California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 358 — Criminal procedure: privacy.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced January 30, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Senate.

Prognosis

Advancing 48% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Assembly

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 24).

  5. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  6. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 63. Noes 1. Page 1556.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 30).

  10. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  11. Coauthors revised.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

  13. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.

  14. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  15. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

  16. Read second time and amended.

  17. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (March 11).

  18. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and P. & C.P.

  19. From printer. May be heard in committee March 2.

  20. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 358 Alvarez Assembly Third Reading

Passed 63 Yea · 1 Nay · 15 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 451013
Republican 17002
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 631015
% of votes cast 80%1%0%19%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Not Voting
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Nay
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Not Voting
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Not Voting
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Not Voting
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Not Voting
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Not Voting
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Not Voting
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Not Voting
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Not Voting
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Not Voting
Castillo, Leticia Republican Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Ellis, Stan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 4000
Democratic 10001
Total 14001
% of votes cast 93%0%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Not Voting
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7004
Republican 3001
Total 10005
% of votes cast 67%0%0%33%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Not Voting
Ortega, Liz Democratic Not Voting
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Not Voting
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Democratic 4003
Total 6003
% of votes cast 67%0%0%33%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
González, Mark Democratic Not Voting
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Not Voting
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Not Voting
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 358 do?
Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.
Who sponsors AB 358?
AB 358 is sponsored by Alvarez, David (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 358?
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced January 30, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track AB 358?
Track AB 358 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 358

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 358

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →