BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1993
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1993 (Irwin)
As Amended August 19, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |54-19 |(May 19, 2016) |SENATE: | | (August 25, |
| | | | |25-13 |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY: Mandates that specified technology companies specify
law enforcement contacts to coordinate with law enforcement
agency investigations.
The Senate amendments:
1)Make technical, non-substantive changes to the bill.
2)Declares that provisions of this bill are intended to reduce
investigation time and facilitate efficient communication
between law enforcement personnel and electronic communication
service providers that provide service to the general public
and that have received requests from law enforcement personnel
for electronic communication and electronic communication
information. They shall not be construed to apply to a person
AB 1993
Page 2
or entity solely on the basis that the person or entity is a
subscriber to an electronic communication service or a
customer of an electronic communication service provider.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW provides that the right of the people to be
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 3
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
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
AB 1993
Page 4
be extended for an additional 90 day period upon a renewed
request by the peace officer.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:
1)Provided 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)Required 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)Required a corporation subject to these provisions to respond
to a properly served warrant within five business days.
4)Provided 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.
AB 1993
Page 5
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, one-time costs potentially in excess of $250,000 and
ongoing costs of less than $100,000 (General Fund) to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to receive, review, and consolidate
the service provider statements to make a record available to
law enforcement agencies, as well as to update the record for
revised and new provider statements on a continual basis.
Workload costs would be dependent on the volume of service
provider statements filed, which is unknown but potentially
significant given the broad definition of "service provider"
potentially subject to the reporting requirements 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 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.
AB 1993
Page 6
"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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN:
0004806
AB 1993
Page 7