BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2055
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2055 (Fuentes)
As Amended August 22, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |72-0 |(May 3, 2012) |SENATE: |36-0 |(August 28, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB.S.
SUMMARY : Establishes procedures for the issuance of a search
warrant authorizing the electronic tracking of a vehicle.
The Senate amendments :
1)Expand the grounds to obtain a tracking-device search warrant
to include misdemeanor violations of the Fish and Game Code
and the Public Resources Code.
2)Specify that the provisions of this bill do not create a cause
of action against any foreign or California Corporation, its
officers, employees or agents who provide location information
to law enforcement.
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 an the persons or things to be seized."
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may
not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons and things to be seized."
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
AB 2055
Page 2
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
person, a thing or things, or personal property.
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.
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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill established procedures for
tracking-devices search warrants. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allowed a tracking-device search warrant to be issued when the
information to be received from the use of a tracking device
constitutes evidence that tends to show a felony has been
committed or is being committed, tends to show that a
particular person has committed a felony or is committing a
felony, or will assist in locating an individual who has
committed or is committing a felony.
2)Provided that a tracking-device search warrant shall be
executed in a manner meeting the requirements specified in
Penal Code Section 1534(b).
3)Required a tracking-device search warrant to identify the
person or property to be tracked and to specify a reasonable
length of time, not to exceed 30 days, from the date the
warrant is issued, that the device may be used.
AB 2055
Page 3
4)Allowed the court to grant one or more extensions for the time
that the device may be used if good cause is established.
5)Provided that each extension may last a reasonable length of
time, but may not exceed 30 days.
6)Stated that the search warrant shall command the officer to
execute the warrant by installing a tracking device or by
serving a warrant on a third-party possessor of the tracking
data.
7)Required the officer to perform any installation authorized by
the warrant during the daytime, unless the magistrate
expressly authorizes installation at another time for good
cause.
8)Mandated execution of the warrant to be completed no later
than 10 days immediately after the date of issuance.
9)Deemed a warrant executed within this 10-day period to be
timely executed.
10)Provided that after 10 days the warrant shall be void, unless
it has been executed.
11)Stated that an officer executing a tracking-device search
warrant is not required to knock and to announce his or her
presence before execution.
12)Required the officer executing the warrant to file a return
to the warrant no later than 10 calendar days after the use of
the tracking device has ended.
13)Required the officer executing the warrant to serve a copy of
the warrant on the person who was tracked or whose property
was tracked no later than 10 calendar days after the use of
the tracking device has ended.
14)Authorized a judge, for good cause, to delay service of a
copy of the warrant if a government agency makes this request.
15)Defined a "tracking device" as any electronic or mechanical
device that permits the tracking of the movement of a person
or object.
AB 2055
Page 4
16)Defined "daytime" as the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. according to local time.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "On January 23, 2012, the
United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Jones, that
the warrantless use of a self-contained GPS tracking device on a
motor vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the
vehicle's movements, constituted a "search" and therefore
violated the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not explicitly state that
a warrant was required to use a self-contained GPS tracking
device, nor did they state whether any of the exceptions to the
warrant requirement apply to the use of a self-contained GPS
tracking device. Because of the Court's silence courts and law
enforcement agencies are using different standards for the use
of these devices.
"AB 2055 would apply a uniform statewide standard for the use of
electronic tracking devices that would require law enforcement
to prepare a warrant that would require judicial review and
approval before they could be used in California. The language
in AB 2055 is modeled on the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0005490