Interrogation: electronic recordation.
Summary
Existing law requires the electronic recording of the entire custodial interrogation of a minor who is in a fixed place of detention, as defined, and who, at the time of the interrogation, is suspected of committing or accused of committing murder. Existing law sets forth various exceptions from this requirement, including if the law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation or his or her superior reasonably believes that electronic recording would disclose the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an officer, the individual being interrogated, or another individual. Existing law requires the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that an exception applies to justify the failure to make that electronic recording. Existing law requires the interrogating entity to maintain the original or an exact copy of an electronic recording made of the interrogation until the final conclusion of the proceedings, as specified. Existing law additionally requires the court to provide jury instructions developed by the Judicial Council if the court finds that a defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of the above-mentioned provisions. This bill would make this electronic recording requirement applicable to the custodial interrogation of any person suspected of committing murder. By imposing new requirements on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from the electronic recording requirement the interrogation of a person who is in custody on a charge of murder if the interrogation is not related to the commission of murder, as specified. Existing law defines "electronic recording" for these provisions as a video recording that accurately records a custodial interrogation. This bill would specify that the above definition applies only to the custodial interrogation of a minor. The bill would expand the definition to include a video or audio recording in the case of the custodial interrogation of an adult and would express the Legislature's encouragement that law enforcement agencies use video recording when available. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the above provisions. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2016
Committee Review
Aug 2016
Senate Passage
Jun 2016
Assembly Passage
Aug 2016
Signed into Law
Sep 2016
Introduced Feb 19, 2016
Signed Sep 28, 2016
Floor votes · Senate Jun 2, 2016 · Assembly Aug 23, 2016
How they voted
27–4
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 33
Jun 2, 2016
D
Democratic23
91% Yea
R
Republican10
60% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
28
Key actions
8
Committee
7
Amendments
3
Sep 28, 2016
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 25, 2016
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 33. Noes 6. Page 5409.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 23, 2016
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (56-12-3)
assembly
Aug 23, 2016
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 15, 2016
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
lower
Aug 12, 2016
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 3.) (August 11).
lower
Jun 28, 2016
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 9, 2016
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Jun 2, 2016
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (27-4-2)
senate
May 31, 2016
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
upper
May 27, 2016
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 4009.) (May 27).
upper
Apr 5, 2016
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3396.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Mar 10, 2016
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 19, 2016
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 5 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 1389
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 1389. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline