Some faculty leaders are relieved that a recent state legislative proposal that would allow UC law enforcement officials to use broader surveillance tools appears doomed.

Under AB 992, both UC and California State University law enforcement officers would be permitted to record conversations without prior consent during investigations. As it stands now, Section 633 of the state Penal Code does not include UC and CSU police agencies with other law enforcement units in the power it grants to use surveillance techniques to gather evidence against a suspect. The new bill would amend the code, though the issue may be moot.

Introduced by Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, the measure failed passage twice at two recent hearings. Though not technically dead, the proposed law has moved on to the Assembly Appropriations committee, said Matthew Hargrove, UC Davis director of government and community relations.

The University of California Office of the President strongly supported the bill, maintaining that its systemwide police force needs the same eavesdropping techniques commonly available to other law enforcement officials to stamp out campus crime.

However, the bill drew criticism from faculty ranks.

"The university is a unique environment," said Dan Simmons, law professor and chairman of the UC Davis Academic Senate. "In this case police issues that involve academic freedom are dissimilar to what other police departments may face."

Simmons noted that the UC Academic Council charged that AB 992 would inhibit the "free exchange of views" on campuses and create a "chilling effect" on academic discourse.

"It is unnecessary and perhaps an overreaction of authority," added Simmons, noting that the original language in the bill also would have allowed administrators the eavesdropping powers. "That provision has been axed."

In the event the bill did pass, George Blumenthal, chair of the UC Academic Council, suggested that such surveillances only take place in the case of possible felonies and that chancellors and the academic senate leader at the particular campus receive a written report on the monitoring.

On the other hand, the Office of the President says the enhanced surveillance powers are needed to protect innocent people on campus.

In a June 7 letter to lawmakers, Stephen Arditti, the assistant vice president and director of UC's State Governmental Relations, said the proposed law would "help improve safety and security at our campuses, especially in regards to investigations of date rape and other forms of sexual assault."

"Cassette recorders and video cameras are common law enforcement tools used across the country," said Arditti, adding that currently university police must seek authorizations before they record calls in which a sexual assault victim elicits an admission from a perpetrator.

"Sexual assault crimes on university campuses are a major concern," wrote Arditti.

At UC Davis, the number of reported forcible sex offenses on university-affiliated property increased from 29 in 2002 to 34 in 2003, according to the most recent statistics prepared in compliance with the Clery Act. The majority of these offenses occurred in student residences.

Annette Spicuzza, chief of police at UC Davis, says these investigative techniques are common and would serve to improve campus safety and security at our campuses, especially in the area of sexual assault. "Our officers are professionals and investigate the same types of crimes as those committed in any other jurisdiction," said Spicuzza. "Our hope is that we will be afforded the same investigative techniques already available to other peace officers in the state in the near future."

Hargrove noted that the bill was amended after its first public hearing to "narrow the focus to address only investigations of sexual offenses and included language to assure protection of individual's rights to expression and academic freedom."

• What do you think about the provisions of AB 992? E-mail your letters or comments to dateline@ucdavis.edu.