Post on 21-Dec-2021
Summary of May 20, 2021 CLETS Advisory Committee
Meeting
This summary of the May 20, 2021 CAC meeting includes the agenda from the last meeting, the transcript, and all presentations, which include the Executive Secretary’s Report, Pending Legislation Update and updates on AB 1747.
Action Item 1 – Report to the committee direct connection uptimes that fall below 95 percent. (Reference page 24-25, lines, 21-25, 1-4)
Action Taken – CLETS Direct-Connect Interfaces (LCTs) that fall to 95 percent uptime or below will be presented to the Committee.
Action Item 2 – Add the CLETS Strategic Plan to the next meeting with emphasis for disaster recovery at a local and county point of presence. (Reference page 29, lines 2-19)
Action Taken – Copies of the latest version of the Strategic Plan were previously sent to Committee members. Requesting input and discussion from members so a problem statement can be addressed in relation to disaster recovery.
Action Item 3- Send transcription and notes to the CAC members within six to eight weeks following the meeting. (Reference page 30, Lines 8-14)
Action Taken – CAS staff is working with the purchasing unit and transcription services vendor to receive the transcript sooner. The transcription for the May meeting was sent out on September 2, 2021, but for future meetings, the summary packages will be sent out once we have received and proofed the transcript; however, it will not include the Action Taken.
Action Item 4- In the Legislative Report, only include bills directly related to CLETS. (Reference page 41, lines 18-25)
Action Taken – Only legislation directly related to CLETS that have been signed or are going through the legislative process will be presented to the Committee at future meetings.
Action Item 5 – Add NextGen 9-1-1 to the next agenda for an update and include DOJ’s review for its potential use with CLETS. (Reference page 57, lines 2-8)
Action Taken – NextGen 9-1-1 has been added to the agenda. DOJ has met with CalOES staff to discuss the possibility of using NextGen 9-1-1 with CLETS.
Department of Justice (DOJ) California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS)
CLETS Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Notice and Agenda
BlueJeans Video Conference
May 20, 2021 10:00 a.m.
Public Link: https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/hrgxkgwy
To access by phone, used one of the below numbers:
+1 (415) 466-7000 (US) PIN 7172667 #
+1 (760) 699-0393 (US) PIN 7538483527 #
OPEN SESSION
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Housekeeping
4. Chairman’s Report
5. UPDATE: Executive Secretary’s Report a. CLETS Traffic b. Misuse Statistics c. Action Items from Last Meeting
6. UPDATE: Pending Legislation (Kelly Brannigan, DOJ)
7. UPDATE: CLETS Message Header Changes (Assembly Bill No. 1747) – Information Bulletin 20-03-CJIS notifies agencies about new statutory restrictions and requirements governing the use of CLETS and the requirement for agencies to implement programming changes to provide purpose codes for every CLETS transaction.
8. UPDATE: Upgrade Applications Approved by DOJ a. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – Los Angeles Office b. Cathedral City Police Department c. California Highway Patrol
NOTE: Items not designated for vote are appropriate for Committee action if the members choose to take action. Items may be taken out of order.
CLETS Advisory Committee Agenda Page 2
d. Desert Hot Springs Police Department e. Livermore Police Department f. Orange County Sheriff’s Office g. Parlier Police Department h. Rialto Police Department i. San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office j. Sutter County Sheriff’s Office
9. UPDATE: Client Reports – Review of detailed Client Reports regarding noncompliance on specific matters, which do not pose “a threat or potential threat of criminal activity” against CLETS.
a. Solano County Sheriff’s Office
10. Members’ Reports
11. CAC Discussion/Open Forum/Public Comment
12. Next CAC Meeting/Adjourn
Notices and agendas are also available at the following website: https://oag.ca.gov/meetings.
To submit written material regarding an agenda item or questions regarding the agenda or meeting, please contact:
Department of Justice CLETS Administration Section
Madeeha Gohar, CLETS Staff Support 4949 Broadway, Room C115
Sacramento, CA 95820 Telephone: 916-210-4240
cas@doj.ca.gov
Government Code Section 11126.3 requires that: (a) Prior to holding any closed session, the state body shall disclose, in an open meeting, the general nature of the item or items to be discussed in the closed session. The disclosure may take the form of a reference to the item or items as they are listed by number or letter on the agenda. If the session is closed pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 11126, the state body shall state the title of, or otherwise specifically identify, the litigation to be discussed unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the body's ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more un-served parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage."
The CAC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by ensuring that the facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities, and providing this notice and information given to the members of the CAC in appropriate alternate formats when requested. If you need further assistance, including
NOTE: Items designated for information are appropriate for Committee action if the members choose to take action. Items may be taken out of order.
CLETS Advisory Committee Agenda Page 3
disability-related modifications or accommodations, you may contact the CAC no later than seven (7) calendars days before the meeting at (916) 210-4240 or cas@doj.ca.gov.
NOTE: Items designated for information are appropriate for Committee action if the members choose to take action. Items may be taken out of order.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
--o0o--
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED PROCEEDINGS
CLETS ADVISORY Committee
Held on
MAY 20, 2021
HELD VIRTUALLY
Transcribed by: Mary Ellen Edd, CSR 9755
1DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S
--o0o--
MARK PAZIN, Vice Chair, Office of Emergency Services
MARIA CRANSTON, CLETS Executive Secretary
MARK BONINI, California State Association of Counties
AARON COLBY, California Department of Justice
CHRIS CHILDS, California Highway Patrol
JOE DOMINIC, California Department of Justice
RICK HILLMAN, California Police Chiefs Association
KORY HONEA, California State Sheriffs' Association
GREG PARK, League of California Cities
ANDREW WHITE, California Peace Officers Association
ERIN CHOI, Department of Justice
2DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S
--o0o--
MR. DOMINIC: Great, David. Thank you, David.
All right, let's start again.
Good morning, everyone. I would like to go ahead
and call the meeting to order and welcome everyone to the
CAC meeting.
At this time, I'll go ahead and hand it off to
Maria to begin the roll call.
MS. CRANSTON: Good morning, everyone. I'll start
roll with Sheriff Honea.
SHERIFF HONEA: (No audible response.)
MS. CRANSTON: Mark Bonini?
(No audible response.)
MS. CRANSTON: Mark Bonini?
(No audible response.)
MS. CRANSTON: Mark?
MR. BONINI: I'm here.
MS. CRANSTON: I can't hear you. Okay, there you
are.
MR. BONINI: I'm here.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay. Andrew White?
MR. WHITE: Present.
MS. CRANSTON: Rick Hillman?
(No audible response.)
3DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CRANSTON: You're mute -- your mic is muted.
Okay.
MR. PAZIN: There's Sheriff Honea.
MR. HONEA: I'm Sheriff Honea.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay. Mark -- Sheriff Honea is
present.
Mark Pazin?
MR. PAZIN: Present, Miss Maria.
MS. CRANSTON: Thank you.
Chris Childs?
MR. CHILDS: Good morning, everybody. Chris Childs
here.
MS. CRANSTON: Good morning.
Greg Park?
MR. PARK: Good morning, present.
MS. CRANSTON: And Joe Dominic?
MR. DOMINIC: I'm here, Maria. Thank you.
MS. CRANSTON: We have a quorum.
MR. DOMINIC: Thanks, everyone. Thank you all for
joining.
So I'm just going to go ahead and start with the
housekeeping. So, CAC members, please identify yourself
before speaking or making a motion or second for the
transcript.
Uh, microphones for the attendees will be muted
4DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
during the meeting except for the Committee members, the
CLETS Executive Secretary, and legal counsel.
There will be an opportunity for the public comment
prior to any vote and towards the end of the agenda.
So with that, I'll go ahead and move to the, uh,
chairman's report. Um, you know, as we are moving into
2021, we were hoping to have this CLETS Advisory Committee
meeting in person.
Unfortunately, the facility that we had initially,
uh, booked said that -- they notified us that they couldn't
accommodate social dist- -- social distancing for a public
meeting. So, uh, that's why we're having a virtual meeting.
But I'm hoping that, with all the things that's
hap- -- moving forward with the vaccinations and as
facilities open up, we'll definitely, uh, have the next
meeting in person, which I'm sure that we're all looking
forward to.
Um, this is my first meeting chairing the CAC, so
please bear with me if I stumble along the way. Uh, I'm
very appreciative that we have Maria to kind of help us keep
us -- keep me on track, anyway, and all of us moving
forward.
Um, I also just want to convey that the AG wanted
me to send his appreciation to all the members for
participation on the Committee as well as the presenters and
5DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the CAC staff presenting at this meeting. So I just want to
make sure that I convey that to you all. So thank you very
much.
Um, so at this time, I'd like to refer to CLETS
Executive Secretary, Maria Cranston, to provide the updates
on the following, which is CLETS traffic, uh, misuse
statistics, and action items from the last meeting.
So go ahead, Maria, if you don't mind.
MS. CRANSTON: And thank you, Joe.
Chris, if we can go ahead and open up the
presentation for me, please?
Perfect. You can go to the next slide. Okay,
thank you.
So as Joe mentioned, I will be presenting three
different areas, CLETS traffic, the misuse statistics, as
well as action items.
Next slide.
So for the first quarter of 2021, um, we had a
total of 230 -- well, over 235 million messages inbound,
which is traffic coming into CLETS, as well as outbound,
which is what CLETS sends out.
Monthly average, over 78 million messages per
month. The peak day is almost 3.2 million. That's a lot of
traffic. An average day is over 2.6 million messages.
Next slide, please.
6DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So this slide depicts the annual misuse reports
that we received. Law enforcement is required to submit a
report every year for misuse investigations conducted the
previous year. And previously when we reported this, we
reported per agency, which was a lot of extra work.
For example, all criminal justice agencies such as
Probation or District Attorneys, every physical location
they have has to have a separate ORI. So, for example, a
single District Attorney's office might have 20 to 50
different ORIs. And instead of trying to consolidate it,
which was a lot of work on our part, we just said, no, we're
just going to start reporting per ORI.
So for 2019, we did reach a hundred percent
compliance. It took a while, but we were able to get a
hundred percent compliance. We received 1,732 forms from
1,732 different ORIs. So we did have a hundred percent
compliance.
There are 1,666 reports of no misuse and 66 cases
where misuse was found. There were a total of 205 misuse
investigations conducted last year, and 161 cases of misuse
were found. Um, there's 12 cases still pending. Out of
those 161 cases, there were 58 instances, uh, where
counseling was conducted, 17 for reprimands, 70 instances of
training.
Sometimes what happens with training, it could be
7DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that possibly they ran name checks instead of running
fingerprints, for example. And we find that during the
criminal history on it that they were supposed to run
fingerprints. Or sometimes it could be somebody conducting
training, and they're showing how to run DMV by running
themselves, and they have to get retrained.
There were 17 instances of suspensions, 16 people
resigned, 10 were terminated, and there was one instance of
other.
As far as 2020, to date we've received 1,637 forms,
you know, from the various ORIs. There's 135 that are still
outstanding, and staff are still working on reaching out to
those agencies. And some agencies just have not submitted
their forms yet. In some cases, it's tricky. Let's say,
for example, a District Attorney's office, they have 20
ORIs, and maybe they submitted for 10 and just haven't
submitted for the other 10. So we're reaching out to -- to
get the ones that are missing.
Out of the forms that were submitted, 1,597
reported no misuse, and 40 to date have reported misuse.
There were 137 investigations for misuse conducted last
year, and 70 new cases of new misuse was found. Thirty-four
of those cases are still pending. Twenty-nine individuals
have been counseled, 14 reprimanded, 15 trained. Six
individuals have been suspended, six have resigned, five
8DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
terminated, and there are two others, and for those two
others, in one instance, access was removed, and the other,
the administrative actions are still pending.
Next slide.
Okay. So CLETS assista law enforcement agencies
with their misuse investigations on occasion, and they will
request us to run journal searches. So this slide
represents the journal searches for current year where we've
run 25 journal searches related to potential misuse for our
downstream agencies.
Out of the 25 instances, there are nine cases where
no misuse was found, 16 are still pending. Sometimes it
ends up it can take a couple years, it can be criminal
charges filed, um, so we do have one person, Chris, who's
running the slides for me. He does follow up and -- with
the agencies, and keeps track of all of those pending cases
so that we can report them in our statistics.
Next slide, please. Thank you.
Now I'm moving on to the action items. So there
were five action items from the last meeting, and we did
submit to each of the members under a separate e-mail, it's
not included with your meeting notice, but it was something
that Greg Park had requested in the past, which is, with the
transcript of the last meeting, to include a summary page
that identifies where in the transcript all the action items
9DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are. So that was sent to each of you under a separate
e-mail.
So the first action item is to provide CPOA, the
California Police Chiefs' Association, and California
Sheriff Sheriffs' Association, the contact information for
questions regarding AB-1747 and the Purpose Codes.
Um, the general e-mail that was included on the
information bulletin, as well as the new e-mail address that
was created specifically for AB-1747 questions and issues
was sent to each of those associations for questions and --
you know, to be sent out to their members, and that was sent
out to all of those organizations.
Next slide, please.
Another action item was to review the NextGen 9-1-1
Network for possible CLETS usage. So at the last CLETS
Advisory Committee meeting, Budge had provided a
presentation on the NextGen 9-1-1 Network and, you know,
they are rolling it out, and it did come up that what else
could this network be used for, and possibly CLETS.
The DOJ staff did take that information that was
presented at the last meeting, and we held an internal
meeting with, um, my staff as well as network and
information security teams to discuss the possibility of
using that network for CLETS.
We looked at the information that was provided at
10DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the last CAC meeting, which was high-level information, to
kind of discuss from an end-to-end security perspective for
law enforcement confidentiality, because CLETS is a closed
network for law enforcement agencies.
I did request additional detailed technical
information from Budge. Once we receive that and staff have
a chance to go through it, then we'll be scheduling the
meeting with OES for further discussion. And this is
something that we will report at the next CAC meeting. And,
if we have ongoing meetings with OES, then we will keep the
Committee apprised.
Next slide, please.
Okay. The third action item was to review radio
encryption language in the CLETS PPPs. So I will be
presenting the existing language that's currently and has
been in the policy for quite some time.
And then, once you've reviewed that, if you feel
that it needs to be modified, or maybe we need to add some
clarifying language, then we can, um, go ahead and draft
something up and present that at the next meeting.
But, in the meantime, Chris, can you go to the next
slide, please?
So existing language -- before I read it, let me
take a sip of water. Okay, sorry about that.
So existing language reads: Only authorized law
11DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforcement, criminal justice personnel, or their lawfully
authorized designees may use a CLETS terminal or have access
to information derived from CLETS. Any information from the
CLETS is confidential and for official use only. Access is
defined as the ability to hear or view any information
provided through CLETS -- through the CLETS.
Okay. So that language has been there as far back
at least since 2005.
At the December 2019 meeting, we did, um, attempt
to -- well, we proposed some changes, which was not to
change the policy itself but to add clarifying language so
that it was more clear that that did include radio
transmissions. And so on the second bottom portion of that
in blue and underlined was the language we had attempted to
incorporate to make it a little bit more clear.
That did not pass. And so now, um, I'm -- I'm
presenting it to you to determine, would you like us to move
forward with adding clarifying language or is what's
existing, is it clear enough?
And the FBI and DOJ legal staff have reviewed the
language and both feel it is sufficient. However, this has
been in policy for years, and many agencies did not realize
they were supposed to, um, encrypt the radio transmissions
as well.
So, if you would like us to move forward with
12DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
making some proposed policy changes for the next meeting,
let me know, and we would be happy to do that.
MR. PARK: This is Greg Park. Maria, thank you for
pulling this specific detail out.
I know this is the same language that has been
shared on the information bulletins to agencies, and many of
them, I think, provided responses. How have those responses
been in the CAS review process? Are they adequate? And,
from your experience with what has been seen in those
responses, does this language you've just presented appear
to continue to be accurate and actionable?
MS. CRANSTON: Uh, yes. We have not had any
agencies, at least none that I have seen, question the
language. Most of the agencies that have submitted reports
that were not encrypted are -- are making the changes so
that encryption is possible, and they are moving forward
with whether buying new equipment or, if they already had
existing equipment, they're actually turning it on, and
we've received lots of requests from media because more and
more agencies are denying them access now.
There were few agencies that were attempting to
make policy changes so that they no longer transmitted
CLETS-derived data or DII over the radio transmissions, but
nobody has complained, to my knowledge, about the language
in existing policy.
13DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PARK: Thank you. Yes, I
-- I was aware that there was quite a bit of discussion
about policy opportunities to modify policy where technology
couldn't really address it quickly. So it sounds like some
of those policies have been presented that meets CASg17's
requirements?
MS. CRANSTON: Um, in some cases, yes. Um, whether
or not it's practical for local agencies, I'm not sure. But
if they can conduct business without transmitting the data,
then it's fine. Um, whether or not they can do that, I
don't know.
MR. PARK: Thank you.
MS. CRANSTON: You're welcome.
MR. HONEA: This Kory Honea, Sheriff Butte County
representing CSSA.
First off, I'm worried about using the term or the
requirement or state in the requirement for encryption too
loosely, because the fact of the matter is, that's not what
the requirement is.
And, secondly, nor is that feasible for a
significant number of law enforcement agencies throughout
the State of California.
My agency, as well as all the agencies in my
county, and many of them in Northern California have had to
modify our policy similar to the way in which the CHP
14DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modified their policy in order to try to deal with this
particular, uh, increase of attention to this particular
issue.
Um, but the fact of the matter is we can't afford
to encrypt, and the level of encryption that's available to
us doesn't meet the requirements of DOJ. It -- um, we can
only accommodate it through the policy.
If DOJ's attorneys have suggested that the current
language is sufficient, I think that we should stay with
that. I don't think that we should add additional language
to that, uh, that could then be misinterpreted or put an
additional burden on law enforcement agencies if they have
to spend a lot of money to encrypt. Quite frankly, this is
not going to be possible.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay. Are there any other comments
or anyone that does wish for us to move forward with
attempting to change policy? Or --
MR. WHITE: Yeah.
MR. DOMINIC: I'd just like to -- go ahead, Chief
White, go ahead.
MR. WHITE: Yeah. Andrew White, Chief of Police
with the Clear Lake Police Department, and CPOA's
representative.
Um, I understand the sheriff's perspective in --
in, um, in not wanting to change it. I think my concern
15DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with it is that I appreciate DOJ's and specifically Chief
Dominic's realization that there's officer safety
implications. Um, I guess at some point, and maybe now is
not the time, but maybe at some point in the future, I think
it would be really helpful to codify that and to make it
understood there are officer safety exceptions, um, that
would warrant putting that stuff out there.
The second thing is that, in the off-line
discussions that I've had with other groups and so forth is,
um, the language in here says, you know, everything that
comes from it is confidential. But then there's a lot of
tie-back to the FBI CJIS policy in which there is a
differentiation between restricted and unrestricted
databases.
