California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1034 — Government interruption of communications.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 322, Statutes of 2017.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 9 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 authorizes a supervising law enforcement official with probable cause to believe that a person is holding hostages and is committing a crime, or is barricaded and is resisting apprehension through the use or threatened use of force, to order a telephone corporation security employee to arrange to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines for the purpose of preventing telephone communication by the suspected person with any person other than a peace officer or person authorized by a peace officer. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, prohibits a governmental entity and a provider of communications service acting at the request of a governmental entity from interrupting communications service for the purpose of protecting public safety or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose, except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer, as specified. Existing law allows the order to authorize an interruption of communications service only for as long as is reasonably necessary, requires that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption is abated, and requires the order to specify a process to immediately serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the interruption. Existing law authorizes interruption of a communications service without first obtaining a court order under extreme emergency situations, as specified. This bill would repeal all of those provisions. This bill would instead prohibit any government entity, or service provider acting at the request of a government entity, from interrupting a communication service either to prevent the communications service from being used for an illegal purpose or to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The bill would authorize a government entity to interrupt a communications service for either of those purposes in an extreme emergency situation, as specified, or if the interruption is authorized by a court order. The bill would require the application for a court order under its provisions to require specified information, and would authorize the court to grant the order if specified conditions are met, including, among other things, there is probable cause that the communication is being or will be used for an unlawful purpose and that absent immediate and summary action to interrupt the communication service, serious, direct, and immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare will result. The bill would require the order to contain specified information, including a statement of the duration of the authorized interruption. The bill would require a government entity interrupting a communications service due to an extreme emergency situation to apply for a court order without delay, and if possible, to file the application within 6 hours after commencement of interruption. The bill would require the government entity, if it does not apply for an application within 6 hours, to apply within 24 hours after commencement of the interruption and include a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the reason for the delay. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that good faith reliance by a service provider on a court order issued pursuant to these provisions is a defense for the service provider against any action brought as a result of the interruption of a communications service authorized by that order. The bill would allow a person whose communications service has been interrupted pursuant to these provisions to petition the superior court to contest the grounds for interruption and restore the interrupted service. 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. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 322, Statutes of 2017.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 2927.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 2 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2346.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  9. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From Consent Calendar.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  12. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  15. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 3).

  16. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on E., U. & C. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 20). Re-referred to Com. on E., U. & C.

  17. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S., E., U. & C. and JUD.

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

  19. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1857.)

  20. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  21. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 24).

  22. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  24. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  25. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  26. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  27. Referred to Coms. on C. & C. and JUD.

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

  29. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Chau · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Chau

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 1034 CHAU Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 76 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 55003
Democratic 15000
Republican 6000
Total 76003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Holden — Yea
Levine — Yea
Medina — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Not Voting
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Harper — Yea
Salas — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Burke — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gray — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Low — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooper — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Chávez — Not Voting
Cooley — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB1034 Chau By Roth

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 33002
Democratic 5000
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Not Voting
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
De León — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Beall — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Newman — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6002
Democratic 3000
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Not Voting
Hueso — Yea
Morrell — Not Voting
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Cannella — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1034 CHAU Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 55002
Democratic 16000
Republican 6001
Total 77003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Eggman — Not Voting
Chu — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Harper — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Wood — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Salas — Yea
Burke — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Gray — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chau — Not Voting
Chiu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Daly — Yea
Medina — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass. To Consent Calendar.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12000
Democratic 4000
Republican 1000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Democratic 2000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Ting — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 9000
Republican 2000
Total 13000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Wood — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Low — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety 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 1034 do?
Existing law authorizes a supervising law enforcement official with probable cause to believe that a person is holding hostages and is committing a crime, or is barricaded and is resisting apprehension through the use or threatened use of force, to order a telephone corporation security employee to arrange to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines for the purpose of preventing telephone communication by the suspected person with any person other than a peace officer or person authorized by a peace officer. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, prohibits a governmental entity and a provider of communications service acting at the request of a governmental entity from interrupting communications service for the purpose of protecting public safety or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose, except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer, as specified. Existing law allows the order to authorize an interruption of communications service only for as long as is reasonably necessary, requires that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption is abated, and requires the order to specify a process to immediately serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the interruption. Existing law authorizes interruption of a communications service without first obtaining a court order under extreme emergency situations, as specified. This bill would repeal all of those provisions. This bill would instead prohibit any government entity, or service provider acting at the request of a government entity, from interrupting a communication service either to prevent the communications service from being used for an illegal purpose or to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The bill would authorize a government entity to interrupt a communications service for either of those purposes in an extreme emergency situation, as specified, or if the interruption is authorized by a court order. The bill would require the application for a court order under its provisions to require specified information, and would authorize the court to grant the order if specified conditions are met, including, among other things, there is probable cause that the communication is being or will be used for an unlawful purpose and that absent immediate and summary action to interrupt the communication service, serious, direct, and immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare will result. The bill would require the order to contain specified information, including a statement of the duration of the authorized interruption. The bill would require a government entity interrupting a communications service due to an extreme emergency situation to apply for a court order without delay, and if possible, to file the application within 6 hours after commencement of interruption. The bill would require the government entity, if it does not apply for an application within 6 hours, to apply within 24 hours after commencement of the interruption and include a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the reason for the delay. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that good faith reliance by a service provider on a court order issued pursuant to these provisions is a defense for the service provider against any action brought as a result of the interruption of a communications service authorized by that order. The bill would allow a person whose communications service has been interrupted pursuant to these provisions to petition the superior court to contest the grounds for interruption and restore the interrupted service. 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 1034?
AB 1034 is sponsored by Chau.
What is the current status of AB 1034?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1034?
Track AB 1034 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1034

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 1034

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →