SB 380, as amended, Padilla. Communications: service interruptions.
Existing law provides that where a law enforcement official has probable cause to believe that a person is holding hostages and is committing a crime, or is barricaded and is resisting apprehension through the use or threatened use of force, the official may order a previously designated telephone corporation security employee to arrange to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines, as specified.
begin insertThis bill would prohibit a governmental entity, as defined, and a provider of communications service, as defined, acting at the request of a governmental entity, from undertaking to interrupt communications service, as defined, for the purpose of protecting public safety or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose, except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer, as defined, that makes specified findings. The bill would require the order to clearly describe the specific service to be interrupted with sufficient detail as to customer, cell sector, central office, or geographical area affected and be narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances under which the order is made, and would require that the order not interfere with more communication than is necessary to achieve the purposes of the order. The bill would allow the order to authorize an interruption of service only for as long as is reasonably necessary, require that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption is abated, and require the order to specify a process to immediately serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the interruption. The bill would provide that a good faith reliance upon an order of a judicial officer or a signed statement of intent to apply for a court order, as prescribed, constitutes a complete defense for any communications service provider against any action brought as a result of the interruption of communications service as directed by that order or statement.
end insertbegin insertThis bill would authorize a governmental entity to interrupt communications service without a court order if it reasonably determines that an extreme emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger of death and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first obtain a court order, and it complies with other specified requirements.
end insertbegin insertThe bill would also find and declare that ensuring that California users of any communications service not have this service interrupted and thereby be deprived of a means to connect with the state’s 911 emergency services or be deprived of a means to engage in constitutionally protected expression, is a matter of statewide concern, and not a municipal affair, as provided.
end insertThis bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to prohibit a governmental entity, or a provider of communications service acting at the request of a governmental entity, from interrupting communications service for the purpose of protecting public safety or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose, unless the interruption is authorized by an order signed by a judicial officer, with an exception for an interruption in extreme emergency circumstances.
end deleteVote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
begin insertThe Legislature hereby finds and declares all of
2the following:end insert
3(a) Preserving the availability and openness of communications
4networks is a bedrock principle of federal and state law and
5essential to commerce, public safety, and democracy.
P3 1(b) With email, data transfers, videoconferencing, ecommerce,
2and myriad online services now a core element of every type of
3economic activity, interruption of communications service deprives
4individuals and enterprises of the ability to participate in the
5modern economy, with significant financial impact even if an
6interruption is of short duration.
7(c) Interruption of communications service threatens public
8safety by depriving persons of the ability to call 911 and
9communicate with family, friends, employers, schools, and others
10in an emergency; deprives persons of the ability to receive wireless
11emergency alerts; and impairs the ability of first responders to
12communicate with each other.
13(d) The right of citizens to freedom of speech under the First
14Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2 of
15Article I of the California Constitution extends to speech through
16any technology, from the pamphlets and newspapers of the
17Founding Fathers to the emails, blogs, tweets, and texts of modern
18day citizens using wireless devices.
19(e) The power of new wireless devices and technologies for
20participation in democracy underscores the need to protect First
21Amendment rights and ensure that California and the United States
22do not take the path of
oppressive governments around the world
23that routinely shut down the Internet and wireless networks to
24silence public protest.
25(f) Interruption of communications service by a government
26entity that prevents citizens from communicating can be a “prior
27restraint” on speech, which the United States Supreme Court has
28held bears a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality and is
29justified only in exceptional circumstances.
30(g) The California Supreme Court has
held that a customer’s
31telephone service may be interrupted only as directed by a court
32order with a finding of probable cause that service is being used
33for an illegal purpose and that, absent immediate interruption of
34service, significant dangers to public health or safety will result.
35(h) In August 2011, the Bay Area Rapid Transportation District
36(BART) shut down wireless service for three hours in order to
37quash a public protest relating to a fatal shooting by BART police
38on a train platform.
39(i) In December 2011, BART adopted a policy authorizing
40wireless service shutdowns with no court review and no probable
P4 1cause requirement, which prompted a public inquiry by the Federal
2Communications Commission.
3(j) With more than 85 percent of American adults owning a
4wireless device, and use of wireless services and platforms
5expanding every day, protecting these services from interruption
6is more important than ever in order to protect commerce, public
7safety and First Amendment freedoms that are the core of
8democracy.
begin insertSection 7908 is added to the end insertbegin insertPublic Utilities Codeend insertbegin insert, to
10read:end insert
(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms
12have the following meanings:
13(1) “Communications service” means any communications
14service that interconnects with the public switched telephone
15network and is required by the Federal Communications
16Commission to provide customers with 911 access to emergency
17services.
