BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1310
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1310 (Gatto)
As Amended April 29, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Public Safety |7-0 |Quirk, Melendez, | |
| | |Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, | |
| | |Low, Santiago, Weber | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Privacy |11-0 |Gatto, Wilk, Baker, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, Chau, | |
| | |Cooper, Dababneh, | |
| | |Dahle, Gordon, Low | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Expands jurisdiction for crimes involving peeping by use
of camera, phone, or other instrumentality where intimate images
are captured and distributed. Allows law enforcement to use a
search warrant to get the contents of communications between
customer and service provider. Specifically, this bill:
1)Expands the jurisdiction of a criminal action for specified
conduct, including "revenge porn" and peeping with a recording
device, 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.
AB 1310
Page 2
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.
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
AB 1310
Page 3
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)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, the types of services the subscriber or customer
utilized, and the contents of communication originated by or
addressed to the service provider when the governmental entity
is granted a search warrant, as specified.
9)Requires that the search warrant be limited to only that
information necessary to achieve the objective of the warrant,
including by specifying the target individuals or accounts, the
applications or services, the types of information, and the time
periods covered, as appropriate.
10)Specifies that information obtained through the execution of a
search warrant pursuant to this section that is unrelated to the
objective of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to
further review without an order from the court.
11)States that a governmental entity receiving subscriber records
or information under this section is required to provide notice
to a subscriber or customer upon receipt of the requested
records. This notification may be delayed by the Court, in 90
day increments, upon showing that there is reason to believe
that notification of the existence of the search warrant may
AB 1310
Page 4
have an adverse result.
12)States that upon expiration of the period of delay of
notification, if any, the governmental entity shall provide
written notice, by regular mail or email, to the subscriber or
customer, a copy of the process or request together with notice
that: -
a) States with reasonable specificity the nature of the law
enforcement inquiry; and
b) Informs such customer or subscriber -
c) That information maintained for such customer or
subscriber by the service provider named in such process or
request was requested by that governmental authority and
supplied to that governmental authority, and the date on
which the request and supplying took place;
i) That notification of such customer or subscriber was
delayed, if notice was delayed; and
ii) What court issued the order pursuant to which that
delay was made; and
iii) A copy of the written inventory of the property taken
that was provided to the court pursuant to Penal Code
Section 1537.
13)Provides that notice need not be provided if it would do any of
the following:
a) Endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
b) Flight from prosecution;
AB 1310
Page 5
c) Destruction of or tampering with evidence;
d) Intimidation of potential witnesses; or
e) Otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or
unduly delaying a trial.
EXISTING LAW:
1)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.
2)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.
3) 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.
4)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.
5)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.
6)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.
7)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.
8)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 customer
utilized, when the governmental entity is granted a search
warrant.
9)Specifies that a governmental entity receiving subscriber
records or information under this section is not required to
provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
AB 1310
Page 7
10)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.
11)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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: 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. 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."
Analysis Prepared by:
David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000295
AB 1310
Page 8