May 20, 2021 - Summary of CLETS Advisory Committee Meeting

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.

https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/hrgxkgwy

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

[email protected]

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.

https://oag.ca.gov/meetings

mailto:[email protected]

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 [email protected].

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


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?


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?



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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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 --


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


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


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.


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.


(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,


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


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,


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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?


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


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.


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


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.


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


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?


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


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--


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


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

[email protected], which was included in the

Information Bulletin, and the new email address

of [email protected] 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

[email protected]


Documents

May 20, 2021 - Summary of CLETS Advisory Committee Meeting