18(2) “Governmental entity” means every local government,
19including a city, county, city and county, a transit, joint powers,
20special, or other district, the state, and every agency, department,
21commission, board, bureau, or other political subdivision of the
22state, or any authorized agent thereof.
23(3) “Interrupt communications service” means to knowingly or
24intentionally suspend, disconnect, interrupt, or disrupt
25communications service to one or more particular customers or
26all customers in a geographical area. “Interrupt communications
27service” does not include any interruption of service pursuant to
28a customer service agreement, a contract, a tariff, a provider’s
29internal practices to protect the security of its networks, Section
302876, 5322, or 5371.6, Section 149 or 7099.10 of the Business and
31Professions Code, or subdivision (d) of Section 4576 of the Penal
32Code.
33(4) “Judicial officer” means a magistrate, judge, justice,
34commissioner, referee, or any person appointed by a court to serve
35in one of these capacities of any state or federal court located in
36this state.
37(b) (1) Unless authorized pursuant to subdivision (c), no
38governmental entity and no provider of communications service,
39acting at the request of a governmental entity, shall interrupt
40communications service for the purpose of protecting public safety
P5 1or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal
2purpose, except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer
3obtained prior to the interruption. The order shall include all of
4the following findings:
5(A) That probable cause exists that the service is being or will
6be used for an unlawful purpose or to assist in a violation of the
7law.
8(B) That absent immediate and summary action to interrupt
9communications service, serious, direct, immediate, and
10irreparable danger to public
safety will result.
11(C) That the interruption of communications service is narrowly
12tailored to prevent unlawful infringement of speech that is
13protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
14or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution, or a
15violation of any other rights under federal or state law.
16(2) The order shall clearly describe the specific communications
17service to be interrupted with sufficient detail as to customer, cell
18sector, central office, or geographical area affected, shall be
19narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances under which the
20order is made, and shall not interfere with more communication
21than is necessary to achieve the purposes of the order.
22(3) The order shall
authorize an interruption of service only for
23as long as is reasonably necessary and shall require that the
24interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption
25is abated and shall specify a process to immediately serve notice
26on the communications service provider to cease the interruption.
27(c) (1) Communications service shall not be interrupted without
28a court order except pursuant to this subdivision.
29(2) If a governmental entity reasonably determines that an
30extreme emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger
31of death and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first
32obtain a court order, then the governmental entity may interrupt
33communications service without first obtaining a court order as
34required by this section, provided that the interruption meets the
35grounds for issuance of a
court order pursuant to subdivision (b)
36and that the entity does all of the following:
37(A) Apply for a court order without delay, and in no event, later
38than two hours after commencement of an interruption of
39communications service.
P6 1(B) Provide to the provider of communications service involved
2in the service interruption a statement of intent to apply for a court
3order signed by an authorized official of the governmental entity.
4The statement of intent shall clearly describe the extreme
5emergency circumstances, and the specific communications service
6to be interrupted with sufficient detail as to the customer, cell
7sector, central office, or geographical area affected.
8(C) Provide conspicuous notice of the application for a court
9order authorizing the
communications service interruption on its
10Internet Web site without delay, unless the circumstances that
11justify an interruption of communications services without first
12obtaining a court order justify not providing the notice.
13(d) An order to interrupt communications service, or a signed
14statement of intent provided pursuant to subdivision (c), that falls
15within the federal Emergency Wireless Protocol shall be served
16on the California Emergency Management Agency. All other orders
17to interrupt communications service or statements of intent shall
18be served on the communications service provider’s contact for
19receiving requests from law enforcement, including receipt of and
20responding to state or federal warrants, orders, or subpoenas.
21(e) A provider of communications service that intentionally
22interrupts communications
service pursuant to this section shall
23comply with any rule or notification requirement of the commission
24or Federal Communications Commission, or both, and any other
25applicable provision or requirement of state or federal law.
26(f) Good faith reliance by a communications service provider
27upon an order of a judicial officer authorizing the interruption of
28communications service pursuant to subdivision (b), or upon a
29signed statement of intent to apply for a court order that the
30government asserts meets the requirements of subdivision (c), shall
31constitute a complete defense for any communications service
32provider against any action brought as a result of the interruption
33of communications service as directed by that order or statement.
34(g) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring that
35California users of any
communications service not have that
36service interrupted, and thereby be deprived of 911 access to
37emergency services or a means to engage in constitutionally
38protected expression, is a matter of statewide concern and not a
39municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of
40the California Constitution.
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation
2to prohibit a governmental entity, or a provider of communications
3service acting at the request of a governmental entity, from
4interrupting communications service for the purpose of protecting
5public safety or preventing the use of communications service for
6an illegal purpose, unless the interruption is authorized by an order
7signed by a judicial officer, with an exception for an interruption
8in extreme emergency circumstances.
O
98