Privacy: electronic communications: warrant.
Summary
Existing law authorizes a court or magistrate to issue a warrant for the search of a place and the seizure of property or things identified in the warrant where there is probable cause to believe that specified grounds exist. Existing law also provides for a warrant procedure for the acquisition of stored communications and other identifying information in the possession of a foreign corporation that is a provider of electronic communication services or remote computing services to the general public, and procedures for a California corporation that provides electronic communication services or remote computing services to the general public when served with a warrant issued by a court in another state. This bill would delete the warrant requirement that the providers of electronic communication services or remote computing services be providing those services to the general public. This bill would prohibit a governmental entity, as defined, from obtaining the contents of a wire or electronic communication from a provider of electronic communication services or remote computing services that is stored, held, or maintained by that service provider without a valid search warrant issued by a duly authorized magistrate, with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation, using established warrant procedures. The bill would require, within 3 days after a governmental entity receives those contents from a service provider pursuant to the warrant, the governmental entity to serve upon or deliver to the subscriber, customer, or user a copy of the warrant and a notice, as specified, including certain information. The bill would authorize a delay in serving the warrant notice, as provided. This bill would prohibit, except as provided, a person or entity providing electronic communication services or remote computing services from knowingly divulging to any person or entity the contents of a wire or electronic communication that is stored, held, or maintained by that service provider. Any knowing or intentional violation of these provisions, except as provided, would be subject to a civil action with appropriate relief, including, but not limited to, actual damages of not less than $1,000, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. Existing law prohibits a cause of action against a foreign or California corporation or other entity, as specified, for providing records, information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a warrant. This bill would also prohibit a cause of action against a foreign or California corporation or other entity, as specified, that provides records, information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to statutory authorization, as specified.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Sep 2013
Senate Passage
Aug 2013
Assembly Passage
Sep 2013
Vetoed
Oct 2013
Introduced Feb 21, 2013
Vetoed Oct 12, 2013
Floor votes · Senate May 13, 2013 · Assembly Sep 9, 2013
How they voted
31–1
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
May 13, 2013
D
Democratic26
92% Yea
R
Republican9
77% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
35
Key actions
10
Committee
11
Amendments
1
Feb 27, 2014
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 12, 2013
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 12, 2013
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Sep 10, 2013
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 34. Noes 1. Page 2291.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 9, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (63-3-2)
assembly
Sep 9, 2013
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 26, 2013
Upper · Passed
Action rescinded whereby the bill was read third time, passed, and ordered to the Senate.
upper
Jul 2, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 2).
lower
Jun 25, 2013
Lower · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jun 20, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 12, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 11). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
May 24, 2013
Committee
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
lower
May 13, 2013
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (31-1-3)
senate
May 1, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
May 1, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 756.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 3, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and APPR.
upper
Apr 1, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Mar 11, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
ML
Mark Leno
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 467
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 467. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline