BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  1


          Date of Hearing:   April 28, 2015
          Counsel:               David Billingsley



                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                                  Bill Quirk, Chair





          AB  
                     1310 (Gatto) - As Introduced  February 27, 2015




          SUMMARY:  Expands jurisdiction for crimes involving peeping by  
          use of camera, phone, or other instrumentality where intimate  
          images are captured and distributed. Expands the grounds for  
          issuance of a search warrant to cover property that consists of  
          evidence that tends to show conduct in violation of  peeping  
          with use of instrumentality and distribution of intimate images  
          obtained from the peeping.  Specifically, this bill: 

          1)Expands the jurisdiction of a criminal action for the conduct  
            specified in subdivision (j) of Section 647 to include the  
            county in which the offense occurred, the county in which the  
            victim resided at the time the offense was committed, or the  
            county in which the intimate image was used for an illegal  
            purpose.

          2)Allows prosecution in any of the jurisdictions when multiple  
            offenses of unauthorized distribution of an intimate image,  
            either all involving the same defendants or defendants and the  
            same intimate image belonging to the one person, or all  
            involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme  
            of substantially similar activity, occur in multiple  
            jurisdictions.








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  2



          3)Authorizes jurisdiction to extend to all associated offenses  
            connected together in their commission to the underlying  
            unauthorized distribution of an intimate image.

          4)Requires the court to hold a hearing to consider whether the  
            matter should proceed in the county of filing, or whether one  
            or more counts should be severed, when charges alleging  
            multiple offenses of unauthorized distribution of an intimate  
            image occurring in multiple territorial jurisdictions are  
            filed in one county.

          5)Requires the district attorney filing the complaint to present  
            evidence to the court that the district attorney in each  
            county where any of the charges could have been filed has  
            agreed that the matter should proceed in the county of filing.

          6)Requires the court to consider the location and complexity of  
            the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses  
            occurred, whether the offenses involved substantially similar  
            activity or the same scheme, the rights of the defendant and  
            the people, and the convenience of, or hard ship to, the  
            victim and witnesses.

          7)Requires the court to hold a hearing on its own motion, or the  
            motion of the defendant, to determine whether the county of  
            the victim's residence is the proper venue for trial, when an  
            action for unauthorized distribution of an intimate image is  
            filed in the county in which the victim resided at the time  
            the offense was committed and no other basis for the  
            jurisdiction applies. In ruling on the matter the court shall  
            consider the rights of the parties, the access of the parties  
            to evidence, the convenience to witnesses, and the interests  
            of justice.

          8)Expands the grounds for issuance of a search warrant to  
            include property or things to be seized which consist of  
            evidence that tends to show conduct in violation of  
            subdivision (j) of Section 647.

          EXISTING LAW:  









                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  3


          1)States that any person who looks through a hole or opening,  
            into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality,  
            including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope,  
            binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or  
            mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing  
            room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the  
            interior of any other area in which the occupant has a  
            reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade  
            the privacy of a person or persons inside is guilty of  
            disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd.  
            (j)(1).)

          2)States that any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion  
            picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to  
            secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic  
            means, another, identifiable person under or through the  
            clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of  
            viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other  
            person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person,  
            with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust,  
            passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the  
            privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the  
            other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy inside is  
            guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, §  
            647, subd. (j)(2).)



          3)States that any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion  
            picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to  
            secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic  
            means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of  
            full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body  
            of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without  
            the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior  
            of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing  
            room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in  
            which that other person has a reasonable expectation of  
            privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other  
            person inside is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.  
            (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(3)(A).)









                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  4


          4)States that any person who intentionally distributes the image  
            of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable  
            person, or an image of the person depicted engaged in an act  
            of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual  
            penetration, or an image of masturbation by the person  
            depicted or in which the person depicted participates, under  
            circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that  
            the image shall remain private, the person distributing the  
            image knows or should know that distribution of the image will  
            cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted  
            suffers that distress is guilty of disorderly conduct, a  
            misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(4)(A).)

             a)   Defines "distribution of an image" as when he or she  
               personally distributes the image, or arranges, specifically  
               requests, or intentionally causes another person to  
               distribute that image; (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(4)(B).)



             b)   Defines "intimate body part" as any portion of the  
               genitals, the anus and in the case of a female, also  
               includes any portion of the breasts below the top of the  
               areola, that is either uncovered or clearly visible through  
               clothing; and (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(4)(C).)



             c)   States that it shall not be a violation of this  
               paragraph to distribute an image described in subparagraph  
               (A) if any of the following applies:



               i)     The distribution is made in the course of reporting  
                 an unlawful activity. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd.  
                 (j)(4)(D)(i).)

               ii)    The distribution is made in compliance with a  
                 subpoena or other court order for use in a legal  
                 proceeding. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(4)(D)(ii).)









                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  5




               iii)   The distribution is made in the course of a lawful  
                 public proceeding. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd.  
                 (j)(4)(D)(iii).)


          5)Specifies that except as provided, when a public offense is  
            committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part  
            in another jurisdictional territory, or the acts or effects  
            thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the  
            offense occur in two or more jurisdictional territories, the  
            jurisdiction for the offense is in any competent court within  
            either jurisdictional territory. (Pen. Code, § 781.)



          6)Allows jurisdiction of a criminal action for identity theft,  
            to include the county where the theft of the personal  
            identifying information occurred, the county in which the  
            victim resided at the time the offense was committed, or the  
            county where the information was used for an illegal purpose.  
            . (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (b)(1).)




          7) Specifies that if multiple offenses of unauthorized use of  
            personal identifying information, either all involving the  
            same defendant or defendants and the same personal identifying  
            information belonging to the one person, or all involving the  
            same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or  
            substantially similar activity, occur in multiple  
            jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper  
            jurisdiction for all of the offenses. . (Pen. Code, § 786,  
            subd. (b)(1).)




          8)Allows jurisdiction to extend to all associated offenses  
            connected together in their commission to the underlying  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  6


            identity theft offense or identity theft offenses. (Pen. Code,  
            § 786, subd. (b)(1).)




          9)Specifies that when charges alleging multiple offenses of  
            unauthorized use of personal identifying information occurring  
            in multiple territorial jurisdictions are filed in one county  
            pursuant to this section, the court shall hold a hearing to  
            consider whether the matter should proceed in the county of  
            filing, or whether one or more counts should be severed. The  
            district attorney filing the complaint shall present evidence  
            to the court that the district attorney in each county where  
            any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that the  
            matter should proceed in the county of filing. (Pen. Code, §  
            786, subd. (b)(1).)




          10)Requires that in determining whether all counts in the  
            complaint should be joined in one county for prosecution, the  
            court shall consider the location and complexity of the likely  
            evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, whether  
            or not the offenses involved substantially similar activity or  
            the same scheme, the rights of the defendant and the people,  
            and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim and  
            witnesses. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (b)(1).) 




          11)Multiple charges of rape, child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual  
            acts with children, or stalking involving the same defendant  
            and victim, that occurred in multiple jurisdictions, can be  
            tried in any jurisdiction in which one of the acts occurred.  
            (Pen. Code, § 784.7.)












                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  7


          12)The trial for child abduction may be held in the jurisdiction  
            from which the child was taken, in the jurisdiction where the   
            child was held, or in the jurisdiction where the child was   
            found.  (Pen. Code, § 784.5.)




          13)When property taken in one jurisdiction by burglary,  
            carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement is brought or  
            received in another jurisdiction, the trial can be held in  
            either jurisdiction.  The trial can also be tried in a  
            contiguous jurisdiction if the defendant is arrested in that  
            jurisdiction, the prosecution secures on the record the   
            defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the  
            right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or   
            more property crimes in the arresting territory.  (Pen. Code,  
            § 786.)




          14)Two or more offenses connected together in their commission  
            or in the same class of crimes or offenses may be joined in  
            one accusatory pleading.  (Pen. Code, § 954.)



          15)Provides that a search warrant may be issued upon any of the  
            following grounds:




             a)   When the property was stolen or embezzled; (Pen. Code, §  
               1524, subd. (a)(1).)



             b)   When the property or things were used as the means of  
               committing a felony; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(2).) 









                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  8





             c)   When the property or things are in the possession of any  
               person with the intent to use them as a means of committing  
               a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom  
               he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of  
               concealing them or preventing them from being discovered;  
               (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(3).)




             d)   When the property or things to be seized consist of any  
               item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony  
               has been committed, or tends to show that a particular  
               person has committed a felony; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd.  
               (a)(4).)




             e)   When the property or things to be seized consist of  
               evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a  
               child, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of  
               a person under 18 years of age, has occurred or is  
               occurring; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(5).)




             f)   When there is a warrant to arrest a person; (Pen. Code,  
               § 1524, subd. (a)(6).)




             g)   When a provider of electronic communication service or  
               remote computing service has records or evidence, as  
               specified, showing that property was stolen or embezzled  
               constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are  
               in the possession of any person with the intent to use them  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  9


               as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or  
               in the possession of another to whom he or she may have  
               delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or  
               preventing their discovery; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd.  
               (a)(7).)




             h)   When the property or things to be seized include an item  
               or any evidence that tends to show a violation of duty to  
               secure workers compensation; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd.  
               (a)(8).)




             i)   When the property or things to be seized include a  
               firearm or any other deadly weapon at the scene of, or at  
               the premises occupied or under the control of the person  
               arrested in connection with, a domestic violence incident  
               involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, as  
               specified; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(9).)




             j)   When the property or things to be seized include a  
               firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in  
               the possession of, or in the custody or control of a person  
               who has been detained for an examination of their mental  
               condition; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(10).)




             aa)  When the property or things to be seized include a  
               firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in  
               the custody or control of, a person who is subject to the  
               prohibitions regarding firearms as specified in the family  
               code, if a prohibited firearm is possessed, owned, in the  
               custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  10


               protective order has been issued as specified in the family  
               code, the person has been lawfully served with that order,  
               and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as  
               required by law; (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(11).)




             bb)  When the information to be received from the use of a  
               tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show  
               that either a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish  
               and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public  
               Resources Code has been committed or is being committed;  
               (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(12).)




             cc)  When a sample of the blood of a person constitutes  
               evidence that tends to show a violation of driving under  
               the influence and the person from whom the sample is being  
               sought has refused an officer's request to submit to, or  
               has failed to complete, a blood test as required, and the  
               sample will be drawn from the person in a reasonable,  
               medically approved manner. This paragraph is not intended  
               to abrogate a court's mandate to determine the propriety of  
               the issuance of a search warrant on a case-by-case basis;  
               and (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(13).)




             dd)  Beginning January 1, 2016, the property or things to be  
               seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned  
               by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of a  
               person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining  
               order, if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is  
               possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a  
               person against whom a gun violence restraining order has  
               been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that  
               order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm  
               as required by law. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(14).)








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  11






          16)The property, things, person, or persons described in  
            subdivision (a) may be taken on the warrant from any place, or  
            from any person in whose possession the property or things may  
            be. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (b).)



          17)Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or (b), no search warrant  
            shall issue for any documentary evidence in the possession or  
            under the control of any person who is a lawyer, a  
            psychotherapist, or a member of the clergy and who is not  
            reasonably suspected of engaging or having engaged in criminal  
            activity related to the documentary evidence for which a  
            warrant is requested unless specified procedures have been  
            complied with:



          18)In addition to any other circumstance permitting a magistrate  
            to issue a warrant for a person or property in another county,  
            when the property or things to be seized consist of any item  
            or constitute any evidence that tends to show a violation of  
            identity theft, the magistrate may issue a warrant to search a  
            person or property located in another county if the person  
            whose identifying information was taken or used resides in the  
            same county as the issuing court. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd.  
            (j).)




          19)States that a provider of electronic communication service or  
            remote computing service, as specified, shall disclose to a  
            governmental prosecuting or investigating agency the name,  
            address, local and long distance telephone toll billing  
            records, telephone number or other subscriber number or  
            identity, and length of service of a subscriber to or customer  
            of that service, and the types of services the subscriber or  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  12


            customer utilized, when the governmental entity is granted a  
            search warrant. (Pen. Code 1524.3, subd. (a).)




          20)Specifies that a governmental entity receiving subscriber  
            records or information under this section is not required to  
            provide notice to a subscriber or customer. (Pen. Code 1524.3,  
            subd. (b).)




          21)Allows a court issuing a search warrant, as specified, on a  
            motion made promptly by the service provider, to quash or  
            modify the warrant if the information or records requested are  
            unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with the warrant  
            otherwise would cause an undue burden on the provider. (Pen.  
            Code 1524.3, subd. (c).)




          22)States that a provider of wire or electronic communication  
            services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a  
            peace officer, shall take all necessary steps to preserve  
            records and other evidence in its possession pending the  
            issuance of a search warrant or a request in writing and an  
            affidavit declaring an intent to file a warrant to the  
            provider. Records shall be retained for a period of 90 days,  
            which shall be extended for an additional 90-day period upon a  
            renewed request by the peace officer. (Pen. Code 1524.3, subd.  
            (d).)
          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:  

          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "It is essential  
            that we protect our communities from criminals who exploit and  
            violate their victims' privacy and then "hide in plain sight"  
            behind computer screens and jurisdictional technicalities.   








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  13


            The justice system is intended to protect the public and bring  
            justice to victims.  Criminals shouldn't be allowed to use  
            legal technicalities as a shield against prosecution.  AB 1310  
            will give law enforcement the necessary tools to investigate  
            and prosecute cyber exploitation cases by allowing a case to  
            be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the victim resides and  
            allowing search warrants to be issued for the timely  
            investigation of cyber exploitation crimes."

