SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 6264

BYSenators Owen, Nelson, Conner, Newhouse, Bauer, Stratton, Amondson, McCaslin, McDonald, Vognild, Craswell, Thorsness, Gaspard and Warnke

Authorizing the intercepting, transmitting, and recording of conversations concerning sexual abuse of children.

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 17, 1990

Senate Staff:Vicki E. Schur (786-7415)

AS OF JANUARY 11, 1990

BACKGROUND:

It is often difficult to secure evidence against perpetrators who sexually abuse children.  Information obtained through an interception or recording of a private conversation in violation of the Privacy Act is generally inadmissible in court.  Information obtained pursuant to an ex parte order, when no party to the conversation has consented to the interception or recording, is also generally inadmissible.  In 1989, as part of the Omnibus Alcohol and Controlled Substances Act, the Legislature adopted provisions for interception of conversations concerning illegal drug activity upon the consent of one party.  This bill incorporates similar provisions for the interception of conversations concerning sexual abuse of children.

SUMMARY:

Police agencies conducting investigations of sexual abuse of a child are allowed, without prior judicial authorization, to intercept conversations consented to by one of the parties to the conversation.  If the consenting party is a minor, the minor's parent, guardian or guardian ad litem must also consent.  The chief officer of an agency may authorize an interception if there is probable cause to believe the conversation will involve sexual abuse of a child.  The authorization must be in writing and must indicate whether an attempt was made to get judicial authorization, and if so, the outcome of the attempt.

Police authorizations are for 24 hours.  An authorization may be extended twice for additional consecutive 24 hours periods on the same probable cause.  Any recordings made must be protected from alteration.  A court must review an authorization within 15 days to determine if probable cause existed for the interception, and all procedural requirements have been met.  If the court finds there was no probable cause or that there was a procedural defect, any record of information obtained by the interception is to be destroyed.  Destruction of a recording will be stayed during an appeal of such a finding.  Six months following a determination that an authorization was invalid, the court is to notify nonconsenting parties to the conversation that an unauthorized interception was made.  Agencies may seek extensions of this six-month period in cases of ongoing criminal investigations.

Intentionally violating provisions relating to agency authorized interceptions is a class C felony.  Civil damages of $25,000 are also available to parties whose privacy rights are violated if the agency has been found not to have had probable cause or a "reasonable suspicion" that the conversation in question would be about sexual abuse of a child.

The state Attorney General is given authority to prosecute violations of the Privacy Act.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      requested January 10, 1990