California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 156 — Human trafficking: interception of electronic communications.

Last action — From committee without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2015, the Attorney General, or other specified prosecuting officers at the Department of Justice, or a district attorney, to apply for, and a judge to enter, an ex parte order authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes a judge to enter an order authorizing the interception of communications initially intercepted within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting, if the judge determines that, among other things, there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit one of specified felony offenses, including murder and the illegal possession or sale of controlled substances. Existing law proscribes the crime of human trafficking, as defined to include, among other prohibited acts, depriving or violating the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services or to effect or maintain a specified criminal offense, or inducing or persuading a minor to engage in a commercial sex act. This bill would expand the provisions described above authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications to apply if a judge determines that, among other things, there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a violation of the provision described above proscribing human trafficking. (2) Existing law specifies obligations for parties applying for and carrying out orders to intercept communications pursuant to the provision described above, and makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor or felony. This bill would broaden the types of communications to which these crimes would apply. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

  2. In committee: Set, final hearing. Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Set, second hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (March 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

  8. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  9. From printer. May be heard in committee February 22.

  10. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Brown · Cosponsor
  • Cannella · Cosponsor
  • Holden · Primary
  • Lieu · Cosponsor
  • Liu · Cosponsor
  • Padilla · Cosponsor
  • Wilk · Cosponsor
  • Yamada · Cosponsor
  • Beth Gaines · Cosponsor
  • V. Manuel Pérez · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 9 co-sponsors · 112 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Holden

Co-sponsors (9)

Not signed on (112)

112 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 112 →

"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

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
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 156 do?
(1) Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2015, the Attorney General, or other specified prosecuting officers at the Department of Justice, or a district attorney, to apply for, and a judge to enter, an ex parte order authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes a judge to enter an order authorizing the interception of communications initially intercepted within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting, if the judge determines that, among other things, there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit one of specified felony offenses, including murder and the illegal possession or sale of controlled substances. Existing law proscribes the crime of human trafficking, as defined to include, among other prohibited acts, depriving or violating the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services or to effect or maintain a specified criminal offense, or inducing or persuading a minor to engage in a commercial sex act. This bill would expand the provisions described above authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications to apply if a judge determines that, among other things, there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a violation of the provision described above proscribing human trafficking. (2) Existing law specifies obligations for parties applying for and carrying out orders to intercept communications pursuant to the provision described above, and makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor or felony. This bill would broaden the types of communications to which these crimes would apply. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
Who sponsors AB 156?
AB 156 is sponsored by Brown, Cannella, Holden, Lieu, Liu, Padilla, Wilk, Yamada, Beth Gaines, and V. Manuel Pérez.
What is the current status of AB 156?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 156?
Track AB 156 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 156

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 156

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →