BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1993
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1993 (Irwin)
As Amended May 12, 2016
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Public Safety |5-1 |Jones-Sawyer, Lopez, |Lackey |
| | |Low, Quirk, Santiago | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |13-5 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Gallagher, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Jones, Obernolte, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Wagner |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mandates that specified technology companies specify
law enforcement contacts to coordinate with law enforcement
agency investigations. Specifically, this bill:
AB 1993
Page 2
1)Provides that every specified service provider corporation
shall, at least annually, file a statement with the Attorney
General identifying the corporate law enforcement contact or
contacts. If a corporation designates any new corporate law
enforcement contact or contacts, the corporation shall file a
statement with the Attorney General identifying the new
corporate law enforcement contact or contacts.
2)Requires by July 1, 2017, specified technology corporations
shall, at minimum, provide the following through a specified
law enforcement contact:
a) An exclusive process for emergency disclosure requests;
b) Exclusive access and service for law enforcement
personnel;
c) An ability to comply with a law enforcement request for
information regardless of the location of the data;
d) Continual availability of the law enforcement contact;
and
e) The authority to make decisions regarding warrants and
the disclosure of information and data.
3)Requires a corporation subject to these provisions to respond
to a properly served warrant within five business days.
4)Provides that the specified corporations shall designate
corporate law enforcement contacts which are responsible for
the specified requirements. Those requirements may be
fulfilled by means of an internet web portal,
telecommunications, or any combination of those communication
methods.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW provides that the right of the people to be
AB 1993
Page 3
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
EXISTING STATE LAW:
1)Establishes rules and regulations for corporations to appoint
agents for service of process. Additionally, specifies rules
for when agents for service of process resign and the
designation of a new agent for service of process.
2)Prohibits exclusion of relevant evidence in a criminal
proceeding on the ground that the evidence was obtained
unlawfully, unless the relevant evidence must be excluded
because it was obtained in violation of the federal
Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
3)Defines a "search warrant" as a written order in the name of
the people, signed by a magistrate and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or
persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and in the
case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same
before the magistrate.
4)Provides the specific grounds upon which a search warrant may
be issued, including 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.
AB 1993
Page 4
5)Provides that a search warrant cannot be issued but upon
probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing
the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly
describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be
searched.
6)Requires a magistrate to issue a search warrant if he or she
is satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the
application or that there is probable cause to believe their
existence.
7)Requires a provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service to 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.
8)States that a governmental entity receiving subscriber records
or information is not required to provide notice to a
subscriber or customer of the warrant.
9)Authorizes a court issuing a search warrant, 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.
10)Requires a provider of wire or electronic communication
services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a
peace officer, to take all necessary steps to preserve records
and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a
AB 1993
Page 5
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: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown, but probably minor cost to DOJ. There is a
small number of communication service providers that qualify
under the provisions of this bill.
COMMENTS: According to the author,
Today most large tech companies, including
telecommunications, internet search, and social media
providers, receive hundreds of thousands of law
enforcement requests for data each year nationally.
These results can be broken down into these categories:
subpoenas, orders, warrants, and emergency requests.
These requests are intended to produce evidence or aid in
investigations related to violent crimes, credible
threats, organized crime, terrorist activities, search
and rescue situations- or when law enforcement is trying
to find a missing person, among others.
Technology companies have begun publishing annual
transparency reports about government data requests and
the company's policies for providing notice when the
government requests and accesses their data, and their
process for screening warrants, orders, and emergency
requests before handing over user content. The reports
also provide statistics detailing how many total requests
were received, how many resulted in data disclosure, and
AB 1993
Page 6
how many were rejected. While there appears to be some
consensus regarding industry best practices balancing
privacy and civil liberties with stewardship of public
safety, the lack of standardization and guidelines for
such requests is apparent.
For example, both AT&T and Verizon reported receiving
nearly 300,000 law enforcement requests each in 2015.
According to Verizon's transparency report, 'We carefully
review each demand we receive and, where appropriate, we
require law enforcement agencies to narrow the scope of
their demands or correct errors in those demands before
we produce some or all of the information sought.' Each
request goes through a screening process that can take
varying amounts of time depending on the company's
internal policies. Industry averages show that roughly
75% of requests result in some data being produced.
Given the increasing volume of these requests, and
varying company guidelines and internal policies, a level
of standardization and expectation needs to be assured.
AB 1993 addresses this issue by requiring companies that
generate large amounts of consumer data to standardize
their process for receiving and responding to law
enforcement requests for data to meet industry best
practices. AB 1993 will ensure a process for submitting
emergency disclosure requests that is continually
available, exclusive to law enforcement personnel for
emergency purposes, that data can be produced regardless
of where it is physically stored, and that the service
provider staff has first-hand decision-making authority
for disclosure of data. AB 1993 will ensure that in
emergency situations the interface between law
enforcement and companies with data relevant to the
situation meets minimum standards of effectiveness.
AB 1993
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by:
Gabriel Caswell/ PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN:
0002913