Nevada panel hears bill to update subpoena powers for social media and remote computing in child exploitation probes

Assembly Bill 172, presented Monday to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would broaden Nevada's legal definition of providers so law enforcement can use administrative subpoenas to obtain subscriber information, IP addresses and other account metadata from social media and remote computing services during investigations of online crimes against children.

The bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen, who told the committee the change would bring state law "into the year 2025 and further" and align Nevada more closely with federal law. "This legislation is crucial in ensuring our laws keep pace with technological advancements," Hansen said.

AB 172 would add statutory definitions for "electronic communication system" and "remote computing service" and mirror language used in federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 2703, supporters told the committee. Detective Bradley Sage of the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, who investigates internet crimes against children, said social media companies have begun denying subpoenas based on Nevada's current statutory language, which he described as outdated.

"Nevada still carries this outdated Internet communications view," Sage said. He told the committee investigators sometimes find a locked phone with an Instagram message but cannot obtain account details under current state law to establish probable cause for a warrant. "With an administrative subpoena, that was how we would do it," he said. "Right now, we have that gap in our investigative abilities."

Lieutenant Jason Walker of the Washoe County Sheriff's Office said the existing NRS definition dates from 2007 and lists only traditional internet service providers, such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. He and other presenters argued that modern communications commonly occur on platforms—Facebook, Instagram, X, Snapchat, Discord—that do not themselves provide a subscriber'level internet connection but do offer remote storage and processing of communications.

Assemblymember Shannon Roth asked whether AB 172 would remove warrant requirements for obtaining content. Detective Sage replied that the change is intended to be a "building block" for investigations: administrative-subpoenaed subscriber data would be one step toward establishing probable cause for a warrant, not a replacement for warrant safeguards. "The data we would receive from an administrative subpoena would be one of the steps to establish probable cause," he said.

Several law-enforcement organizations and officials testified in support, arguing the bill would close a gap that can stall investigations. Jennifer Noble of the Nevada District Attorneys' Association said AB 172 seeks only subscriber information—"not the content of the messages"—and described the change as analogous to older methods for obtaining a name, address and phone number. Jason Woodard of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, Joshua Martinez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Dan Gordon of the Nevada Police Union and a City of Henderson representative each voiced support.

Presenters pointed to other states that have adopted similar language or referenced 18 U.S.C. 2703 in state law; supporters said mirroring federal terminology ("electronic communications provider" and "remote computing service") would reduce the lag between technological change and statutory authority.

The committee heard questions about whether the bill would codify the federal provision by reference or instead adopt parallel state definitions; presenters said codifying the federal language or mirroring it would avoid repeated updates as technology evolves. Assemblymember Will Cole urged considering citation of the federal code so state law would move in step with future federal changes.

No vote was recorded during the hearing. The committee closed the public hearing on AB 172 after receiving testimony from supporters and noting no callers on the public lines. The bill will proceed in the legislative process for further consideration and any committee action to follow.