California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB304

Introduced
1/29/19  
Introduced
1/29/19  
Refer
2/7/19  
Report Pass
3/12/19  
Refer
3/12/19  
Refer
3/20/19  
Refer
3/20/19  
Report Pass
5/16/19  
Engrossed
5/28/19  
Refer
5/29/19  
Refer
6/6/19  
Report Pass
6/25/19  
Refer
6/25/19  
Refer
6/25/19  
Refer
7/8/19  
Refer
7/8/19  
Report Pass
8/30/19  
Enrolled
9/9/19  
Enrolled
9/9/19  
Chaptered
10/8/19  

Caption

Wiretapping: authorization.

Impact

The extension of these wiretapping provisions means that law enforcement agencies in California can continue to apply for court orders to intercept wire or electronic communications, which they argue is essential for investigating and preventing serious crimes. However, by extending these provisions without requiring reimbursement for local agencies, the bill raises questions about the financial implications for local governance and law enforcement budgets, particularly how they will manage any related costs.

Summary

Assembly Bill 304, authored by Jones-Sawyer, amends Section 629.98 of the Penal Code regarding the procedures for wiretapping and electronic communication interception. Originally set to expire on January 1, 2020, the bill extends the operation of existing laws governing the authorization for law enforcement to intercept communications until January 1, 2025. By doing this, the bill aims to maintain current law enforcement capabilities related to wiretapping, ensuring that necessary tools remain available for prosecutorial use as technology evolves.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 304 appears neutral to positive among law enforcement officials, as the extension of wiretapping provisions is generally seen as a crucial tool for crime prevention and prosecution. Nevertheless, the lack of required reimbursements may draw criticism from local agencies concerned about unfunded mandates and the potential burden this places on their resources. The discussions surrounding this bill suggest that while some see it as necessary for public safety, others express concerns regarding the implications of extending such measures.

Contention

Notably, one point of contention is the bill's provision that states no reimbursement is required for local agencies. This aspect may lead to debates about financial responsibility and resource allocation for law enforcement agencies, particularly in jurisdictions that may struggle with the costs associated with wiretapping processes. Furthermore, while proponents argue that continued wiretap authorization aids in combating serious crimes, opponents may highlight civil liberties concerns regarding surveillance and privacy infringements.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2303

Agave spirits: labeling.

CA SB790

Public records: contracts for goods and services.

CA AB2380

Online pet retailers: retail financing options.

CA AB268

State mandates.

CA AB1550

Renewable hydrogen.

CA SB345

Law enforcement agencies: public records.

CA SB698

Employee wages: payment.

CA SB1234

Employee wages: payment.