California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

AB 928 — Child sexual exploitation: administrative subpoenas.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  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 2019-2020 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, generally 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, subpoena, or order for a pen register or trap and trace device, except for emergency situations, as defined. The Act does not limit the authority of a government entity to use an administrative subpoena to require a service provider to provide subscriber information, as defined. This bill would, notwithstanding the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, allow a peace officer investigating the sexual exploitation of children to issue an administrative subpoena to require the production of specified information relating to an internet service account, including any internet protocol address or username associated with the account, from a service provider.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.

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

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

  6. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  7. From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

  8. 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

Reconsideration.

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Total 8000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Santiago — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Diep — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

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

Failed 1 Yea · 3 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 1202
Democratic 0101
Republican 0001
Total 1304
% of votes cast 13%38%0%50%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Diep — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Nay
Quirk — Nay
Kamlager-Dove — Not Voting
Santiago — Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Not Voting
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

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 928 do?
Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, generally 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, subpoena, or order for a pen register or trap and trace device, except for emergency situations, as defined. The Act does not limit the authority of a government entity to use an administrative subpoena to require a service provider to provide subscriber information, as defined. This bill would, notwithstanding the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, allow a peace officer investigating the sexual exploitation of children to issue an administrative subpoena to require the production of specified information relating to an internet service account, including any internet protocol address or username associated with the account, from a service provider.
Who sponsors AB 928?
AB 928 is sponsored by Grayson, Timothy S. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 928?
This bill died with 2019-2020 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 928?
Track AB 928 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 928

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 928

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →