation on the topic. A body-worn camera is a small video camera - typically attached to an officer's clothing, helmet or sunglasses - that can capture, from an officer's point of view, video and audio recordings of activities, including traffic stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, and critical incidents such as officer-involved shootings. SB 175 Page 5 There is substantial evidence to suggest that body-worn cameras can have positive effects on policing. A 2012 study of the Rialto, CA police department's use of body-worn cameras found that the devices were correlated with a 60% reduction in officer use of force incidents following camera deployment, with twice the number of use of force incidents reported among the group of officers without cameras. The report also found an 88% reduction in the number of citizens' complaints in the year after cameras were introduced. To explain the effect of body-worn cameras, the Rialto Chief of Police was quoted as saying, "Whether the reduced number of complaints was because of the officers behaving better or the citizens behaving better - well, it was probably a little bit of both." According to a November 2014, report by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum, a broad survey of police departments that had deployed body-worn cameras has many benefits: "body-worn cameras are useful for documenting evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police transparency, performance and accountability...body-worn cameras [also] help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer's perspective." However, the report also notes that "[t]he use of body-worn cameras also raises important questions about privacy and trust." 4)The California Public Records Act . Video and audio data produced by peace officers with body-worn cameras is considered a public record under the CPRA, and is therefore subject to disclosure to the public unless otherwise exempt. The CPRA generally requires public agencies to respond to a records request within 10 days, and make eligible public records promptly available to a requester who pays the direct costs of duplication. In order to withhold a record, a public SB 175 Page 6 agency must demonstrate that a record is exempt under express provisions of the CPRA, or else must show that "on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." Whenever a state or local agency discloses a public record that would otherwise be exempt, that disclosure constitutes a waiver of the exemption. The CPRA provides a detailed list of information and documents that are exempt from disclosure, including: personnel files and records of complaints or investigatory or security files complied by state or local law enforcement agencies, although specified written information must be provided regarding the individuals involved in those incidents or investigations. 5)Arguments in support . According to the California Police Chiefs Association, "We concur that agencies that elect to utilize body worn cameras should have an inclusive and vetted policy in place prior to the implementation of the agency's body worn camera program. SB 175 allows for local discretion in the creation of agency policies. This approach allows each agency to develop and implement the best policy for their department and community." The League of California Cities writes, "This measure is an important initial step in assisting local governments, and local agencies specifically, in managing the voluntary acquisition and use of this technology?It is significant that this legislation specifies that the body camera policy is to be developed in collaboration with non-supervisory officers, and that it otherwise lays out broad guidelines for the components of the policy. The former provision can be expected to promote the acceptance of any policy by peace officers unions, assisting the management within police departments in implementing this transition. The latter provision provides much needed local flexibility." SB 175 Page 7 6)Related Legislation. AB 65 (Alejo) redirects funds from the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund and allocates that money to the Board of State and Community Corrections to be used to fund local law enforcement agencies to operate a body-worn camera program. AB 65 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 66 (Weber) establishes mandatory requirements and recommended guidelines for the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers and the handling of the resulting video and audio data. AB 66 was passed by this Committee on a 6-0 vote, and was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee AB 69 (Rodriguez) specifies a set of best practices that a law enforcement agency, department or entity establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system must consider. AB 69 was passed by this Committee on an 11-0 vote, and is set for hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 17, 2015. AB 1246 (Quirk) prohibits the disclosure of a recording made by a body-worn camera, except to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera. AB 1246 was held in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. 7)Double-referral . This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where it was heard on June 16, 2015, and passed on a 7-0 vote. SB 175 Page 8 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Peace Officers' Association California Police Chiefs Association California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police City of Santa Barbara League of California Cities Long Beach Police Officers Association Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association SB 175 Page 9 Santa Ana Police Officers Association Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by:Hank Dempsey / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200