Electronic communication service or remote computing service records; obtaining records. (HB326)

Introduced By

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Obtaining electronic communication service or remote computing service records. Provides that any subpoena issued by a court or grand jury, search warrant, or court order directing a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose certain information related to a customer may provide that the service provider may not disclose the existence of the subpoena, search warrant, or order, except to an attorney to obtain legal advice, for a period of 90 days, subject to renewal for additional 90-day periods. The bill also provides that only a circuit court can issue an order for disclosure from a service provider when such disclosure is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation or the investigation of certain missing persons. Read the Bill »

Status

04/01/2016: signed by governor

History

DateAction
01/05/2016Committee
01/05/2016Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16101075D
01/05/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/14/2016Assigned to sub: Subcommittee Criminal Law
01/14/2016Assigned App. sub: Subcommittee Criminal Law
01/14/2016Assigned Courts sub:
01/27/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (10-Y 1-N)
02/03/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/03/2016Committee substitute printed 16104974D-H1
02/05/2016Read first time
02/08/2016Read second time
02/08/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16104974D-H1
02/08/2016Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB326H1
02/09/2016Read third time and passed House (98-Y 1-N)
02/09/2016VOTE: PASSAGE (98-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/10/2016Constitutional reading dispensed
02/10/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/29/2016Reported from Courts of Justice (10-Y 1-N 3-A) (see vote tally)
03/01/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Read third time
03/02/2016Passed Senate (34-Y 5-N) (see vote tally)
03/04/2016Enrolled
03/04/2016Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB326ER)
03/04/2016Signed by Speaker
03/07/2016Signed by President
03/08/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Monday, April 11, 2016
03/08/2016Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 3/8/2016
03/08/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, April 10, 2016
04/01/2016G Approved by Governor-Chapter 616 (effective 7/1/16)
04/01/2016G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0616)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 2 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES33, NOS 5, RULE 36, ONE. AYES 33, NOS 5, RULE 36, ONE. THE BILL MASSES. HOUSE BILL 3 OF A BILL RELATING TO OBTAINING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE RECORDS. REPORTED FROMTHE COMMITTEE FROM COURTS OF JUSTICE. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS. SPEAKING TO THE BILL. THIS BILL DEALS WITH SUMMON OR SUBPOENAS ISSUED FOR CERTAIN RECORDS. THESE ARE NOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS. THESE ARE SUBPOENAS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ISSUED UPON A HEARING AND CONCERN IN PARTICULAR BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROVIDES INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OTHERS WHO RECEIVE THESE SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS LIKE PIN NUMBERS OR IP ADDRESSES, LOCATIONS IS THAT THIS HE FEEL COMPELLED IN -- THEY FEEL COMPELLED IN SOME INSTANCES TO NOTIFY THEIR CUSTOMERS THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED A SUBPOENA. MOST OF THESE SUBPOENAS, MANY INVOLVE PREDATORY BEHAVIOR AND THE CONCERN IS, OF COURSE, IF THOSE SUSPECTS RECEIVE NOTICE THEY SLAP A MAGNET ON THE SLIDE OF THE COMPUTER OR DO SOMETHING ELSE TO DESTROY THE EVIDENCE IN AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. THIS PROHIBITS THE RECIPIENT OF THE SUBPOENA FROM INFORMING THE ACCOUNT PROVIDER OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENA FOR A 90 DAY PERIOD. THE QUESTION IS SHALL HOUSE BILL 326 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILLE S AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH

Comments

ACLU-VA Privacy Rights, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of Virginia strongly opposes this bill. Generally, real-time tracking data has been reserved for emergencies, such as amber alerts or suspected terrorist activity. The overly broad language in HB 326, however, would require a judge or magistrate to issue these far-reaching search warrants if law enforcement could simply demonstrate that the data is "relevant" to an ongoing investigation. The proposed amended language also allows for secret warrants to be issued under any circumstance, not just under exigent circumstances such as missing children. The ACLU of VA opposes such broad powers to issue secret warrants to track citizens.

ACLU-VA Privacy Rights writes:

The ACLU of Virginia strongly opposes this bill. Generally, real-time tracking data has been reserved for emergencies, such as amber alerts or suspected terrorist activity. The overly broad language in HB 326, however, would require a judge or magistrate to issue these far-reaching search warrants if law enforcement could simply demonstrate that the data is "relevant" to an ongoing investigation. The proposed amended language also allows for secret warrants to be issued under any circumstance, not just under exigent circumstances such as missing children. The ACLU of VA opposes such broad powers to issue secret warrants to track citizens.