California has, as they say, some issues right now. Its budget deficit could reach $12 billion, its energy costs remain sky-high, and its politicians are still fighting over how to fix the failing public school system. But Governor Gray Davis devoted much of his State of the State address last week to more life-and-death matters. "All four hijacked planes were bound for California," said Davis, dressed in a blue shirt, a red tie and an American-flag lapel pin. "More than 100 fellow Californians paid the ultimate price for our freedom." In memory of those who died on Sept. 11--"to build a future worthy of their sacrifice"--he announced legislation designed to terrorproof the state. Local police, he said, need the same broad wiretapping authority the feds now enjoy; National Guard troops deserve higher pay, and the California highway patrol must be trained to work as air marshals on in-state flights. No expense will be spared; no taxes will be raised.
Davis is hardly the only politician out to give voters increased homeland security. Officials across the country--many of them, like Davis, up for reelection this year--are scrambling to get tough on terror. In all, 46 states are already debating legislation aimed at improving safety or punishing terrorists. But here's the rub: 43 states have declared significant budget shortfalls for fiscal 2002. Congress approved $8.3 billion for homeland security in December, but only $1.5 billion will be parceled out in state grants. Pols who want the glory of fighting terror are going to have to pay for it themselves.
Then, again, maybe they won't. Davis' most audacious proposal--allowing California cops to put a "roving wiretap" on any phone used by a suspect rather than on specific phone numbers (a power granted to the FBI last October)--is a canny merger of the dramatic and the cheap. No other state has sanctioned roving taps--hence the drama--and civil liberties, while priceless, are free. That helps explain why wiretap laws are also up for modification in Maryland, Illinois, New York and Michigan.
"Roving wiretaps sound a little more onerous than they are," says George Vinson, a former FBI counterterrorism expert who serves as Davis' special adviser on security. "People have this mythical view that Barney Fife can just go around with alligator clips listening to his wife's phone conversations. There's a tremendous amount of structure, oversight and review that's involved." Roving taps require probable cause, but once such cause is established in a terrorism case, the FBI has to be alerted anyway. So why does California or any other state need its own roving taps? Vinson points out that the FBI has only 1,300 agents in California, while the state's 90,000 officers could, with greater surveillance capabilities, keep suspected terrorists in check. Others point out that it's an election year.