Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Csam Evidence Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs bill to stop duplication and removal of child sexual abuse material from secure law-enforcement locations
Summary
AB 528 would bar copying or removal of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) from law-enforcement or court custody while preserving defense access in controlled settings; public defenders and criminal-defense groups said the proposal would impede review, increase burdens and not prevent dissemination.
Assemblymember Alanis presented AB 528 to the Senate Public Safety subcommittee as a measure to align state procedures with federal limits on copying and distributing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) evidence.
"AB 528 aligns California state law with the existing federal protections regarding the handling of child sexual abuse material," Alanis said, describing the bill's goal to prohibit duplication, removal and distribution of CSAM outside secure law-enforcement or court-controlled locations while ensuring defendants and counsel can access material within secure settings.
Supporters included law-enforcement witnesses such as Detective Casey Cooper of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office and representatives from the California State Sheriffs' Association and Crime Victims Alliance. Cooper described the investigative and victim-support work that follows seizures of large amounts of CSAM and urged protections to keep seized material secure. "All we're asking for is just to pretty much keep it secure," Cooper said.
Opposition testimony came from public-defense groups including the California Public Defenders Association and the Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who warned that the bill would be unworkable for defense counsel and their clients. "This bill would be completely unworkable for us to do what we are required to do, which is to review all evidence in a case," Alice Michael of the Public Defenders Association said. She added that the bill could require incarcerated clients to be transported to DA offices or police facilities to view evidence and would impose staffing and logistical burdens.
Ignacio Hernandez for the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association urged caution: "The federal law was adopted in 2006... the language of the federal statute is out of step with the constitutional protections of defense," he said, urging the committee to consider court decisions that permit judicially managed access by defense teams.
The bill's author argued law enforcement is prepared to accommodate access outside normal business hours and that the bill's purpose is to prevent re-victimization by limiting duplication and distribution of CSAM.
No committee vote was taken at the hearing; members questioned operational impacts and noted the sheriff's offices present said they had considered logistical concerns. The committee did not establish a quorum and deferred any formal action.
