Former state Sen. Ronald Calderon, once the most powerful member of a politically influential family, was sentenced Friday in Los Angeles to 42 months in prison after he pleaded guilty in a federal corruption case.
The Montebello Democrat, who served in the state Senate for eight years ending in 2014, admitted in a plea deal in June that he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in bribes from undercover FBI agents and a hospital executive in return for official favors.
Federal prosecutors had asked for a five-year sentence for a charge for which the maximum possible penalty was 20 years. U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, who handed down the sentence to Calderon, said five years was too severe but that a significant prison sentence was needed to punish Calderon and send a message to other elected officials that corruption will not be tolerated.
“The crime is significant,” she said during the court hearing. “This is a true public corruption case.”
In addition to three and a half years in prison, Calderon was sentenced to one year supervised release and 150 hours of community service, but no fine. Instead of having Calderon taken into custody immediately, Snyder granted him a reprieve, allowing him to surrender to prison officials in January.
“Mr. Calderon betrayed the public trust,” said U.S. Atty. Eileen Decker. “A basic premise of our society is that elected officials will not exchange their votes for monetary gain and that’s what Mr. Calderon did.”
Mark Geragos, Calderon’s attorney, suggested during the court hearing that his client should serve no time in prison. He alleged that the government had entrapped Calderon and raised the former lawmaker’s poor health. The former state senator’s legacy has been ruined by his guilty plea in the case, he added.
“This is going to be the opening paragraph of his obituary, unfortunately,” Geragos told Snyder.
When Snyder rebuffed Geragos’ appeal and said Calderon needed to spend some amount of time behind bars, Geragos switched tactics, asking her to consider a two-year sentence.
Striking a defiant tone throughout, Calderon, 59, refused to admit any wrongdoing or to apologize.
“My goal was always to do the right thing for California,” he said. “At no point did I intend to break the law.”
Faced with the prospect of going to trial on nearly two dozen charges that could have sent him to prison for many years, Calderon said he had been put in a “tough situation” when the government proposed its plea agreement.
He said he ultimately decided to plead guilty to one count of mail fraud in order to spare his family the ordeal of a trial, but persisted in his innocence, saying he never agreed to any quid pro quo to benefit himself or his family.
Calderon, his voice wavering with emotion at times, then told Snyder of the toll the case has taken on him and his family, saying he had “learned a hard lesson.”
Unemployed and tens of thousands of dollars in debt, he said he was not only banned from running for public office again but had been stripped of his real estate license and had been unable to get a job. His wife, he said, would likely have to declare bankruptcy and sell their house.
“I had so much potential for life after politics,” he bemoaned.
Professional relationships had been ruined as had his relationship with his brother, he said.
“My reputation is destroyed,” Calderon said.
Snyder was unmoved.
“I did not really hear Sen. Calderon accept responsibility or apologize,” she said. “It was really about himself.”
Snyder said that after listening to Calderon she was tempted to tack on several months to his sentence, but chose to stick with the 42 months.
Calderon learned his fate a month after his brother former state Assemblyman Tom Calderon was sentenced to a year in federal custody for laundering bribes taken by his brother.
As part of the plea, Ronald Calderon admitted accepting trips to Las Vegas, jobs for his adult son and daughter and cash for him and Tom Calderon.
In exchange, Calderon advocated for legislation that would help a hospital owner. He also acknowledged that he had pushed for a law to give tax credits to independent films while an undercover FBI agent posing as a film producer showered him with bribes.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Mack E. Jenkins wrote a blistering brief urging the federal judge for a prison sentence for the former state senator, who had asked to be allowed to serve time in home detention or be released after the brief time he already served in jail.
“Here, defendant’s trafficking in his legislative votes (for, by contrast, over $150,000 in benefits) caused a reverberation of negative effects throughout California and put a stain not just on his career, but on the reputation of the state legislature,” Jenkins wrote.
“Here, defendant sold his vote not just to help pay for the expenses of living beyond his means, but for the more banal and predictable aims of corruption — fancy luxuries, fancy parties and fancy people,” Jenkins wrote, attaching to the file a photo Calderon took with rappers Nelly and T.I. at a Las Vegas event.
The Calderon family was a political dynasty for decades in California. A third brother, former Assemblyman Charles Calderon, was not implicated in the corruption scandal. Ronald Calderon’s nephew Ian Calderon is a state assemblyman and the last family member in state elected office. He was not alleged to have any part in the scheme.
