Communications: service interruptions.

Existing law provides that where a law enforcement official has probable cause to believe that a person is holding hostages and is committing a crime, or is barricaded and is resisting apprehension through the use or threatened use of force, the official may order a previously designated telephone corporation security employee to arrange to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines, as specified. This bill would prohibit a governmental entity, as defined, and a provider of communications service, as defined, acting at the request of a governmental entity, from undertaking to interrupt communications service, as defined, for the purpose of protecting public safety or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose, except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer, as defined, that makes specified findings and that is obtained prior to the interruption. The bill would require the order to clearly describe the specific communications service to be interrupted with sufficient detail as to customer, cell sector, central office, or geographical area affected and be narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances under which the order is made, and would require that the order not interfere with more communication than is necessary to achieve the purposes of the order. The bill would allow the order to authorize an interruption of communications service only for as long as is reasonably necessary, require that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption is abated, and require the order to specify a process to immediately serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the interruption. The bill would authorize a governmental entity to interrupt communications service without first obtaining a court order if it reasonably determines that an extreme emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger of death or great bodily injury and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first obtain a court order, and it complies with other specified requirements including, applying for a court order without delay, but within 6 hours after the commencement of the interruption of communications service. If the application is filed after the 6 hours, as the bill would authorize in an emergency, the application would be required to include a specified statement under penalty of perjury. Since perjury is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. Additionally, the bill would require a governmental entity to provide to the provider of communications service a signed statement of intent to apply for a court order signed by an authorized official. If a governmental entity does not apply for a court order within 6 hours due to the emergency, the bill would require the governmental entity to submit a copy of the signed statement of intent to the court within 6 hours. The bill would provide that good faith reliance upon an order of a judicial officer or a signed statement of intent to apply for a court order constitutes a complete defense for any communications service provider against any action brought as a result of the interruption of communications service as directed by that order or statement. The bill would also find and declare that ensuring that California users of any communications service not have this service interrupted and thereby be deprived of a means to connect with the state's 911 emergency services or be deprived of a means to engage in constitutionally protected expression, is a matter of statewide concern, and not a municipal affair, as provided. The bill would repeal these new provisions on January 1, 2020. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.