          2)Jurisdiction:  Jurisdiction is generally established by the  
            location where the crime occurred.  Jurisdiction exists in the  
            county in which the crime occurred.  When a crime is committed  
            in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another  
            jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction for the offense is  
            in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory.  
            (Pen. Code, § 781.)  

          The Legislature has made provisions that in certain situations  
            where the criminal activity occurred in different geographic  
            jurisdictions in the state, sometimes with multiple victims,  
            it is appropriate to consolidate the prosecution in one  
                                                                                          jurisdiction (county).  Existing law provides for such  
            consolidation where the crime of identity theft is involved.  
            (Pen. Code, § 786.)  The proposed legislation seeks to  
            incorporate the same jurisdictional language used in cases of  
            identity theft and extend it to cases that involve "revenge  
            porn" and other specified crimes of a similar nature.

          In 2002, the Legislature enacted law which allowed trial in one  
            county of identity theft crimes that occurred in multiple  
            counties and involved a single victim.  (SB 1773 (Wayne), Ch.  
            908, Stats. 2002.)  At issue, was the fact that an identity  
            thief can relatively easily and quickly use a victim's  
            identifying information in many counties across the state.   
            The Legislature recognized that such cases can give rise to  
            overlapping prosecutions, leading to numerous problems,  
            including investigation and evidence collection problems,  
            claims that the first prosecutor to file charges should have  
            resolved all charges arising out of an incident and others.   
            To address such concerns, the applicable venue section was  
            amended to direct a court to consider whether all charges  
            should be tried in one county, or whether some charges should  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  14


            be severed and tried in a different county.  The prosecutor in  
            such a case was directed to obtain the agreement of the  
            district attorneys in the other counties where venue would  
            also lie.

          Consolidation of these types of cases can improve judicial  
            economy in other respects as well.   Where a common scheme is  
            involved, evidence from each incident or crime is typically  
            admissible as to each offense.  Requiring separate prosecution  
            in each county where related identity theft cases occurred  
            could result in presentation of the same evidence in each  
            county resulting in a waste of judicial, prosecution and  
            defense resources.

          In 2009, the Legislature expanded the jurisdictional provisions  
            for identity theft to include situations multiple victims  
            involving the same defendant or defendants as part of the same  
            scheme or substantially similar activity. (SB 226 (Alquist),  
            Ch. 40, Stats. 2009.)

          This legislation seeks to address similar jurisdictional issues  
            which can arise when prosecuting "revenge porn" cases.  In  
            those cases, the distribution of images can potentially  
            involve multiple counties and victims. 

          3)Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA):  The ECPA is  
            federal law which protects communication based upon its form.   
            It protects wire and electronic communication content in  
            storage by the provider.   The ECPA applies to all parties,  
            private and law enforcement alike.  However, for law  
            enforcement, there are mechanisms for requiring disclosure to  
            the government by public Electronic Communication Service  
            (ECS) Providers of information regarding an electronic  
            communication.  The most well-known example of an ECS would be  
            an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as America On Line,  
            Hotmail, or Yahoo. 

          A public or private ECS is generally prohibited from voluntarily  
            disclosing the content of wire and electronic communication  
            intercepted during transmission.  The four exceptions to this  
            rule are: (1) where the addressee / sender consents to the  
            disclosure;  (2) where the communication provider is permitted  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  15


            to disclose customer communications in emergencies involving  
            an immediate risk of death or serious physical injury to a  
            person;  (3) when the disclosure is necessary to protect the  
            rights or property of the communication service provider;  and  
            (4) where the communication provider inadvertently obtains  
            information that pertains to the commission of a crime.  



          4)Search Warrants Seeking Electronic Information in  
            Investigations of Misdemeanor Conduct:  Search warrants are  
            generally limited to cases where law enforcement is  
            investigating felony conduct.  However, the law provides law  
            enforcement to seek and obtain search warrants under specific  
            circumstances involving misdemeanor conduct.

          Law enforcement can seek a search warrant to investigate  
            misdemeanor criminal conduct when a provider of electronic  
            communication service or remote computing service has records  
            or evidence showing that property was stolen or embezzled  
            constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in  
            the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a  
            means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the  
            possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered  
            them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their  
            discovery. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(7).)  Under those  
            circumstances, the  investigating agency can obtain a search  
            warrant for the name, address, local and long distance  
            telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other  
            subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a  
            subscriber to or customer of that service, and the types of  
            services the subscriber or customer used. (Pen. Code 1524.3,  
            subd. (a).)



          5)Amendments Proposed by Committee:  The Committee has suggested  
            amendments at the request of the chair which would to limit  
            any use of a search warrant for "revenge porn" and other  
            specified misdemeanors, to exclude the content of any  
            electronic communications.  









                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  16




          6)Argument in Support:  According to The California Police  
            Chiefs Association, "AB 1310 would permit the seizure of cyber  
            exploitation, commonly referred to as 'revenge porn' images as  
            grounds for issuance of a search warrant, giving law  
            enforcement the ability to search electronic databases and  
            retrieve the victims' images.  It would additionally allow the  
            prosecuting district attorney's office to bring an action  
            against an individual in the jurisdiction in which the  
            individual whose image was published resides.  Since poster  
            and website operators commonly reside outside of the victims'  
            jurisdiction, this would relieve some of the burden placed on  
            the victim during prosecution.  The justice system is intended  
            to protect the public and bring justice to victims.  Criminals  
            shouldn't be allowed to use legal technicalities as a shield  
            against prosecution."



          7)Argument in Opposition:  According to California Attorneys for  
            Criminal Justice, "AB 1310 would expand the power of our  
            courts to issue search warrants in misdemeanor matters other  
            than those narrow exceptions that were recently engrafted into  
            the Penal Code(under the aegis of public safety in drunk  
            driving refusal matters).  Those provisions allow merely a  
            blood draw (not a residential search), to occur for purposes  
            of proving an extremely harmful misdemeanor.  AB 1310 would  
            unnecessarily allow the issuance of warrants to search private  
            residences day or night for evidence of what amounts to, at  
            worst, a ubiquitous and easily detected public nuisance.

          "While the advent of requiring a warrant in circumstances not  
            familiar to law enforcement may have justified recent  
            amendments to 1524 that apply in certain DUI cases, CACJ is  
            concerned that AB 1310 shares none of the public safety  
            imperatives that occur when a suspected drunk driver refuses  
            to provide a blood or breath sample.  There appears to be no  
            urgency, or exigence, that would justify the issuance of a  
            warrant to search private homes for evidence that conduct in  
            violation of subdivision (j) of Section 647 has occurred or is  
            occurring.  AB 1310 is simply unnecessary. PPP Any valid  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  17


            search warrant requires the police to swear out an affidavit  
            that contains some evidence that what they are looking for  
            will be found at the place to be searched.  However, if the  
            police already have that much evidence that a violation of  
            647(j) has or will occur, then it is the better practice to  
            prove this via subpoena or summons to ISP providers for ISP  
            address information and other means that are readily available  
            to law enforcement."



          8)Related Legislation:  SB 178 (Leno) prohibits a government  
            entity from compelling the production of or access to  
            electronic communication information or electronic device  
            information, as defined, without a search warrant or wiretap  
            order, except for emergency situations, as defined.  SB 178 is  
            awaiting hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. 



          9)Prior Legislation:  



             a)   SB 255 (Cannella), Chapter 466, Statutes of 2013,  
               provides that any person who photographs or records by any  
               means the image of the intimate body part or parts of  
               another identifiable person, under circumstances where the  
               parties agree or understand that the image shall remain  
               private, and the person subsequently distributes the image  
               taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress,  
               and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress,  
               is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to that same  
               punishment.



             b)   SB 612 (Simitian), Chapter 47, Statutes of 2008,  
               expandes the jurisdictional provisions to include the  
               crimes of unauthorized retention and transfer of personal  
               identifying information when crimes involved identity  
               theft.  Added  the county in which the victim resided at  








                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  18


               the time the offense was committed to the jurisdictions in  
               which a criminal action may be brought for commission of  
               these crimes.



             c)   SB 226 (Alquist), Chapter 40, Statutes of 2009, provides  
                that when multiple offenses occur in multiple  
               jurisdictions and all of the offenses involve the same  
               defendant or defendants and either the same personal  
               identifying information of one person or the same scheme or  
               substantially similar activity, then jurisdiction for all  
               offenses, including associated offenses connected together  
               in their commission to an underlying identity theft  
               offense, is proper in any one of the counties where one of  
               the offenses occurred.


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support

          Attorney General Kamala Harris
          Association of Deputy District Attorneys
          Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs 
          California District Attorneys Association
          California Police Chiefs Association
          California State Sheriffs' Association
          Crime Victims United of California
          Los Angeles Police Protective League
          Peace Officers Research Association of California 
          Riverside Sheriffs Association

          Opposition
          California Public Defenders Association
          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
                                               
          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744











                                                                    AB 1310


                                                                    Page  19