The indictment of Ronald Calderon in 2014 was part of an ugly chapter for the state Senate, which saw two other members also suspended after being charged with crimes.
Former Democratic Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco was sentenced in February to five years in prison for doing political favors in exchange for campaign cash in a separate scheme. Former Democratic state Sen. Roderick D. Wright served a brief jail sentence in 2014 after he was convicted of eight felony counts, including perjury and voting fraud, for lying about living in his state Senate district.
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) said Friday that with the sentencing of Calderon, “the Senate can close the book on a very dark period in its history.
“But its lesson will not be forgotten — that those who seek to trade a sacred trust for self-enrichment will be disgraced and punished,” he added. “There is no room for corruption in this house of democracy.
Good government advocates, including Kathay Feng of California Common Cause, were generally supportive of the judge’s decision. “The sentence of three [and a half] years sends a message that bribery does not pay,” Feng said.
Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), whose district overlapped Calderon’s and who had been first to call on Calderon to resign, said, “Today, our community received some justice for his crimes,” She added that the “dark cloud over our community will live with us longer than” Calderon serves in prison.
Patrick McGreevy reported from Sacramento and Joel Rubin reported from Los Angeles.
Reporting from Sacramento — An Assembly panel on Tuesday recommended the confirmation of Los Angeles Rep. Xavier Becerra as state attorney general after the nominee pledged to aggressively defend state policies on immigration, civil rights and the environment against potential attacks by President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.
Before the panel’s 6-3 vote in favor of confirmation, with all Republicans opposed, Co-Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) told Becerra that he expects the state will become involved in a “long and ferocious and hard-fought legal war” with the federal government.
“Now more than ever we need an attorney general who will defend our values and stand up to the next administration’s backward vision for America,” Jones-Sawyer said during the hearing, denouncing Trump’s campaign rhetoric as “xenophobic.”
Gov. Jerry Brown introduced Becerra at the two-hour hearing, warning that “there are big battles ahead” and calling his nominee an “outstanding candidate that can certainly champion the causes we believe in.”
The nomination still must be acted on by the full Assembly, which is scheduled to vote Friday, as well as the Senate. The Senate Rules Committee will hold a confirmation hearing Jan. 18.
Becerra was questioned for more than an hour by members of the Assembly Special Committee on the Office of the Attorney General. He told them he is ready to fight for the state’s values. He told the panel that as the son of hardworking immigrants, he is committed to fighting any federal policy that takes away the rights of Californians who are playing by the rules.
“As California’s chief law enforcement officer and legal advocate, I am going to be ready to deploy those values and life lessons to advance and defend the rights — big and small — of all Californians,” Becerra told the panel. “Everyone who plays by California’s rules deserves to know, ‘We’ve got your back.’ ”
The 12-term congressman said he supports the state’s policies protecting the environment and civil rights. He said he opposes racial profiling by police and the stop-and-frisk policies of other cities.
With Trump proposing mass deportations and registration of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, Becerra said, “the head winds from outside of California could threaten the basic rights of so many families like the one I grew up in.”
“At risk is the notion that anyone who, like my parents and yours, works hard and builds this country can dream to own their own home, send their kids to college, earn a dignified retirement,” he said.
Asked about threats of cuts in federal funding to sanctuary cities, Becerra said cities will not protect violent criminals.
“‘Sanctuary’ is simply saying we are not going to go out there and do the bidding of an aggressive immigration enforcement agency.”
Becerra noted that federal law, on occasion, preempts state law, but he said he will be vigilant in ensuring that the state’s laws are preserved to the extent possible.
“If we have laws in place, we have every right to protect those laws,” Becerra said. “And while the federal government has preemption authority in most cases against the state for matters that are federal in nature, the federal government would have to prove that what it’s doing is federal in nature and that it isn’t violating the state’s rights to enact laws that improve the welfare of its people.
“You will find me being as aggressive as possible working with all of you to figure out ways that we can make sure there is no federal intrusion in areas that are really left to the state in the U.S. Constitution.”
Republican members called on Becerra to make fighting crime his top priority and said they had concerns about the attorney general failing to defend the rights of gun owners and religious institutions facing interference by the state government.
Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Plumas Lake) complained about religious nonprofits being told by the state they must inform clients of the availability of abortion services even if it is against their beliefs.
