Relating to recording custodial interrogations in a criminal or juvenile case

The bill defines “place of detention” to mean a fixed location under the control of a law enforcement agency where individuals are questioned about alleged crimes or delinquent acts. The term includes a jail, police or sheriff’s station, a law enforcement officer’s vehicle, holding cell, and correctional or detention facility. The bill does not require a law enforcement officer to obtain consent or inform the person being interrogated that the interrogation is being electronically recorded. The bill does not apply to a spontaneous statement made outside the course of the custodial interrogation or a statement made in response to a question asked routinely during the processing of the arrest of an individual. The requirements of the bill also do not apply to the following situations: the electronic recording is not reasonably feasible under the circumstances, the individual refuses to participate in the interrogation if the interrogation is being recorded, the interrogation occurs in another jurisdiction in compliance with the other jurisdiction’s laws or by federal law enforcement in compliance with federal law, the law enforcement officer has no knowledge of the facts that would lead the officer to reasonably believe that the individual being interrogated committed an act which would require the interrogation to be electronically recorded, the law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation reasonably believes the electronic recording would disclose the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an officer or another individual, or the electronic recording equipment fails. If feasible under the circumstances, the bill requires the reason for not electronically recording an interrogation to be contemporaneously electronically recorded. The bill prohibits a law enforcement officer from encouraging an individual to request an interrogation not be electronically recorded. If the prosecution relies on an exception to not electronically record an interrogation, the bill specifies that the burden is on the prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an exception does apply. The bill requires the prosecution to provide written notice to a defendant of the intent to rely upon a statement made in a custodial interrogation which was not electronically recorded within 40 days of arraignment. The bill specifies that the court shall consider the failure to electronically record all or part of a custodial interrogation, unless an exception applies, as a factor in determining whether a statement made during the interrogation is admissible, including whether the statement was voluntarily made. The bill requires each law enforcement agency to establish and enforce procedures to ensure that the electronic recording is identifiable, accessible, and preserved for a period of three years after the date of the limitation for the commencement of a criminal action as set forth in Code chapter 802. The bill requires each law enforcement agency to establish rules relating to the following: the manner in which an electronic recording is made including the angle and focus of the camera, supervisory responsibilities, a process that details when noncompliance with procedures occurs, the imposition of administrative sanctions for a failure to comply with the procedures, and a process for monitoring the chain of custody of an electronic recording. The bill does not create a right to require a custodial interrogation to be recorded electronically or require a transcript of an electronically recorded interrogation to be prepared.3.2, subsection 3, which would relieve a political subdivision from complying with a state mandate if funding for the cost of the state mandate is not provided or specified. Therefore, political subdivisions are required to comply with any state mandate included in the bill.