Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Location Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly adopts bill tightening warrant rules for law‑enforcement access to location and electronic data
Summary
Assembly Bill 2565 passed after debate over emergency exceptions and procedural safeguards for law‑enforcement access to electronic location information; sponsors said the measure modernizes warrant requirements while critics warned it could hamper urgent investigations.
The Assembly passed Assembly Bill 2565 on Wednesday, a measure that tightens the circumstances under which law enforcement may obtain electronic-location and communications information without a warrant and creates reporting and post‑execution oversight requirements.
The bill’s sponsor, Mister Dinowitz, said the legislation updates search-and-seizure rules for a digital era and emphasized that, in many cases, obtaining a warrant remains appropriate. On the floor he told colleagues that “the prudent thing to do would be to obtain a warrant” when investigators encounter potentially probative electronic information during other lawful, warrantless access.
Members questioned how the bill would affect investigations that require immediate action. Mister Morinello asked whether officers could check device “pings” to identify who had been at a location without a warrant; Dinowitz replied that the bill does not necessarily prevent immediate investigative steps but that, where a danger of death or serious injury exists, emergency requests are possible and—per the sponsor—warrants should be sought “after the fact…within 3 days.”
The statute also requires law-enforcement agencies to submit annual reports describing use of the authority and requires the attorney general to receive notifications and, where no target is identified, a report within three days of execution. The attorney general’s office is given limited redaction authority and may bring civil actions to compel compliance. Dinowitz said the measure tries to balance constitutional privacy protections with investigative needs; critics argued the provision allowing targets to petition courts to quash warrants or seek destruction of electronic data could delay urgent probes.
After debate, the Assembly recorded 97 ayes and 51 noes and passed the bill. Supporters described the bill as necessary modernization; opponents warned it risked frustrating time-sensitive criminal investigations and urged changes to reporting and target-disclosure provisions.
The bill takes effect immediately, per the clerk’s announcement on the floor, and contains reporting and post-execution procedures that prosecutors, law-enforcement agencies and civil‑liberties groups are likely to monitor closely for implementation.