Becerra tried to lighten the mood in the face of deeply philosophical questions.
“You’re getting into some subjects that probably require a few beers,” Becerra said, offering to buy Gallagher a round so they could talk about weighty issues.
Some 50 people testified, with support coming from groups such as the Sierra Club, Los Angeles Police Protective League, Equality California and several labor unions. Only two people objected to the nomination, including an American Independent Party member who questioned whether Becerra had enough years serving as an attorney to be qualified.
Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition said his group wants a state attorney general who can protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.
“Unfortunately, based on the record, we simply do not believe that this nominee is capable of doing that,” DeLuz told the panel.
The National Rifle Assn. also opposed Becerra in a letter.
Gov. Gavin Newsom stood alongside six Democrats from the Texas Legislature on Friday and joined them in accusing President Trump and Republicans of trying to “rig” elections to hold onto congressional seats next year.
“They play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,” Newsom said of the nation’s history. “We are not going to allow that to happen.”
The Texas lawmakers and the governor spoke with reporters after meeting privately at the Governor’s Mansion in Sacramento to discuss a national political fight over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the midterm elections and balance of power in Congress.
At the urging of President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state Legislature into a special session this week that includes a call to redistrict the Lone Star State to help Republicans pick up seats in Congress.
The move is part of a gerrymandering effort pushed by Trump to prevent the GOP from losing control of the House of Representatives next year. If Democrats take the House, they could derail the president’s agenda, which has so far included a crackdown on undocumented immigrants, tariffs on imports, rescinding efforts to combat climate change and undercutting state protections for the LGTBQ+ community, among other policy priorities.
Newsom has threatened to mirror Trump’s tactics and said he’s in talks with leaders of the California Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans.
Texas Democrats, who said they traveled to California to meet with the governor and explain the state of play in Texas, pledged do everything in their power to push back against Trump’s plan.
“We’re going to use every tool at our disposal in the state of Texas to confront this very illegal redistricting process that is going to be done on the backs of historic African American and Latino districts,” said Texas state Rep. Rafael Anchía.
Another group of Texas lawmakers are expected to meet with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in Chicago.
Changing the maps to benefit Democrats is a massive departure from California’s work over the last decade to remove political partisanship from the redistricting process.
California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature.
To redistrict before the midterms, the most legally sound option is for state lawmakers to send a constitutional amendment to voters that seeks to allow changes to the voter map outside the boundaries of California’s independent redistricting process. The vote would need to happen in a special election before the June primary.
Newsom has said he’s also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves with a two-thirds vote.
The governor’s office said state law charges the redistricting commission with crafting new maps after a census, which is conducted about every 10 years. But they say the law is silent on everything that happens in between that time period.
Newsom’s lawyers believe it could be possible for the Legislature to redistrict congressional seats mid-decade on its own without going to the ballot.
The governor’s call to fight Trump using his own gerrymandering tactics has drawn a mixed response.
Newsom argues that Democrats will continue to lose if they remain the only party that plays by the rules. But others worry about the integrity of electoral outcomes across the nation if political parties in every state resort to naked political gamesmanship to gain control.
Texas Republicans have long been accused of crafting political maps to dilute the power of Black and Latino voters, which led to an ongoing lawsuit from 2021. Newsom’s effort in California would effectively seek to increase the share of Democrats in Republican-held districts.
Democrats may have the potential for greater gains from gerrymandering, particularly in places such as California that have attempted to practice nonpartisan redistricting, compared to states such as Texas, where maps are already drawn in favor of Republicans.
“It should be no surprise to anybody who covers Texas that every decade since 1970 Texas has been found to discriminate against people of color in its redistricting process,” Anchía said.
“In trying to do this, it is going to create great harm, not only to the people we represent, to the voters of the state of Texas, but also potentially to all Americans,” he said about Trump’s plan.
It’s common for the party in control of the White House to lose seats nationally in the first election after a presidential contest. Republicans hold majorities in the Senate and the House, and losing power to Democrats could be detrimental to Trump’s presidency.
Trump’s job approval rating dropped to a second-term low of 37% in a Gallup poll conducted earlier this month. The dip is just above his lowest approval rating ever of 34% at the end of his first term.
Trump has said publicly that he thinks it’s possible for Republicans to redistrict and pick up five seats in Texas, with the potential for gains in other states that redraw their maps.
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers stood around Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday and celebrated the passage of the state budget and “transformative” housing legislation at the state Capitol.
Between mutual praise and handshakes in front of television news cameras, there was little acknowledgment of the power dynamics that played out behind the scenes: Democratic lawmakers once again gave in to the demands of the soon-to-be termed-out governor.
“We’ve seen multiple situations now where it’s clear that the Legislature is in one place and the governor is in another, whether that’s bills that have passed overwhelmingly and been vetoed, or it’s dragging the Legislature along on budget bills,” said Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation. “At some point the Legislature needs to legislate.”
Newsom took a rare step earlier this year and publicly supported two bills to lessen environmental review standards to speed up the construction of housing in California. Despite vowing to supercharge homebuilding, Newsom previously backed only smaller-scale policies and construction has stagnated.
In his recently published book “Abundance,” journalist Ezra Klein argued that California’s marquee environmental law stands in the way of housing construction — a critique that struck a chord with the governor. Newsom, who is considering a 2028 presidential run, this year was hellbent on proving that he’s the kind of Democrat who can be part of the solution and push through the government and political logjams.
When a pivotal bill designed to streamline housing construction recently stalled in the state Senate, Newsom effectively forced it through despite the concerns of progressive lawmakers, environmental interest groups and labor unions. The governor did so by ensuring that a state budget bill included a “poison pill” provision that required lawmakers to pass the housing legislation in order for the spending plan to go into effect on July 1.
Newsom called the bills the “most consequential housing reform that we’ve seen in modern history in the state of California” on Monday evening.
“This was too important to play chance,” Newsom said, adding that he worried reforms would have fallen prey to the same opposition as prior years if he allowed the “process to unfold in the traditional way.”
Democratic lawmakers for years have tried to cut through the thicket of regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, and faced stiff opposition from powerful labor groups. These groups, notably the State Building and Construction Trades Council, have argued that any relief offered to developers should be paired with wage and other benefits for workers.
The legislation Newsom signed Monday sidestepped those demands from labor.
Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), exempts most urban housing projects from CEQA, requiring only developers of high-rise — taller than 85 feet — and low-income buildings to pay union-level wages for construction workers.
Senate Bill 131 also narrows CEQA mandates for housing construction and further waives the environmental restrictions for some residential rezoning changes. The bill, led by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), additionally designates a host of nonresidential projects — health clinics, child-care and advanced manufacturing facilities, food banks and more — no longer subject to CEQA.
Experts in development said the new legislation could provide the most significant reforms to CEQA in its 55-year history, especially for urban housing.
CEQA generally requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a construction project. The process sounds simple but often results in thousands of pages of environmental assessments and years of litigation.
CEQA creates substantial legal risk for homebuilders and developers, and past efforts to alleviate its burdens fell short, said Dave Rand, a prominent Southern California land-use attorney. The bills signed Monday provide relief for the vast majority of housing, he said. High-rise and affordable housing construction often already require union-level pay.
“The worst cog in the wheel has always been CEQA,” Rand said. “It’s always been the place where projects get stuck. This is the first clean, across-the-board, objective, straightforward exemption that anyone can figure out.”
He said clients are eager to take advantage of the new rules, which take effect immediately.
“There’s over 10 projects we’re going to push the go button on with this exemption probably Tuesday,” Rand said.
For non-housing projects, the changes do not amount to a comprehensive overhaul but are still meaningful, said Bill Fulton, publisher of the California Planning & Development Report.
In the past, state lawmakers have passed narrow, one-off CEQA waivers for projects they supported, such as increased enrollment at UC Berkeley in 2022. SB 131 continues the Legislature’s penchant for exempting specific kinds of development from CEQA rules, he said, though the nine categories of projects affected provide more expansive relief than prior efforts.
“They’re cherry picking things that they want to speed through,” said Fulton, who has termed the phenomenon “Swiss cheese CEQA.”
Observers said Newsom’s actions were the strongest he has taken to force large-scale housing policies through the Legislature.
For years, the governor has made audacious promises — on the campaign trail in 2017, Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes by the end of this year, a goal likely to fall millions short. But he has been more likely to work behind the scenes or swoop in and praise bills once they’ve passed rather than publicly shape housing policy, said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor.
