Bill Text: CA AB1310 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Chaptered
Bill Title: Disorderly conduct: unlawful distribution of image.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Passed) 2015-10-08 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 643, Statutes of 2015. [AB1310 Detail]
Download: California-2015-AB1310-Chaptered.html
BILL NUMBER: AB 1310 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 643
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 8, 2015
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 8, 2015
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2015
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 7, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 29, 2015
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Gatto
FEBRUARY 27, 2015
An act to amend Sections 786 and 1524.3 of the Penal Code,
relating to disorderly conduct.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1310, Gatto. Disorderly conduct: unlawful distribution of
image.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to look through a hole or
opening, into, or to view, by means of any instrumentality, the
interior of an area in which an occupant has a reasonable expectation
of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of that person.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to record another person under or
through the clothing worn by that person, without the consent or
knowledge of the person, under circumstances in which the person has
a reasonable expectation of privacy. Existing law makes it a
misdemeanor to secretly record another person in a state of full or
partial undress without the consent or knowledge of that person, in
an area in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally distribute an
image of the intimate body part or parts of another person, or an
image of the person depicted engaging in specified sexual acts, under
circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the
image remain private, the person distributing the image knows or
should know that distribution of the image will cause serious
emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress.
Existing law establishes the proper jurisdictions of a criminal
action for unauthorized use, retention, or transfer of personal
identifying information to include the county where the theft
occurred, the county in which the victim resided at the time of the
offense, or the county where the information was used for an illegal
purpose.
This bill would apply those jurisdictional provisions to the
misdemeanors described above.
Existing law details procedures for a governmental entity to
gather specified records from a provider of electronic communication
service or a remote computing service by search warrant. Existing law
specifies that no notice is required to be given to a subscriber or
customer by a governmental entity receiving records pursuant to these
procedures.
This bill would additionally authorize a governmental entity to
use those procedures to gather the contents of communications between
the subscriber and the service provider. The bill would require a
search warrant used under those procedures to be limited to only that
information necessary to achieve the objective of the warrant, as
specified. The bill would require information obtained through the
execution of a search warrant pursuant that is unrelated to the
objective of the warrant to be sealed and not be subject to further
review without an order from the court. The bill would require the
governmental entity to provide a specified notice to the customer or
subscriber upon receipt of the requested records. The bill would
authorize a delay of that notice in 90-day increments if there is
reason to believe notification would may have an adverse effect, as
defined.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 786 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
786. (a) If property taken in one jurisdictional territory by
burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been
brought into another, or when property is received in one
jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen
or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another
jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any
competent court within either jurisdictional territory, or any
contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the
contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the
defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right
of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property
crimes in the arresting territory.
(b) (1) The jurisdiction of a criminal action for unauthorized
use, retention, or transfer of personal identifying information, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, shall also include the
county where the theft of the personal identifying information
occurred, the county in which the victim resided at the time the
offense was committed, or the county where the information was used
for an illegal purpose. If multiple offenses of unauthorized use of
personal identifying information, either all involving the same
defendant or defendants and the same personal identifying information
belonging to the one person, or all involving the same defendant or
defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity,
occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a
proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses. Jurisdiction also
extends to all associated offenses connected together in their
commission to the underlying identity theft offense or identity theft
offenses.
(2) When charges alleging multiple offenses of unauthorized use of
personal identifying information occurring in multiple territorial
jurisdictions are filed in one county pursuant to this section, the
court shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should
proceed in the county of filing, or whether one or more counts should
be severed. The district attorney filing the complaint shall present
evidence to the court that the district attorney in each county
where any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that the
matter should proceed in the county of filing. In determining whether
all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county for
prosecution, the court shall consider the location and complexity of
the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred,
whether or not the offenses involved substantially similar activity
or the same scheme, the rights of the defendant and the people, and
the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim and witnesses.
(3) When an action for unauthorized use, retention, or transfer of
personal identifying information is filed in the county in which the
victim resided at the time the offense was committed, and no other
basis for the jurisdiction applies, the court, upon its own motion or
the motion of the defendant, shall hold a hearing to determine
whether the county of the victim's residence is the proper venue for
trial of the case. In ruling on the matter, the court shall consider
the rights of the parties, the access of the parties to evidence, the
convenience to witnesses, and the interests of justice.
(c) (1) The jurisdiction of a criminal action for conduct
specified in paragraph (4) of subdivision (j) of Section 647 shall
also include the county in which the offense occurred, the county in
which the victim resided at the time the offense was committed, or
the county in which the intimate image was used for an illegal
purpose. If multiple offenses of unauthorized distribution of an
intimate image, either all involving the same defendant or defendants
and the same intimate image belonging to the one person, or all
involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or
substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then
any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the
offenses. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses
connected together in their commission to the underlying unauthorized
distribution of an intimate image.
(2) When charges alleging multiple offenses of unauthorized
distribution of an intimate image occurring in multiple territorial
jurisdictions are filed in one county pursuant to this section, the
court shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should
proceed in the county of filing, or whether one or more counts should
be severed. The district attorney filing the complaint shall present
evidence to the court that the district attorney in each county
where any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that the
matter should proceed in the county of filing. In determining whether
all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county for
prosecution, the court shall consider the location and complexity of
the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred,
whether the offenses involved substantially similar activity or the
same scheme, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the
convenience of, or hardship to, the victim and witnesses.
(3) When an action for unauthorized distribution of an intimate
image is filed in the county in which the victim resided at the time
the offense was committed, and no other basis for the jurisdiction
applies, the court, upon its own motion or the motion of the
defendant, shall hold a hearing to determine whether the county of
the victim's residence is the proper venue for trial of the case. In
ruling on the matter, the court shall consider the rights of the
parties, the access of the parties to evidence, the convenience to
witnesses, and the interests of justice.
(d) This section does not alter victims' rights under Section
530.6.
SEC. 2. Section 1524.3 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
1524.3. (a) A provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service, as used in Chapter 121 (commencing with
Section 2701) of Title 18 of the United States Code, shall disclose
to a governmental prosecuting or investigating agency the name,
address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records,
telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length
of service of a subscriber to or customer of that service, the types
of services the subscriber or customer utilized, and the contents of
communication originated by or addressed to the service provider when
the governmental entity is granted a search warrant pursuant to
paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 1524.
(b) The search warrant shall be limited to only that information
necessary to achieve the objective of the warrant, including by
specifying the target individuals or accounts, the applications or
services, the types of information, and the time periods covered, as
appropriate.
(c) Information obtained through the execution of a search warrant
pursuant to this section that is unrelated to the objective of the
warrant shall be sealed and not be subject to further review without
an order from the court.
(d) (1) A governmental entity receiving subscriber records or
information under this section shall provide notice to a subscriber
or customer upon receipt of the requested records. The notification
may be delayed by the court, in increments of 90 days, upon a showing
that there is reason to believe that notification of the existence
of the search warrant may have an adverse result.
(2) An "adverse result" for purposes of paragraph (1) means any of
the following:
(A) Endangering the life or physical safety of an individual.
(B) Flight from prosecution.
(C) Tampering or destruction of evidence.
(D) Intimidation of a potential witness.
(E) Otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly
delaying a trial.
(e) Upon the expiration of the period of delay for the
notification, the governmental entity shall, by regular mail or
email, provide a copy of the process or request and a notice, to the
subscriber or customer. The notice shall accomplish all of the
following:
(1) State the nature of the law enforcement inquiry with
reasonable specificity.
(2) Inform the subscriber or customer that information maintained
for the subscriber or customer by the service provider named in the
process or request was supplied to or requested by the governmental
entity, and the date upon which the information was supplied, and the
request was made.
(3) Inform the subscriber or customer that notification to the
subscriber or customer was delayed, and which court issued the order
pursuant to which the notification was delayed.
(4) Provide a copy of the written inventory of the property that
was taken that was provided to the court pursuant to Section 1537.
(f) A court issuing a search warrant pursuant to paragraph (7) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1524, on a motion made promptly by the
service provider, may quash or modify the warrant if the information
or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance
with the warrant otherwise would cause an undue burden on the
provider.
(g) A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a
remote computing service, upon the request of a peace officer, shall
take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in
its possession pending the issuance of a search warrant or a request
in writing and an affidavit declaring an intent to file a warrant to
the provider. Records shall be retained for a period of 90 days,
which shall be extended for an additional 90-day period upon a
renewed request by the peace officer.
(h) No cause of action shall be brought against any provider, its
officers, employees, or agents for providing information, facilities,
or assistance in good faith compliance with a search warrant.