And so, you know, I think -- I guess the proposed
language has concerns because it really says like every
single thing has to be encrypted and so forth. And I agree
with the sheriff that there's technical things that prevent
doing that in certain cases.
So I -- I, um -- we have to proceed carefully. But
I think it's important that, at some point, we've got to
codify the officer safety exceptions, um, so that something
like this isn't used in some way to say that, you know, we
impair somebody's safety in the field when that's not really
the intent. Thank you.
16DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Chief White. I'd just
like -- so I appreciate both comments. I would just add,
um, that the information bulletin kind of clarifies the
intent which is not to put PII over radio. Like that's
really what is trying to be protected.
So there's some flexibility there on what
information can be shared over that is not considered PII,
right, over radio. That's just one thing.
And the second is, when we talk about, you know --
there's some discretion related to the agency to determine,
right, which of those files, what -- what things are that
are more open, right, and more public.
So I -- I think, you know, that what we're trying
to do with this policy is trying to give enough guidance to
say, hey, look, PII over radio, right, that is not being
encrypted is probable. You know, as CORI data, you know,
criminal justice information, right, that's very sensitive
in nature should be protected.
But I think there's some latitude there about
operationally understanding that there is some difficulties
here on how we navigate through this so that -- the -- the
bulletin was attempt to kind of give you some of that
flexibility at the local agency level. To your point of
publi- and officer safety, that that's already in the CFR.
We talked about that, right? Because in those cases,
17DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information can be transmitted that's highly sensitive over
radio in those circumstances.
I think the policy, as we mentioned last time, is
trying to address the day-to-day operations of using radio
as a form of just operationally day to day to transmit that
level of detail. That's where the FBI and legal team say
that's a problem.
So I think that policy is -- I agree that maybe we
just leave it, because I think it's clear enough, and
there's enough guidance and discussions, and there's some
things that I know that, um, the -- the policies that -- who
was that, um, um, the -- the Chiefs Association provided
some updates to policy, some guidance, and I know using
CHP's kind of base model, that's been used and replicated.
We've been having a lot of conversations with locals about
that.
But, certainly, there's questions they could ask
CAS, and we've been working through that, and things have
been progressing nicely from that perspective of trying to
work with agency. So I just wanted to kind of add that as
an additional context.
MR. HONEA: This is Kory Honea again. Just as a
point of clarification, we've had a number of discussions
centered around the problema- -- the problem associated with
this and officer safety, and that was an issue that was
18DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
brought up several meetings ago and -- and highlighted the
difficulty. And when asking if DOJ could provide specific
scenarios where a core information of PII could be released
in the best interest of public safety, there was a
reluctance on the part of staff to do that, I think because
ultimately it's hard to account for every scenario. And
that's where we ultimately landed here.
So, Chief, I agree with you. Officer safety is
paramount here. That's why we pushed back against this.
But there's a real difficulty in terms of outlining all of
the variables that you have to take into account.
MR. DOMINIC: Sure. Understood. And I think
that's where there's some, uh, discretion at the local level
to make such determinations operationally where officer
safety is -- is -- is in question, right. That's absolutely
allowed. So, um, we'll -- we'll continue to kind of talk to
this. I think that there'll be more discussions and -- and
certainly we can talk more about that.
But, um, does anybody else have any further
comments or discussion on this particular topic?
MR. PAZIN: Joe, it's Mark Pazin over at Cal OES.
I do.
MR. DOMINIC: Yeah, sure.
MR. PAZIN: Well, I want to make sure. Who -- it
hasn't been asked or answered that I believe -- who's the
19DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
final arbiter of what the sheriff and the chief are
discussing about PII and what will be the litmus test or it
being allowed versus it not being allowed?
MR. DOMINIC: I -- I think, um, that's a good
question. And -- and, you know, just so everybody
understands, I also chair the, uh, security -- the advisory
policy board's, uh,committees at the FBI, and I'm trying to
bring this up at the national level to see what can we do to
address the sheriff's comments about, um, you know, some
more use cases and things that we can get for guidance.
That's being talked about.
But, um, those things are evolving, um, so I think
right now, what we're doing is, um, to your question about
the litmus test or when these things apply, the DOJ is
having conversations at the local -- at the local agency
level, but each one -- some are able to meet the policy
entirely. Some are putting in training to address the
policy and saying not to share that data, that the PII over
radio, to use their MBT in the patrol car, or -- or -- or,
um, you know, avoid that as much as possible unless there's
an officer safety type issue where they have no other means
in which to get information, that they have to get that
information over radio, and then that's allowed.
So there -- there is some discretion there. Um,
trying to lock it down to a level of detail becomes
20DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
difficult, because the use cases are all different, and we
don't know at the DOJ to what level those unique
circumstances are in play, right, when these things are
happening. So there is some discretion at the local agency
level about allow- -- you know, allowing this to be used
when there's no other means, and it's, you know, an
officer-safety type scenario.
But I think it has to evolve. I know it's not a
great answer, but it's a -- it's a -- it's a bit
complicated, right. We know policy is there, and what it's
requiring, and now we have some limitations and funding and
other operational type issues that come into play.
How do we move forward, and one is training -- uh,
one is, you know, not transmitting PII over radio, do what
awareness and education as well as implementing technology,
which some agencies are doing, and we've had quite a bit of
agencies that are actually implementing encryption, right,
to comply with the policy.
So I don't know if that answers the questions,
Mark, but I -- it -- it's kind of a -- still evolving.
MR. PAZIN: Well, I -- I, for the group, and having
come from a medium-sized county as Sheriff Corner (sic) --
as Sheriff Honea has, I think it would be good to know who
will be the final arbiter of all this, because we don't want
to get caught in the legislative net or something that goes
21DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sideways and then that one incident that may be an
aberration does become that litmus test.
I'll leave it at that. Thank you, everybody.
MR. DOMINIC: Yeah. I appreciate the comments.
Um, if no one else has any further discussion, I give it a
second, and then we can move on to the next item.
MS. CRANSTON: I just want to make sure, as it
stands now, we are not going to be changing policy; is that
correct?
MR. DOMINIC: I believe that's correct from what
I'm hearing from the group, unless anybody else feels
differently.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay.
MR. DOMINIC: All right. Thank you, Maria. So
thank you, Maria, for the updates. Um, so at this time --
MS. CRANSTON: I have a couple more reports. I
have a couple more --
MR. DOMINIC: Oh, do you? I'm sorry, go ahead. I
thought you were done.
MS. CRANSTON: I'm sorry.
MR. DOMINIC: No, you're fine, Maria. Keep going.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay. Um, action item four was to
determine if DOJ provides statistical reports on county
links and down times.
There -- we do have statistical reports available
22DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that reflect the up time for direct connections that have an
event. So the direct connections, um, they do include the
county links as well as a lot of different police
departments or even District Attorneys' office have direct
connections to CLETS. Um, so any connection that had an
event shows up on the list. If there were no events where
it went down, they do not show up on the list. And the
reports are reflected at three weeks at a time. On the next
slide, I'll be showing you that for three weeks.
There are approximately 167 direct connections
which we call LCTs, and approximately 65 show up on the
weekly reports. Sometimes a little bit more, sometimes a
little bit less. But, as I mentioned, it's only those
connections that have some sort of event where it went down,
whether it was just for a few seconds or a longer duration.
Can you go ahead and change the slide, please?
Thank you.
Now, because we're virtual, this is the only reason
I crammed all this on the slide, 'cause in person, you would
never be able to read it.
But the three slides on the left side, that's just
a reflection for a three-week period for CLETS, and -- which
basically shows for that three-week period, it was up a
hundred percent of the time. So there were absolutely no
down time.
23DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, for the larger chart, this is the report for
the LCTs or the direct connections. And so all of the
agencies that show up on this list had some kind of event
over that three-week period where it had gone down, some
sort of event.
Um, CLETS' policies does require that MSCs have to
maintain a 90 percent availability in that time over a
12-month period, which includes both scheduled and
unscheduled, um, down times.
So if the Committee's interested in seeing these
reports on a regular basis, I can ask our programming staff
to create a monthly or quarterly report so it's a little bit
easier, 'cause this is only a three-week reflection. Um, so
let me know if it's something you would like me to
incorporate into the, uh, executive Secretary's report, and
I'd be happy to do that and see if our programming staff can
make that happen.
MR. WHITE: Ms. Cranston, a comment?
MS. CRANSTON: Yes.
MR. WHITE: So Andrew White again.
Um, I appreciate you putting this together. I had
asked for this item, and, um, I think that, from my
perspective anyways, it's important to keep an eye on this.
For the future one, it might be, 'cause there's a
lot of data in there, I think that we would pick a threshold
24DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like we only need the ones that are, say, below, you know,
95 or something like that. Ninety percent is a pretty low
standard. I think it's like 36 and a half days of outage per
year.
Um, I would just encourage, as we look towards the
future of the network and the growing importance of having
this data, um, that we consider ways to increase that. I
know the 9-1-1 project and potential partnership, there is a
way, um, that we should look at, but I think it's -- it's
important.
The other piece that would be interesting to see
is, when you look at the impacts of disasters and other
things happening, is how that impacts here. Because I know,
particularly for rural counties, you know, losing that life
line to DOJ really impacts a whole lot of things. It's --
it's less about just being a minor inconvenience, and it's a
true impact to -- to protecting public safety.
So, again, thanks for putting this together.
MS. CRANSTON: You're welcome. And with some of
these that do have the lower percentages, um, in some cases,
they were having at the local level where they put in a
concentrator, and it took their network down, so they were
down for some bit. Another one was having, again, their
system problems. So they were local agency issues.
But for those that do, we notice a pattern over
25DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time. We do reach out to the agency to find out what's
going on and talk them through that, you know, let them know
what the requirements is and they need to upgrade their
system or whatnot. Especially if they have downstream
agencies, um, it is important for those downstreams to have
access.
MR. DOMINIC: Yeah. And I -- and I appreciate
that, Maria. I think, uh, Chief White has been making good
comments. We should keep this on just a -- a report from
the one that you provide.
And then, uh, what's also good to provide in
context is that, you know, redundancy is not just DOJ. It's
a local agency, too. So when there's problems at the local
level, especially the rural counties or the smaller
agencies, if something happens, um, it's not the
connectivity so much as there's no communication or
something happened on their infrastructure.
So we -- we can track those things and see what we
can, you know, continue to work together collaboratively,
right, and be stronger together to have redundancy across
DOJ and, uh, law enforcement.
So it's good to start tracking this. I think it's
a good, uh, good -- good way to start having visibility into
this, can have a higher percentage of availability.
Anybody else have any further discussion or
26DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments on this?
MS. CRANSTON: I have one more action item.
MR. DOMINIC: Go ahead.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay, thank you.
And our final action item from the last meeting is
to provide a report on the CLETS Strategic Plan status, and
the elements of that plan that DOJ adopted and deployed and
determine whether or not CAC members need to start working
on updating the document.
What I did was I instead sent a copy of the
Strategic Plan, which was last published in 2009, to the
Committee members. I wanted to make sure, instead of just
hearing from me, um, to give everyone an opportunity to take
a look at the Strategic Plan themselves.
So, but what I did do was, um, I pulled out the
goals that were presented in that document. Just to go over
them quickly, not to really give a status or anything, I
will add it to the next meeting agenda so we can go through
it in detail. But just to kind of see what type of
information is on that Strategic Plan, or in that Strategic
Plan, um, Chris, can you go ahead and pull up the next
slide, please?
So there were seven goals total. The first one is
for the Committee, DOJ, CJIS Division, to identify funding
strategies and pursue funding.
27DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Goal two was to -- for DOJ to be aware of
telecommunications and business needs of its clients.
Goal three was the integrity and security of CLETS'
network to be maintained.
Goal four, to explore the use of state-of-the-art
technology.
And five, for DOJ to ensure the protection of CLETS
in the face of disaster recovery.
Goal six, to ensure the priority of the CLETS
transactions be maintained and the response time for CLETS
information is improved as the volume of information
increases through CLETS.
And the last goal was for DOJ to embrace new
strategic directions, to be creative, and take steps to meet
law enforcement's increasing demands for CLETS access and
services.
So, um, at the next Committee meeting, this will be
on the agenda, and we will present, um, what we've done so
far. So if you have any questions or anything you would
like to see, now let me know. You can give me an e-mail.
We'll make sure it's covered in the next meeting. Or, if
you know right now, you can just let me know, we'll take
notes down.
Um, are there any --
MR. PARK: I do --
28DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CRANSTON: -- questions for me?
MR. PARK: This is Greg Park. Uh, Secretary
Cranston, thank you so much for adding the Strategic Plan
document for today's agenda.
As we were just discussing kind of the outage, uh,
interest and awareness, uh, it's -- I see the goal five
talks specifically disaster recovery. I think that's
becoming more and more important in -- in day-to-day
operations.
And, as Chief Dominic mentioned, the locals as well
as the DOJ need to plan and prepare for this --
MS. CRANSTON: Yes.
MR. PARK: -- and definitely would like to learn
more about how we, as the Committee here, and perhaps the
SSPS can be put back together to discuss what some of those
disaster recovery options can be built at the local level,
but also available for emergency within 24-hour, 48-hour
access to DOJ in the event of outages at a local or the
county, um, point of presence.
Thank you.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay, thank you. Any other questions
for me for any of the action items or items on the
presentation?
MR. PARK: Greg Park again. Just want to thank you
for the, um, the summary of the agenda that you've been able
29DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to provide. I -- we noticed it. I did notice it at the
last meeting and saw it again this meeting. Thank you so
much for that.
Just one item. It's interesting on the
transcription report, page three, top header says Folsom,
December 17th, 2019. So check that out for the official
record.
And then, would also ask, is it possible, I know
that this meeting is recorded, sent out to transcription,
and then staff reviews it from there. Is it possible that
the CAC Committee could receive the notes, the
transcriptions within six to eight weeks after a meeting and
not necessarily having to wait six months before the next
meeting? Could we take that on as a goal?
MS. CRANSTON: We -- we can take it on as a goal.
Unfortunately, we did not receive the transcription until
shortly before the meeting. And when I received it, I
looked it and I found so many errors. Um, they had
Committee members' names wrong, and things that were not
said were in there. So we had to reject it, have them go
back and make a lot of changes. But we definitely can work
on getting that to you much sooner.
MR. PARK: It's -- it's very helpful, it
definitely, you know, allows us to kind of recall what was
discussed at the meeting, and appreciate your work on that
30DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and staff's work. Thank you.
MS. CRANSTON Yes, my pleasure. Okay. Thank you,
everyone.
MR. DOMINIC: All right. Thank you, Maria. So,
uh, let's move on to item topic six.
So I'd like to go ahead and invite Aaron Colby to
present the Department's report on pending legislation. So
if Aaron can go ahead and do that, it would be great.
MR. COLBY: Hi there. Thank you very much. Um,
so, uh, I believe that there was provided a -- a -- a
document containing all the upcoming legislation, um, that
we are currently reviewing that we're looking at, we
consider high impact, um, to our areas. Uh --
MS. CRANSTON: I'm sorry, Aaron, I'm going to cut
you off for just for a moment.
We did not receive the final document to send out
to Committee members. Um, so if you do have that, if you
can send that to us, or send that to me, and I will make
sure they receive it, um, after the meeting. But for now,
they don't have a copy of it.
MR. COLBY: Okay. Would it be -- would it be
beneficial to screen share that, and --
MS. CRANSTON: That would be wonderful.
MR. COLBY: -- and people can follow along?
MS. CRANSTON: Yes, that would be helpful.
31DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLBY: Okay. Good.
MS. CRANSTON: Thank you.
(Ditigal recording blank from 0:39:55.2 to
0:40:24.1)
MR. COLBY: Okay. Can everybody hear me?
MS. CRANSTON: Yes.
MR. COLBY: Sounds like I've got some feedback.
Hold on just a second.
(Digital recording blank from 0:40:34.6 to
0:41:10:5)
MR. COLBY: Okay. If everybody can still hear me,
I'm trying to -- okay, here we go -- um --
(Digital recording blank from 0:41:15:4 to
0:41:50.4)
MR. COLBY: Okay. Can everybody see that?
MR. PARK: Greg. Yes.
MR. COLBY: Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry
about that. Um, so this is a fairly short list, so I'll go
through it as quickly as possible.
Uh, it's important to note that, uh, or I believe
every single one of these bills are being heard in
Committee, in the, uh, Assembly and Senate Appropriations
Committee today. Um, some of them perhaps as we speak.
So if everybody wants to meet at the same time, same place
tomorrow, uh, I can tell you how it all went. Um, uh,
32DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
barring that, however, uh, I -- we will, uh, be certain to
update you with the, uh, their progress.
So, um, starting off, we have, uh -- uh, three
bills concerning police officers and police practices. Uh,
the first of these is AB-48, um, from Assemblywoman Lorena
Gonzalez. Um, this enjoys the support of several
co-authors.
Uh, this involves, uh, law enforcement use of
kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents. Um,
colloquially, more known as, um, uh, rubber bullets, bean
bag rounds, tear gas, things like that is what the
Legislature's trying to address here.
So, first of all, it would prohibit a law
enforcement agency from using a kinetic energy projectile or
chemical agent to disperse an assembly, and it would further
prohibit the use of these tools due to a violation of an
imposed curfew, verbal threat from a protester, or
noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.
Um, so the bill includes several definitions for
chemical agents, um, mainly the, uh, the, uh, following
words below which you all probably know how to pronounce
much better than I do, do I will not embarrass myself by
trying.
Um, it would also require, beginning in 2023, law
enforcement agencies to, uh, begin reporting their usage of
33DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these agents, uh, and these projectiles to the Department of
Justice. Um, and it would be -- require, um -- uh, it will
require law enforcement agencies to report use of force data
in general to the Department of Justice on a monthly basis
instead of on an annually basis.
Up next we have peace officers use of force. This
is AB-57 from Assembly Member Chiu. This is also currently
scheduled for hearing today.
AB-57 would require the Department of Justice to
implement new duties for documenting and responding to hate
crimes. It would require, uh, the Department of Justice to
conduct reviews of law enforcement agencies every three
years to evacuate (sic) -- evaluate the accuracy of hate
crime data reported and law enforcement agency hate crime
policy. Um, it would also require the Department of Justice
to send advisory notices to law enforcement agencies when
the Department of Justice determines that hate crimes are
being committed across multiple adjacent neighboring
jurisdictions.
If there's a wave of hate crimes happening within
the Southern California area, for instance, it would require
the DOJ to notify, um, uh, a variety of, uh, law enforcement
agencies that it believes will be affected.
And then it will also -- this is a somewhat more
vague requirement, but it would also require the, uh,
34DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Department of Justice and local law enforcement agencies to
work with local school districts to create programs aimed at
teaching students how to recognize, uh, prevent, and report
hate crimes. So those only two.
So for firearms there are three. So, for firearms
bills, we have three.
These -- um, the first is AB-311, uh, from Assembly
Member Ward. Um, this is aimed to prevent the sale of
firearm precursor parts at gun shows. Um, like the rest of
these bills, this is currently in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee. It's scheduled for hearing today.
Up next we have AB-667, the arms -- relating to the
Arms Prohibited Persons Systems, also scheduled for hearing
today.
Um, so this bill would require the Department of
Justice to add a person's information to the APPS system. I
suppose that's a bit like saying ATM machine. The, um, the
APPS. If they are subject to gun violence restraining order
and possess a firearm, it would require the Department of
Justice to provide investigative notes, reports, and any
related materials on the individuals listed in the APPS to
LEAs and to develop and implement an electronic database
system that enables local law enforcement real-time access
to this information. Uh, it would modify the APPS to
include a variety of different new functionality including a
35DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
summary of efforts of local law enforcement in reducing the
backlog and allow comparison statistics between DOJ and
other law enforcement agencies.
Um, this is, of course, a heavy-lift bill for us.
This is something that our programs are currently working on
determining who has responsibility for what. So, of course,
this is -- this is going to be a large lift.
Up next is, um, AB-1191. This enjoys -- this is
from Assembly Member Bauer-Kahn, and it enjoys several
co-authors. Um, this has to do with the tracing firearms.
AB-1191 would require the Department of Justice to
summarize and report to the Legislature information already
reported to by -- reported to the Department of Justice by
LEAs regarding firearms recovered that were illegally
possessed used in a crime or suspected to have been used in
a crime, uh, like the others that are scheduled to be heard
by the Assembly Appropriations Committee today.
Then finally, we have SB-715 from Senator
Portantino, um, that's to be heard in Senate Appropriations
Committee, which Senator Portantino chairs, so it is likely
to pass out of the, uh, Appropriations Committee.
Uh, SB-715 will require the Department of Justice
to validate a hunting license as part of a background check
for sales of firearms to persons under 21 years old. It
would authorize dealers to retain possession of a firearm
36DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for up to 45 days if a seller or transferor may not legally
own the firearm, they are attempting to loan or sell. It
would authorize a minor 16 years old or older with a valid
hunting license to be transferred a firearm, other than a
hand gun or semi-automatic rifle.
I don't know where I kept getting the number three
from. It's possible that something was added or taken away
since I last looked at this.
Okay. So we have several bills that don't fit into
any of these categories.
Up first is AB-557 from Assembly Member Mark
Succhi. This would establish a hotline for reporting hate
crimes. We've been informed that this is the number one
priority this year for the, uh, Asian-American Pacific
Island Caucus, so this bill is highly likely to move forward
as well. Like the rest of these bills, it is currently in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Uh, it would establish a -- like I said, it would
establish a public toll-free hotline for reporting of hate
crimes. Upon reporting of these hate crimes, the, um, the
operator of the hotline would then provide resources for,
uh, reporting such a crime to local law enforcement, uh,
other types of remedial action information regarding civil
remedies, um, and providing information on hate crimes,
protected classes and the law regarding hate crimes
37DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
generally. This -- this line would be required to be open
to the public and available Monday through Friday, 9:00 to
5:00.
Up next is AB-1356 from Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahn.
Um, this has to do with, uh, reproductive healthcare
services. Also currently in the Appropriations Committee,
also scheduled for hearing today.
AB-1356 would make all knowing, uh, filming, and
then after, uh, filming has happened, publicly posting or
distributing of such a film or any kind of personal
information, uh, relating to a person entering or exiting a
reproductive healthcare services' clinic, illegal,
punishable as a wobbler, either misdemeanor or felony.
It would further increase existing penalties
relating to violations of provisions for intimidation or use
of force against a reproductive healthcare service provider
or patient or facility itself, a property crime.
Um, that would involve, uh, distributing
information, so-called doxing, distributing information of a
person online, on social media or through e-mail or through
any other type of online outlet or -- or through phone,
through text messaging, um, giving information about
somebody, a healthcare, reproductive healthcare services
provider or any patient or the address of any, um,
facilities.
38DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Uh, it would also require law enforcement agencies
to report, uh, certain data to the Department of Justice,
namely it would require law enforcement agencies to report
the number of anti-reproductive rights, crime-related calls
for assistance. And it would require them to report the
number of arrests for anti-reproductive rights crimes.
Uh, it would also require City or District
Attorneys' office to report the total number of cases in
which an individual was charged, uh, under this section, uh,
and then the Department of Justice would be required to
annually report this information to the Legislature.
Up next, we have, uh, Senate Bill 210 from Senator
Wiener, AOPR use of data -- data. Um, so Senate Bill 210
would require the Department of Justice to create and
publish a policy template that, um, public agencies,
including LEAs, may use as a model for AOPR policies. Um,
SB-210 would require the Department of Justice to develop
and issue guidance for LEAs to identify and evaluate the
types of data they are currently storing in their database
systems.
Like the rest of these bills, this is currently in
the Senate Appropriations Committee scheduled to be heard
today.
Up next is SB-215 from Senator Leyva. This regards
the Safe T System. SB-215 would allow beginning in the
39DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
middle of next year a survivor of sexual assault to
anonymously electronically track and receive updates from
the Safe T database regarding the status and location of
their sexual assault evidence kit.
So, obviously, this is, um, this is, uh, meant in
conjunction with other efforts to hopefully help reduce the
backlog of, um, of, uh, the, uh, evidence kits.
Up next is, um, SB-519, also from Senator Wiener.
Uh, this is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee
scheduled to be heard today.
It would decriminalize for persons 21 years of age
and older, um, the personal possession and use of a number
of, uh, currently prohibited substances including psych --
um, oh, boy, again, I will not try to embarrass myself by
trying to pronounce a word that you, uh, you know better
than I do, but, of course, uh, DMT, LSD, MDMA, more commonly
known street drugs, mescaline, ketamine, uh, along with
other hallucinogenic substances. Um, uh, I believe these
are hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Anyway, it would, uh, so it would legalize for
personal use and possession -- well, decriminalize, not
legalize, excuse me -- but it would establish penalties for
possession and use of these substances on school grounds,
uh, and for sharing with persons under 21 years old.
SB-519 would also require the Department of Justice
40DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to identify convictions for offenses that would be made
lawful, uh, by the passage of this bill, uh, for dismissal
and sealing and to provide to local jurisdictions to
initiate realignment.
Uh, I don't believe -- identify pending and prior
convict- -- yeah, um, so this would -- I believe this
would -- this is essentially a retroactivity clause.
And that concludes our -- our bill update. If you
have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, uh, and I'd
be happy to scroll through this list again if anybody needs
to, uh, to see any of these bills again. So let me know.
And, again, as was stated previously, we, uh, we
apologize for the oversight. We -- this was meant to be sent
out prior to this meeting, um, so we will certainly send out
a copy of this document, um, as soon as this meeting is
over.
MS. CRANSTON: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Andrew White. I just have a request.
MR. COLBY: Yes.
MR. WHITE: Um, is it possible, and it's more for
the other board members, for these updates, just in the
interest of everybody's time, I appreciate all the updates
on the different ones, but perhaps to narrow them to ones
that are directly related to CLETS, um, only because I know
there's a lot of users that participate in this that don't
41DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really have a particular interest in that.
Um, again, no disrespect on the presentation, it's
very thorough, I appreciate it, but just in the time
interest. Thank you.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Aaron, we'll take note of
that and, uh, make sure that we'll ledge items or specific
to CLETS for the Committee in the future. Thank you for
that, Chief White.
All right. So thank you again, Aaron, that was a
very detailed update. Appreciate that.
MR. COLBY: Thank you.
MR. DOMINIC: For the next -- yeah. You're
welcome.
For the next presentation update regarding AB-1747,
which is the CLETS message header changes, I'd like to
invite Erin Choi and Jamie Tackett to give an update
associated with Assembly Bill 1747. Um, copies of
Information Rule 10 that CJIS sent out was sent to the
Committee members prior to the last CAC meeting.
So if you can, um, Erin and Jamie, go ahead and
give a -- give that presentation, appreciate it.
MS. CHOI: Yes. Good morning, everyone. Hello.
Hopefully you can see me okay and hear me okay. My name is
Erin Choi, and I am a program manager for DOJ's Client
Services Program, and we support a number of systems such as
42DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cal Photo, and we also conduct outreach training and
required audits which will include the new Assembly Bill
1747 audits.
And then, as Joe mentioned, we have additional
resources on the line as well. Jamie Tackett is going to be
the manager kind of directly supervising our new AB-1747
section within the DOJ. And today, we also have Alice W.
Williams on the line, and she is a new manager that recently
joined CSP as well, so your agency may see correspondence
from them. I know that they would both be happy to -- to
help in any way that they can, and I'm going to invite them
to add in, jump in, at any time during today's discussion as
well.
With that said, uh, why don't I start sharing my
screen, and we'll get things underway here.
Okay. Hopefully, you can all -- all see that now.
Yes? Did I lose you?
MS. CRANSTON: No, we can see you.
MS. CHOI: Okay. I know we've been doing these
virtual meetings for a year, but sometimes you just never
know if there's a glitch.
Um, all right. Well, for today's discussion, we
wanted to highlight a few topics. First and foremost, uh,
the requirements of AB-1747, uh, then an update on the
outreach and items we have in progress. And finally, a look
43DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ahead at the next steps, and this is what you can expect
over the six -- next six months or so, and into early 2022
as well.
Um, I'd also be happy to address any questions you
may have. We want to try to make sure this update is as
helpful for you as possible.
So with that introduction, let's go ahead and get
things underway and start digging in a little deeper. I
know all of your agencies are tackling several -- several
projects. And, as we just heard from Aaron Colby, uh,
tracking a number of pieces of legislation as well.
So as a short refresher, uh, let's take a look at
the requirements of AB-1747, and, um, kind of a few
take-aways of, you know, what's the scope of it, what do
agencies have to do, and how does it impact CLETS.
So here on the slide, I've just highlighted the
language directly from -- from the text. So if it's been a
while since folks had a chance to look at this, it -- it
really speaks to what the intent of AB-1747 was, and then
also the scope of it. Um, really, with following up on
SB-54, making modifications to the Government Code section
to further clarify the use of information that's available
via CLETS, and you -- you see it highlighted there on the
screen.
So, um, this next slide is kind of requirement
44DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number two, getting into the practical application. So, you
know, there's this guidance of how the systems are supposed
to be used, but then what does that actually mean. So
starting July 1, any inquiry for information other than
criminal history information, uh, submitted through the
CLETS system must include a reason for the inquiry.
So with that in mind, um, system changes have been
applied. Specifically, CLETS will require a valid Purpose
Code to accompany queries, and there are three that have
been created, criminal justice, immigration enforcement, and
then related to immigration enforcement, this specific
violation of U.S. Code.
So that's what our system is expecting will be
transmitted, um, no later than July 1st. And then here, you
see within the message header how that specific information
is going to be transmitted to us.
And then the third, the -- and final requirement of
AB-1747 pertains to DOJ. So, you know, you've all probably
heard that saying trust but verify? DOJ is going to be
getting this new information, and there's a specific section
that's been added to the Government Code which gives us the
authority to follow up and conduct audits and get access to
associated information that, you know, would be pertinent to
why a query was run.
So kind of breaking that down a little bit further,
45DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
knowing that there's this -- this new section in the
Government Code, how are we going to approach this.
I have been working in our audit area for the last
several years. I think almost close to a decade now. And,
um, I have been on the receiving end of when Cal DOJ is
audited triannually by the FBI as well. So I know usually
when we throw out the term audit, um, it's not something
that people like to hear.
So just to -- to kind of give some insight into how
we're going to be approaching this and what your agencies
can expect, um, I've put together a few -- few notes there
on the slide.
But similar to how we, um, handle our existing
required audits, what we're planning is a triannual audit
for each agency. And then additional followup as needed.
So, you know, this comes straight out of the existing, um,
CLETS audits and PPPs. Agencies will be audited at least
triannually, but they may also be audited more frequently.
So, um you may -- you may hear from us more than just once
every -- every three years.
Um, we are also looking to leverage existing tools.
So, um, any agency that have database entries are required
to validate those entries and would be familiar with, um,
kind of the validation tool for CJIS NCIC entries. So we're
looking to enhance that to include queries that can be
46DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
validated as well, so there's not this big gap in time of,
you know, just hearing from us once every -- every three
years. That would be a way for us to push out a selection
of queries that could be periodically validated to, um,
confirm with the agency that the appropriate Purpose Code
was being selected. So there will be more -- more to come
on that.
Um, we're also planning to do focus groups and
trainings in the second half of the year, and, um,
hopefully, that will be a good chance to get into more
detailed dialogue with the agencies. Um, we've been
contacted about a few particular use cases, and, uh, are
kind of factoring those into our audit components. But we
definitely want to be working closely with the agencies and,
um, I'm looking forward to these upcoming meetings that
we'll have.
So with that said, let's kind of move to the next
topic of the outreach and items we have in progress. Um,
just a look quickly at a timeline of key activities of
what's been going on with AB-1747, it chaptered all the way
back in September of 2019, and as -- as part of that
legislative process, some of the feedback from DOJ was to
request that there was delayed implementation. Normally,
these, you know, requirements, legislative requirements,
would take effect, unless otherwise specified, January 1st
47DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the following year.
So I -- I know we kind of went through it quickly,
and it -- but we understand that any require- -- any -- any
required changes to CLETS are going to have an impact. It's
going to require technology changes for the agencies, work
with your vendors, uh, so, uh, the implementation for
sending these new Purpose Codes was delayed for -- for 18
months.
Um, back in April of last year, we published an
information bulletin which was sent out to each agency's
CLETS coordinator, and also published on CLEW. And then
starting in May all the way up through current time, um, DOJ
has been testing with agencies that were ready to start
submitting Purpose Codes early. So there's been a lot of
work going on over the last year.
In January, with the deadline coming sooner, we
reached back out to the agencies, um, again contacting all
of the ACCs and also generating CLINTER messages, so those
would go out to each CLETS terminal, and we've continued
sending those monthly to try to help get the word out.
And then over the last couple of months, we have
been moving compliant agencies into final production status.
So as Maria briefly touched on before, although we have over
1200 CLETS subscribing agencies, uh, there are local hosts
that connect directly to us, so we have really been
48DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
targeting a lot of our coordination with those direct
connection or, you know, LCTs, and then as a group of
agencies within that connection have all started sending us
Purpose Codes, we can move them over into production.
So basically it kind of updates kind of what the
configuration or setting of where we put them in
quote-unquote strict mode. So from that point forward, we
are going to always be expecting that they submit Purpose
Codes to us. And, if they don't, they would get an error
message.
So the good news is, you know, many agencies have
already been moved over to production and have been able to
test over -- over this last year.
As far as our next steps, we're racing to -- to the
finish line. Um, I started to put in a slide of breaking
down the status of the direct connections, but it was not
just changing on a daily basis but changing throughout the
day as we confirmed the readiness of the different groups of
agencies.
So for our next steps, between now and July 1,
we're going to be continuing to confirm the readiness of the
remaining agencies, working individually with any agencies
that are encountering any kind of last-minute issues. And
then we'll kind of move to start analyzing the new Purpose
Code data that we'll be receiving and transitioning to the
49DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
next phase of the project.
Really, you know, the goal for everyone has been to
make sure, uh, that folks have implemented the Purpose Codes
by July 1st. Um, but once we get that completed, we'll be
able to do a little bit more outreach and communications
specifically on the audit process.
So that's kind of a quick, um, summary of a lot of
information. Um, if you have any -- any questions, I'd --
I'd be happy to, you know, go into more -- more detail or,
sure, anything else that might be helpful for you.
MR. PARK: Uh, this is Greg Park. Erin, thank you
very much for this update. Just want to highlight that your
team and the technical folks under Kirk Beardwood have been
extremely helpful to our agencies in Alameda County. We're
making good progress doing testing, and your insights and
the technical support we have received has been very
helpful. Thank you for that.
MS. CHOI: Thank you. That's great to hear.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Greg. Thanks, Erin, for
the presentation. Uh, great job.
Anyone that doesn't have any questions, we'll go to
Topic 8, uh, so, I'm going to hand this over to Maria to
provide an update on the upgrade application approved by
DOJ.
So, Maria, if you could, uh, provide update.
50DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CRANSTON: Sure, thank you, Joe.
Uh, I'll refer Committee to the ten upgrade
applications that were on the agenda. These applications do
not need to be voted on, as they were already approved by
DOJ management. And we're presenting it just for
information only.
So the ten agencies that have approved applications
since the last meeting are Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
Los Angeles office. Cathedral City Police Department.
California Highway Patrol. Desert Hot Springs Police
Department. Livermore Police Department. Orange County
Sheriff's Office. The Parm- -- Parlier -- I don't know how
to pronounce that -- uh, Police Department. Rialto Police
Department. San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. And the
Sutter County Sheriff's Office.
MR. PAZIN: That is Parlier, California, in Fresno
County.
MS. CRANSTON: Parlier. Thank you.
MR. PAZIN: You're welcome.
MR. WHITE: Andrew White. I have a question just
to clarify, if the Orange County one the one that was
brought up at the last meeting, their Lexus Nexus?
MS. CRANSTON: Yes, it is.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Maria, again.
MS. CRANSTON: You're welcome.
51DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DOMINIC: So for the client reports, I guess
back to you, Maria, to present information about the agency.
MS. CRANSTON: Okay, thank you.
We only have one agency for open session today,
which is the Solano County Sheriff's Office. The 2020 FBI
audit revealed that the agency was not compliant in four
areas. All of them had to do with the they didn't have a
written policy in the area of identification user IDs,
standards of discipline, which they didn't have a policy for
the discipline of CJIS security policy and violations, and
they did not have a written policy for media protection and
for media disposal. For all of these, they are in the
process of revamping their general orders, policies and
procedures, and expect to be compliant by July 1st.
No votes required for this item since they are not
requesting an extension, and it's being presented for
informational purposes only. A copy of their actual letter
was included in the members' meeting notice, so you should
have a copy of their actual letter.
Are there any questions?
(No audible response.)
MS. CRANSTON: No? Okay, thank you.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Maria, for the updates.
Um, so we're going to go to agenda item ten, which
is members' reports. At this time, I would like to ask the
52DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
members individually for a report regarding their agency
and/or organization representation on the Committee.
So I'll start off with Chief Mark Pazin
representing OES.
MR. PAZIN: Good afternoon, good morning,
everybody. Uh, basically, Cal OES is still at full steam
ahead. As you know, we've been working with a lot of the
State agencies regarding the task force as it pertains to
the COVID-19 and the Executive Order. We're hoping that
June 15th, according with the Governor, and speaking with
him and the director, that we'll be able to open up, which
will hopefully allow for some rest before the next
onslaught, albeit the fire. There's been some earthquake
storms in Lake Tahoe, so we're still running at full speed
ahead and, um, as usual, if you need anything, please reach
out to me.
Thank you, Joe.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Chief Pazin for your
update.
Sheriff Kor- -- Kory Honea, Butte County Sheriff.
MR. HONEA: Kory Honea. I have no update.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you. Uh, Chief Rick Hillman,
Folsom PD, Chief.
Turn on the microphone. Wow. To me, it's body
language. You can still communicate. Okay.
53DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CARLSON: This is -- this is David Carlson in
the event chat. He has stated that he has nothing to report
from Cal Chiefs Association.
MR. DOMINIC: That's great.
Chief Mark Bonini.
MR. BONINI: I have nothing to report.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you. Uh, Chief Andrew White.
MR. WHITE: The only thing I have to report is the
feedback that I've heard now has been relatively positive
following the encryption discussion in December. So it
seems like everybody's getting the, um, support they need
from your department to be able to comply in whichever way
it works for them. Thank you.
MR. DOMINIC: Thank you, Chief, appreciate that.
Uh, Greg Park.
MR. PARK: Thank you Chief Dominic. Just want to
recognize a bunch of good work that your team members are
doing on behalf of the law enforcement and many of the
moving parts that we're working toward meeting upcoming
deadlines, uh, specifically, uh, Erin Choi. She shared with
us 1747 preparations. But also want to highlight her and
her team doing excellent outreach on stop data preparation,
posting meetings every two weeks for agencies that are
getting in a little early on the -- on the smaller side
agencies. So thank you to them for their dedicated efforts
54DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in assisting us and getting the technologies lined up so we
can test early. Thank you for that.
Also, Senate Bill 384, I know Linda Schwag and her
team started that work several years ago, coming close to go
the live and continue to thank their training team and
outreach team to make sure that we at local law enforcements
and our justice partners at the county level are prepared
for that -- that upcoming event. So thank you to them.
And then, finally, another item that's very
important to the State of California and Chief Dominic
continued support, thank you for allowing Mark St. Pierre
and his team, Jason Miser and Aaron Nicholas, Chris Ellering
and Timothy O'Hare Dag assisting in developing the Master
Offense Code Table, growing that out, giving continued
additional awareness across the State. This is the official
data set of charges -- charge codes in California.
The Penal Code is being completed. CHP is doing
excellent effort supporting review of the Vehicle Code and
another other, uh, chapters of legislation are being
reviewed.
And so we know that, within the next year or so,
uh, hopefully we'll see a full set of technology data sets,
gold standard of offense codes that are -- are a mess and
case management systems can consume moving forward, and just
want to thank your work and support for that.
55DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DOMINIC: Yeah, and thank you, Greg. And, you
know, appreciate all your leadership there, too. You know,
and local law enforcement agencies. I mean, it's truly a
partnership between DOJ and locals, right, to work together.
Uh, we either succeed together or fail together. So it's
hard to do these bills, right?
Technology projects are hard, and especially at
locals and at DOJ levels. So, uh, and the office code
table, you know, Greg, thanks for driving that. It's
actually becoming a reality and a value (audio blanked out)
so I appreciate all your work on that as well. So thank
you.
MR. PARK: Thank you.
DOMINIC: Chief Childs, CHP.
You're on mute, uh, Chris.
MR. PAZIN: I think Chief Childs, he's encrypted.
He's not coming through.
(Laughter.)
MR. DOMINIC: That's great, Mark. All right. But
we still can communicate. That's wonderful. That's how it
works. I love it. Between the body language with, uh, that
all works, so thank you.
Um, so with open discussion, a forum discussion, I
would like to solicit the CAC members for any items that
they would like to discuss. Um, anything additional for
56DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion?
MR. PARK: No, just -- this is Greg Park.
Uh, moving forward with perhaps next time hearing
an update from 9-1-1 Next Generation, 9-1-1, Budge joined us
in December, perhaps bringing him back at the next meeting
would be good to hear how their project is moving forward.
And, of course, hearing from staff on how DOJ's internal
review can support that.
And then, again, thank you for bringing forward the
Strategic Plan. I think I look forward to the conversations
and discussions that we'll have at the next meeting on that
topic. And, again, specific to disaster preparedness and
how local agencies and DOJ can have some technology in place
that would allow 24-48-hour response to any agency that
might go offline unexpectedly. So thank you.
MR. DOMINIC: Yeah, thank you, Greg.
Um, anyone else have any comments?
(No audible response.)
MR. DOMINIC: Okay. At this time, I would like to
solicit public comment, so Maria can help me with that. Can
we do that?
MS. CRANSTON: Sure, if there is public comment,
please raise your hands, and the moderators will let us know
if there's anyone raising their hand for public comment.
Okay. Doesn't sound like we have anyone for public
57DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comment.
MR. DOMINIC: Okay. Thank you, Maria.
G8
So, um, the next CAC meeting will tentatively be
scheduled for November or December 2021. The CAS team will
be reaching out to lock in a date and time for the next
meeting, so we look forward to that. And, hopefully, it
will be an in-person meeting is what we're looking at. So
appreciate that.
Uh, and with that, I guess I would like to
officially adjourn the meeting, and thank you all for
participating. Thank you so much. Bye everyone, take care.
MS. CRANSTON: Thank you. Bye.
UNID. MALE: Good-bye.
MR. DOMINIC: Bye-bye.
(Meeting concluded.)
--o0o--
58DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION AND
DECLARATION OF TRANSCRIBER
--o0o--
I, MARY ELLEN EDD, CSR, and a duly designated
transcriber, do hereby declare and certify under penalty of
perjury that I have transcribed recording(s) which total one
in number and cover a total of pages numbered 1 through 59
and which recording was duly recorded via Zoom, on the 20th
day of May, 2021, and that the foregoing pages constitute a
true, complete, and accurate transcription of the
aforementioned recording(s) to the best of my ability within
the limits of the quality of the recording(s).
I hereby declare that I am a disinterested person
in the above-captioned matter and have no interest in the
outcome of this proceeding.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2021, at Sacramento,
California.
/s/ Mary Ellen Edd
MARY ELLEN EDD, CSR NO. 9755
59DIAMOND COURT REPORTERS (916) 498-9288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CLETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING May 20, 2021
CLETS Executive Secretary’s Report
CLETS Traffic
Misuse Statistics
Action Items
1
.
.
CLETS Traffic Statistics
First Quarter 2021
2019/2020 Annual CLETS Misuse Statistics
1.10.1 System Misuse (D):
All CLETS agencies
shall submit a report to
the DOJ on the number of
investigations performed
related to CLETS misuse
Reporting Period 2019 2020
Agencies/ORIs Submitting Form 1732 1637
Agencies/ORIs Not Reporting 0 1351
Agencies/ORIs Reporting No Misuse 1666 1597
Agencies/ORIs Reporting CLETS Misuse 66 40
1 As a result of a change in reporting requirements
(all ORIs must be submitted), the total number of
ORIs not reporting can be due to multiple factors
We are following up with these agencies
2 Investigations may find multiple cases of misuse,
and Administrative Actions
may include more than one
response per incident
Investigations Performed2
205 137
CLETS Misuse Found 161 70
Pending Cases 12 34
Counseled 58 29
Reprimanded 17 14
Training 70 15
Suspended 17 6
Resigned 16 6
Terminated 10 5
Other 1 2
No Action Taken 0 0
2
-
-
CLETS Journal Search Misuse Statistics
1.10.1 System Misuse (A):
Assistance from the
CA DOJ in conducting
a journal search for an
Agency
Investigations may find
multiple cases of misuse
Administrative actions
may include more than one
response per incident
2021
(as of 5/20/21)
Journal Searches Performed
Related to Potential Misuse 25
No CLETS Misuse Found 9
Pending Investigations 16
CLETS Misuse Found 0
Counseled 0
Reprimanded 0
Training 0
Suspended 0
Resigned 0
Terminated 0
Other 0
No Action Taken 0
Action Item #1
Provide CPOA, CPCA and CSSA contact
information for questions regarding AB 1747 and
purpose codes.
Action Taken: The general email address of
DOJCSP@doj.ca.gov, which was included in the
Information Bulletin, and the new email address
of AB1747@doj.ca.gov was sent to each of the
associations for questions and/or comments
related to the Purpose Codes.
3
Action Item #2
Review NextGen 9-1-1 Network for possible CLETS
Usage
Action Taken: DOJ staff from CAS, and network and
information security teams met to discuss the possibility of
using the NextGen 9-1-1 network for CLETS. Staff met to
review the high level information presented at the last CAC
meeting and to discuss end-to-end security from a law
enforcement confidentiality perspective.
Detailed technical documentation has been requested i n
order for DOJ staff to review and prepare for a meeting with
OES.
This item will be repo rted at the ne xt CAC meeting.
Action Item #3
Review radio encryption language in the CLETS PPPs
Action Taken: Existing language will be
presented to determine if additional language is
needed to clarify the existing policy.
If the Committee deems additional language
should be added, proposed language will be
presented at the next CAC meeting.
4
Action Item #3 continued Existing language:
Previously proposed language:
Action Item #4
Determine if DOJ provides statistical reports on
county link down times.
Action Taken: Statistical reports are available
that reflect the up time for direct connections
that had an event. Connections that did not
have an event will not be reflected on the list.
There are approximately 167 connections and
approximately 65 are reflected on the weekly
reports.
5
Action Item #4 continued
Action Item #5
Provide a report on the CLETS Strategic Plan
status and the elements of that plan that DOJ
adopted and deployed, and determine whether or
not CAC members need to start work on updating
the document.
Action Taken: A copy of the CLETS Strategic
Plan last published in 2009 was sent to
Committee members. This item will be on the
next CAC agenda to discuss the Goals from the
Strategic Plan.
6
1Goal
Action Item #5
– The CAC, along with DOJ, CJIS Division, should identify funding
strategies and pursue funding
Goal 2 – The DOJ must be aware of the telecommunications and
business needs of its clients
Goal 3 – The integrity and security of the CLETS network must be
maintained
Goal 4 – The DOJ will explore the use of state-of-the-art technology
Goal 5 – The DOJ will ensure the protection of the CLETS in the face of
disaster recovery
Goal 6 – The DOJ will ensure the priority of the CLETS transactions be
maintained and the response time for the CLETS information is improved
as the volume of information increases through CLETS
Goal 7 – As DOJ embraces new strategic directions, it will be creative and
take steps to meet law enforcement’s increasing demand for the CLETS
access and services.
CLETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING May 20, 2021
7
CLETS Advisory Committee (CAC) Legislation Update Updated 5.17.2021
PEACE OFFICERS/POLICE PRACTICES
1) Assembly Bill (AB) 48 (Gonzalez, Cristina Garcia, Kalra) – Law enforcement: kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
AB 48 would prohibit law enforcement agencies (LEAs) from using kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse an assembly, and would further prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill also includes definitions for chemical agents, including chloroacetophenone tear gas and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas. Beginning 1/1/2023, LEAs would be required to report usage of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents and specifics of their deployment to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Beginning 1/1/2022, LEAs would be required to report use-of-force to the DOJ on a monthly basis, instead of annually.
2) AB 57 (Gabriel, Chiu) – Peace Officers: Use of Force
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
AB 57 would require the DOJ to implement new duties for documenting and responding to hate crimes, including:
• Conducting reviews of LEAs triennially to evaluate the accuracy of the hate crime data reported and LEA hate crime policies;
• Implementing school-based programs in conjunction with LEAs and school districts aimed at teaching students how to recognize, prevent, and report hate crimes; and
• Sending advisory notices to LEAs when the DOJ determines that hate crimes are being committed across multiple adjacent/neighboring jurisdictions.
FIREARMS
3) AB 311 (Ward) – Firearms: gun shows
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
AB 311 would prohibit the sale of firearm precursor parts at gun shows.
4) AB 667 (Bauer-Kahan) – Firearms: Armed Prohibited Persons System
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20
AB 667 would require the DOJ to add a person’s information to the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) if they are subject to a gun violence restraining order and possess a firearm. It would require DOJ to provide all investigative notes, reports, and related materials on individuals listed in APPS to local LEAs, and to develop and implement, by 1/1/2023, an electronic database system that enables local law enforcement real-time access to that information. The bill would modify the APPS report to include a summary of efforts of local law enforcement on reducing the file or backlog, with a comparison of statistics between DOJ, local law enforcement, and joint task force efforts.
Page 1 of 3
CAC Legislation Update Updated 5.17.2021
5) AB 1191 (Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Chiu, Levine) – Firearms: tracing
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
AB 1191 would require the DOJ to summarize and report to the legislature information reported by LEAs regarding all firearms recovered by LEAs that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime.
6) Senate Bill (SB) 715 (Portantino) – Criminal Law
Status: Senate Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
SB 715 would require the DOJ to validate a hunting license as part of a background check for sales of firearms to persons under 21 years of age. The bill would authorize dealers to retain possession of a firearm for 45 days if a seller or transferor may not legally own the firearm they are attempting to loan or sell, and would authorize a minor 16 years of age or above with a valid hunting license to be transferred a firearm, other than a handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle.
MISCELLANEOUS
7) AB 557 (Muratsuchi) – Hate Crimes: Hotline
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
AB 557 would require the DOJ to establish a toll-free public hotline for reporting hate crimes. A person calling this hotline would be able to report hate crimes and receive information about protected classes, civil remedies, and options for reporting to local LEAs and connecting with other resources.
8) AB 1356 (Bauer-Kahan) – Reproductive Health care services
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
AB 1356 would make all knowing filming, publicly posting or distributing personal information or images of a reproductive healthcare services provider or patient punishable as a misdemeanor or felony, and would further increase penalties for violations of existing provisions related to intimidating or using force against a reproductive health care services facility, provider, or patient. AB 1356 would additionally require LEAs to report the following data to the DOJ:
• The number of anti-reproductive-rights crime-related calls for assistance. • The total number of arrests for anti-reproductive-rights crimes.
A City or District Attorney’s office must report the total number of cases in which the district attorney charged an individual. The DOJ would be required to annually report all this information to the legislature.
Page 2 of 3
CAC Legislation Update Updated 5.17.2021
9) SB 210 (Wiener) – ALPR: use of data
Status: Senate Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
SB 210 would require the DOJ to create and publish a policy template that public agencies may use as a model for their ALPR policies. SB 210 would additionally require the DOJ to develop and issue guidance for LEAs to identify and evaluate the types of data they are currently storing in their ALPR database systems.
10) SB 215 (Leyva) – DNA evidence – SAFE-T
Status: Senate Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
SB 215 would, beginning 7/1/2022, allow a survivor of sexual assault to anonymously and electronically track and receive updates from the SAFE-T database regarding the status and location of the survivor’s sexual assault evidence kit.
11) SB 519 (Wiener) – Controlled substances: decriminalization of certain hallucinogenic substances
Status: Senate Appropriations Committee, suspense file. Hearing scheduled 5/20.
SB 519 would decriminalize, for persons 21 and older, the personal possession and personal use of the following substances and their paraphernalia:
• Psilocybin • Psilocyn • Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) • Ibogaine • Mescaline • Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) • Ketamine • 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)
SB 519 would establish penalties for possession of these substance on school grounds, or possession by, or sharing with, persons under 21 years of age. SB 519 would additionally require the DOJ to identify pending and prior convictions for offenses that would be made lawful by the passage of this bill for dismissal and sealing, and to provide them to local jurisdictions to initiate realignment.
Page 3 of 3
California Department of Justice Client Services Program
Updates on Assembly Bill 1747
May 20, 2021
Presentation for the CLETS Advisory Committee
Discussion Topics
1. Overview of the New Requirements
2. Outreach & Items In-Progress
3. Next Steps
Requirements
Key Takeaways
What is the scope of AB 1747?
What do agencies have to do?
How does it impact CLETS?
Requirements (1 of 3) Government Code Section 15160 was amended to state:
(b)(1) Commencing on January 1, 2020, consistent with the California Values Act (Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) of Division 7 of Title 1), no subscribers to the system shall use information other than criminal history information transmitted through the system for immigration enforcement purposes, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4. In addition, no subscribers to the system shall use the system for purposes of investigating violations of Section 1325 of Title 8 of the United States Code, if a violation of that section is the only criminal history in an individual’s record. This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
Requirements (2 of 3)
(b)(2) Commencing on July 1, 2021, any inquiry for information other than criminal history information submitted through the
system shall include a reason for the initiation of the inquiry.
Requirements (2 of 3) (b)(2) Commencing on July 1, 2021, any inquiry for information other than criminal history information submitted through the system shall include a reason for the initiation of the
inquiry.
SYSTEM CHANGE
CLETS will require a valid Purpose Code to accompany queries:
C = Criminal Justice I = Immigration Enforcement U = Investigate Violations of Title 8,§ 1325 US Code
Requirements (2 of 3) SYSTEM CHANGE
Requirements (3 of 3) (b)(3) Commencing on July 1, 2021, the Attorney General,
and personnel they so authorize, may conduct investigations, including inspections and audits, as the
Attorney General deems appropriate to monitor compliance with this subdivision. The Attorney General or authorized personnel who are conducting an investigation pursuant to this subdivision shall be authorized to review
and inspect case files and any records identified in the investigation process to substantiate a reason given for
accessing information other than criminal history information in the system.
Requirements (3 of 3) (b)(3) Commencing on July 1, 2021, the Attorney General, and personnel they so authorize,
may conduct investigations, including inspections and audits, as the Attorney General deems appropriate to monitor compliance with this subdivision…
APPROACH
Audit components are being developed to include:
• Triennial audits for each agency • Additional follow-up as needed • Leveraging the validation tool in use • Focus groups and trainings to come
Outreach & Items In-Progress
Timeline of Key Activities
September 2019 – AB 1747 Chaptered
April 2020 – Information Bulletin 20-03-CJIS was published, emailed to all Agency CLETS coordinators (ACCs), and posted on CLEW.
May 2020 to Current – CJIS began testing with agencies ready to submit Purpose Codes early.
January 2021 – CJIS began sending monthly CLENTR messages.
January 2021 – CJIS followed-up to contact all ACCs again about the coming requirements.
March 2021 to Current – CJIS is moving compliant agencies into final Production status, updating FAQs and targeting outreach to remaining agencies.
Next Steps
Next Steps
1. Confirm the readiness of the remaining agencies
2. Continue to work individually with any agencies encountering issues
3. Analyze new Purpose Code data
4. Transition to the next Project Phase, including focus groups and additional audit outreach
The California Department of Justice California Justice Information Services Division
Thank you for your time
If you have any questions, please contact us at
AB1747@doj.ca.gov