Elmendorf, who supports the new laws, called Newsom’s arm-twisting and willingness to challenge entrenched interests, “an incredible about-face from his MO with respect to the legislative process on controversial housing and environmental issues for the last six, seven years.”
The governor has jammed his policy priorities on other topics through the Legislature before, including climate legislation, infrastructure and oil regulations, with mixed results over the years.
Newsom’s term ends in early 2027. His endorsement of the meaningful housing policies, and his strategy to propel one through the state Senate, became a bellwether of his strength at the Capitol as his time in office wanes.
Wicks said Newsom “put a ton of skin in the game” to force the proposals through.
“He went all in on pushing for taking on these sacred cows like CEQA because I think he recognizes that we have to tackle this problem,” Wicks said.
Wicks’ legislation had cleared the Assembly before the proposal became part of the state budget process, which added pressure on lawmakers to pass the bills. She described herself as “cautiously optimistic” as it moved through the Capitol and said her house understood the need for reform.
Wiener’s legislation was slower to gain traction. Just last week, the inability of the Senate and the governor’s office to reach an agreement on the proposal held up the announcement of a budget deal.
Then Newsom tied the proposal to the budget, essentially requiring lawmakers to pass the bill or risk starting the fiscal year on July 1 without a spending plan.
During the debate on SB 131, Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said the legislation had “significant issues” but that he would vote in favor of the measure because of assurances that those would eventually be addressed.
“I think nature and abundance can live side by side. In fact, they must,” Stern said. “We don’t want to live in a moonscape California. Want to live in a livable one.”
Despite the concerns, lawmakers passed both bills on Monday.
Gonzalez was critical of legislators, saying “nobody is voting their values.” She compared the Legislature going along with Newsom’s plan to Republicans in Congress.
“California Democrats are crying foul that legislators and senators are passing things that they don’t even know the effect of that aren’t in line with their constituents that are just being shoved down their throats by Donald Trump,” Gonzalez said. “And those same legislators in California are allowing that to happen to themselves.”
Several years ago, little was known about the StingRay, a powerful surveillance device that imitates the function of a cell tower and captures the signals of nearby phones, allowing law enforcement officers to sweep through hundreds of messages, conversations and call logs.
The secrecy around the technology, which can ensnare the personal data of criminals and bystanders alike, spurred lawsuits and demands for public records to uncover who was using it and the extent of its capabilities. In California, a 2015 law requires law enforcement agencies to seek permission at public meetings to buy the devices, and post rules for their use online.
But a Los Angeles Times review of records from 20 of the state’s largest police and sheriff’s departments, plus the Alameda County district attorney’s office, found some agencies have been slow to follow or have ignored the law. Several that partner with federal agencies to work on cases are not subject to the law’s reporting requirements. The result is that little information on StingRay use is available to the public, making it hard to determine how wide a net the surveillance tools cast and what kind of data they gather.
Out of 21 law enforcement agencies surveyed, 12 were found to own or have access to a StingRay or similar device. Nine of those agencies had developed and released online public polices.
Department
Device
Policies
DepartmentLAPD
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentLong Beach Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentL.A. County Sheriff
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSan Diego Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSan Jose Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentFresno Police
DeviceACCESS**
PoliciesNO
DepartmentSacramento Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSacramento County Sheriff
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentOakland Police
DeviceACCESS**
PoliciesYES
DepartmentAlameda district attorney’s office
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSanta Ana Police
DeviceACCESS**
PoliciesNO
DepartmentAnaheim Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
**Officers don’t operate the stingray but work with other agencies that may
Source: L.A. Times review of public records
The Times reviewed more than 400 documents it received from public information requests, including grant proposals, purchase orders and memos on the use of StingRays and similar devices generically called “stingrays” or “dirtboxes.”
The devices, which cost between $242,000 and $500,000, are primarily marketed for preventing and responding to terrorist threats, but the documents suggest they are used most frequently in felony criminal cases, such as burglaries, murders and kidnappings.
Out of 21 law enforcement entities The Times surveyed, 12 either owned stingrays or used or had access to them through partner agencies. Nine owned the surveillance devices, and each of them posted public policies online as required by law. Three of the nine went a step further to conduct annual reporting audits that showed when and in what cases the devices were used.
But some stingray policies posted by the law enforcement agencies revealed little about the devices besides noting they were in use. Other agencies took months to post their stingray guidelines online. The Los Angeles Police Department, which owns a stingray, updated its public safety policies to include its stingray guidelines only after questions from The Times.
Data on stingray purchases and use have long been difficult to come by, a problem the 2015 law requiring more public accountability was meant to correct — and has yet to fix.
The Times found that the nine agencies that own stingrays bought them between 2006 and 2013, mostly with federal grant money or under programs or agreements that prohibited any public disclosure, following a national trend. Local tax dollars weren’t used on the purchases, and city and county officials didn’t ask about them in a public forum.
Just two of the 21 law enforcement agencies polled by The Times have ever publicly discussed buying new devices before city or county officials: Santa Clara (which did not buy a device) and Alameda counties.
And only one agency, the Oakland Police Department, has gathered input from the public to develop guidelines for stingray use, which isn’t required under the 2015 law.
“Any tool can be used for good or bad,” said Brian Hofer, chairman of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, which helped establish the surveillance policies. “This is the most controversial piece of equipment that we know about, and they should not be used in the dark.”
The StingRay II gives off the strongest wireless signal in an area, tricking nearby phones, tablets and laptops to connect. (Associated Press)
(Associated Press)
A device cloaked in secrecy
Stingrays tend to be the size of small briefcases and mimic the function of cell towers. They give off the strongest wireless signal in an area, tricking nearby phones, tablets and laptops to connect.
Investigators can target the location data of specific phones, allowing them to track suspects and their associates. They can also sweep up communications over a wide area. How much and what types of data they collect — location information, audio or images — depends on how the devices are designed and how law enforcement agencies use them.
The technology has been used for about 20 years by federal, state and local law enforcement, often secretly, under manufacturer agreements that typically prohibit agencies from disclosing the purchases.
The public did not learn about the existence of the equipment until 2011, after an inmate in federal prison, Daniel Rigmaiden, spent three years scouring government records and meeting transcripts on a hunch that investigators used some kind of secret device to catch him.
Rigmaiden, a native of Seaside, Calif., who hadn’t had a stable living situation, was arrested in Phoenix for filing fake tax returns. Police were able to find him through tracking an old Verizon wireless card he seldom used to connect online.
“It wasn’t just that [investigators] were able to get historical call data from Verizon,” said Linda Lye, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief in support of his case. “They were able to pinpoint him to a particular apartment in a particular apartment building, which was far more precise.”
In 2015, California lawmakers passed the sweeping Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which prohibited any investigative body in the state from forcing businesses to turn over digital communications without a warrant. That same year, state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) introduced legislation to compel local law enforcement agencies to disclose more information about the use of stingrays in California.
“Our country has a rich history of democracy and civilian oversight,” Hill told a Senate judiciary committee that May. “The stealthy use of these devices undercuts the very nature of our government.”
The law, which took effect in January 2016, requires cities and counties that operate a stingray to create guidelines for how and when officers use the equipment. Any agency that wants to buy a device must first receive approval at a public hearing.
Investigators can target the data of specific phones. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
Opening access to information
The state law helped open up some public access to information about how and where the devices are used. Privacy advocates and lawyers have kept up the public pressure in some cities and counties, particularly in the Bay Area, calling on officials to put ordinances and guidelines in place to bar police from collecting data from those not under investigation.
Under most of those policies, officers can use the technology only when it is critical to a case and is approved by higher-ranking officers, or in emergency situations such as natural disasters. Investigators are also required to obtain search warrants. Any data not considered official evidence can’t be sought, recorded or stored. Officers must delete or destroy all information gathered by the equipment related to an investigation at the end of the period in which they’re authorized to use the technology.
Three agencies keep track of when officers use a stingray — the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the San Jose Police Department and the Alameda County district attorney’s office. But their data offer few details about the cases.
In Los Angeles County, a report from the sheriff’s office showed deputies followed state law and obtained a search warrant in nearly all 138 investigations that required a cell site simulator in 2015, and 38 investigations in 2016, the majority of which were murder cases.
In that time, the device helped officers arrest 70 suspects and find one crime victim. Sheriff’s Department officials declined to disclose further information or records on those cases.
Source: L.A. County Sheriff’s Office Ally Levine / @latimesgraphics Stingray use in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles County asked to use the surveillance equipment for investigations 138 times in 2015 and 38 times in 2016. In 2015 17 Narcotics 16 Assault 9 Robbery 6 Grand theft In 2016 Most common investigations using stingrays Murder 63 Murder 21 Weapons 3 Attempted murder 2 2 Rape 2 Assault* *with a deadly weapon
The Alameda County district attorney’s office, which purchased a device to be operated by the Sheriff’s Department and other area police agencies, said the stingray had not been used as of January.
The San Jose Police Department bought a $500,000 stingray in June 2013, and used it about 20 times between early September 2016 and June 2017.
Law enforcement officers in Oakland and San Jose, as well as several other California cities, say the law requiring them to disclose use of the devices has allowed them to ease community fears over what the technology can and can’t do.
“You watch TV and you’d think that we are sucking their phones dry of all the images, of all the texts, of all the pictures and emails,” said San Jose Police Lt. Steve Lagorio, who crafted guidelines for stingray use with the city attorney’s office. “But we are not. We don’t have that capability.”
The cellphone interceptor at his department is strictly used to target the phones of individual suspects, and Lagorio said he doubted any local law enforcement agencies used the equipment to do much more than that.
A traditional cellphone tower. Cell tower interceptors, often called “stingrays” or “dirtboxes,” tend to be the size of small briefcases and mimic traditional cell towers. (Jeff Roberson / Associated Press)
(Jeff Roberson / AP)
Calls for oversight
Privacy advocates and lawyers say a state agency is needed for oversight to ensure law enforcement agencies are following the law and post their own guidelines.
Most of the records on purchases and grant proposals reviewed by The Times were highly redacted, providing little insight into how their equipment is designed and what it can collect.
The LAPD provided purchase orders and invoices that show the department first obtained price quotes for stingray equipment in 2004, but it is unclear when it acquired the technology. LAPD officials said only that the stingray was not deployed due to technical malfunction issues, but declined to elaborate.
Other records from the Police Department show it obtained another stingray in June 2012, but the department declined to release additional information on the purchase, including its cost.
It was used more than 21 times in routine criminal investigations over four months in 2012, according to LAPD records that were first obtained by the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit that works to advance free speech and open-records laws.
In response to an information request regarding its purchases of stingray devices, the San Francisco Police Department provided heavily redacted records, including a 2012 grant proposal and shipping receipt showing the purchase of “specialized surveillance equipment” in 2007.
The department also gave The Times a document indicating a stingray was bought with 2009 federal grant funds. But a spokesman said the department did not have any public policies on the technology because the equipment was not in use.
Seventeen of the 21 agencies polled by The Times said they did not keep or declined to provide data on how often and in what types of cases they used stingrays.
Privacy advocates point to a loophole in the law that allows some law enforcement agencies to avoid reporting their use of the devices. Police departments that partner with another agency that owns and uses a stingray in an investigation are not required to publish their own guidelines for using the equipment.
The Santa Ana and Fresno police departments, for example, said they did not have any records on the use and policies of surveillance devices. But both departments acknowledge they work with agencies that do have them, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, and might have indirect access to the data they produce.
“Our officers don’t use the equipment, but we often look for fugitive hunters,” Santa Ana Police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said. “Anaheim [police] may have one, the U.S. Marshals may have one.… They do help us catch fugitives, but whether they have one — you’d have to ask them.”
A new proposal by state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), left, would expand the state’s transparency laws on StingRays and extend it to all surveillance devices. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
(Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
Increasing transparency
This legislative session, a new proposal by Sen. Hill would expand the state’s disclosure law on stingrays to all surveillance devices, including facial recognition software, drones and social media monitors.
Senate Bill 21 would require law enforcement agencies to disclose not only the use of the surveillance equipment, but the use of any information obtained from the devices.
Civil rights lawyers and advocates have supported the measure, saying transparency is necessary at a time when concerns over surveillance of immigrant and Muslim communities have risen under the Trump administration.
The legislation was narrowly approved by the state Senate, with heavy opposition from law enforcement officials who argued it would give criminals a road map to police agencies’ crime-fighting technology.
Its prospects of passage in the Legislature are unclear. Hill says he understands the technology has many benefits for law enforcement.
“[But] we need people — we need agencies — to be accountable, and we need civilian bodies to create that accountability standard,” he said.
—————————
FOR THE RECORD
6:31 a.m.: This article reported incorrectly that Daniel Rigmaiden was arrested in Phoenix. He was arrested in Santa Clara.
