BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 828|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 828
Author: Lieu (D) and Anderson (R), et al.
Amended: 5/6/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 4/29/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: De Le�n
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Assistance to federal agencies
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits the State of California from
helping the federal government collect metadata without consent
or a warrant.
ANALYSIS : The United States Constitution 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."
The California Constitution 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;
CONTINUED
SB 828
Page
2
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."
Existing law defines a "search warrant" as an order in writing
in the name of the People, signed by a magistrate, directed to a
peace officer, commanding him/her to search for a person(s), 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.
This bill provides that the state shall not provide material
support, participation, or assistance to any federal agency
attempting the illegal and unconstitutional collection of
electronic data or metadata, without consent, of any person not
based on a valid warrant that particularly describes the person,
place, and thing to be searched or seized or a court order, or
in accordance with judicially recognized exceptions to warrant
requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/9/14)
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Consumer Federation of California
Media Alliance
Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church, Pasadena, CA
Pacifica Peace People
Restore the Fourth
San Francisco 99% Coalition
Tenth Amendment Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/9/14)
California District Attorneys Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the authors:
Over the last seven years, the National Security Agency (NSA)
has collected phone record data on every telephone call made
or received by every American. Media articles also state the
NSA's surveillance program on Americans extends to not just
SB 828
Page
3
phone records, but also all types of electronic data,
including emails, text messages and information stored on
Americans' smart phones.
To collect electronic and metadata information, the NSA
sometimes relies upon services provided by the state and/or
private entities that provide services on behalf of the
state. In order to prevent taxpayers' money from going
towards violating their own rights, this bill would ban state
agencies, officials, and corporations providing services on
behalf of the state from giving any material support,
participation or assistance to any federal agency to collect
electronic or metadata of any person, unless there has been a
warrant issued that specifically describes the person, place
and thing to be searched or seized.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys
Association opposes this bill stating in part:
As written, SB 828 is overly broad and lacks definitions of
"electronic data" and "metadata", which are two key terms in
the bill. An internet search for a definition of these terms
returns a number of examples that are inconsistent with each
other. The bill should define these terms to resolve any
ambiguity.
JG:d 5/13/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****