Real-time location data; disclosure in emergencies. (HB875)

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

WITH THAT OBJECTION, HOUSE BILL 703 WILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY. HOUSE BILL 875 A BILL RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF REAL TIME LOCATION DATA IN EMERGENCIES. REPORTED FROM THE THE COURTS OF. JUSTIS. THE NO ARE FROM ROCKINGHAM. I MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS AND SPEAKING TO THE BILL. THIS BILL PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND OBTAIN REAL TIME LOCATION DATA FROM AN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE, A CELL PHONE PROVIDER OR OTHER REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS WHEN THE OFFICER BELIEVES THAT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING IMMEDIATE DANGER TO A PERSON AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL GIVE THE PROVIDERS SOME COMFORT IN PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION. IT IS NOT A BILL THAT COMPELS THEM TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, BUT IT FACILITATES THE SHARING OF INFORMATION IN CASES OF EMERGENCY. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSEN.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A YES?

[Unknown]: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): I YIELD.

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS, SENATOR. THE GENTLEMAN DESCRIBED THIS IN HIS REMARKS IT WOULD APPLY WHEN THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND YET I AM LOOKING AT LINE 76 AND 77 WHERE IT STRIKES THE REFERENCE TO EMERGENCY INVOLVING DANGER TO A PERSON REQUIRES DISCLOSURE. SO, IN LIGHT OF THAT LANGUAGE BEING STRUCK COULD HE EXPLAIN HIS EXPLANATION. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I WOULD ENDEAVOR TO, HOWEVER, I AM JUST GOING TO ASK THAT THIS GO BYE TEMPORARILY WHILE I TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OR I YIELD TO THE SENATOR FROM STAFFORD. THE SENATOR FROM STAFFORD, SENATOR STEWART. I THINK IF THE GENTLEMAN LOOKS AT LINE 73 IT SAYS THE INVESTIGATE EASTBOUND OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BELIEVES THERE IS AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING IMMEDIATE DANGER. THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS STRICKEN IS THAT THE POSSESSOR OF THE REAL TIME DATA I.E. THE PHONE COMPANY BELIEVES THERE IS A REAL DANGER. THIS IS PUTTING IT IN THE LAND HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IF THEY BELIEVE SOMEONE IS IN DANGER. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. WOULD THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL YES? I WILL. AND IF I NEED HELP I KNOW WHERE TO FIND IT. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT REFERS TO I BELIEVE A TECHNOLOGY CALLED STINGRAYS WHERE THEY TRACK CERTAIN CARS AND THEY TRACK YOU KNOW, CERTAIN I GUESS CARS IT WOULD BE. AND THEN TYPICALLY WE HAVE TRIED TO LIMIT THAT TECHNOLOGY FROM A CIVIL LIBERTIES PERSPECTIVE AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE TAKING LANGUAGE OUT OF THE CODE THAT FOR BETTER OR FOR USE PUTS SOME LIMITATION ON THE USE OF THAT TECHNOLOGY. AM I MISTAKEN IN THAT UNDERSTANDING? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN IT DEALS WITH A NUMBER OF TECHNOLOGIES. THE ONE MOST PROM INENTLY MENTIONED IN THE HEARINGS IS CELL PHONES. IT WOULD ALLOW A CELL PHONE PROVIDER TO PROVIDE LOCATION DATE AND INFORMATION. THESE ARE COMMERCIAL ENTITIES WHO HAVE DATA IN USING THE CELL PHONE COMPANY AS AN EXAMPLE IF SOMEBODY HAS DISAPPEARED, AND THERE IS LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT THEIR SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AS QUICKLY POSSIBLE THEY CAN ASK. THEY CAN'T COMPEL THE INFORMATION UNDER THE LEGISLATION. IS SIMPLY PERMITS THEM TO ASK AND PERMITS THE PROVIDER TO PROVIDE THAT. IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY FOR SOME REASON THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE IT. MR. PRESIDENT, COULD THIS BILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY. WITH THAT OBJECTION, HOUSE

---

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS, SHALL HOUSE BILL 703 PASS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE. ARE ALL THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES? THE THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 32, NOS 8. AYES 32, NOS 8. THE BILL PASSES. HOUSE BILL 875, A BILL RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF REAL TIME LOCATION DATA IN EMERGENCIES. REPORTING FOR THE COMMITTEE OF COURTS OF JUSTICE. SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN. MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THE BILL PASS. SPEAKING TO THE BILL, I EXPLAINED THIS BRIEFLY YESTERDAY, AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL DOES AND DOESN'T COVER. REMEMBER, IT'S A BILL THAT ALLOWS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE CASE OF EMERGENCY TO REQUEST A CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY TO PROVIDE LOCATION DATA, AND I WOULD POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS GOING TO ALLOW THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES TO PROVIDE THAT DATA. SECOND OF ALL, IT DOES NOT RELATE TO REALLY FOLKS OTHER THAN TELEPHONE COMPANIES. THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER IT RELATED TO TRACKING DEVICES THAT WE'VE REGULATED AND OTHER INSTANCES. MR. PRESIDENT, IT DOES NOT. BUT ALSO TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS, THIS IS KNOWN AS THE KELSEY SMITH ACT, AND IT'S NAMED AFTER AN 18-YEAR-OLD YOUNG WOMAN. HER NAME WAS KELSEY SMITH. AND SHE WAS ABDUCTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT FROM A TARGET STORE IN OVER LAND, KANSAS IN 2007. ABOUT THREE HOURS AFTER SHE WAS ABDUCTED, HER CAR WAS FOUND IN THE TARGET PARKING LOT, AND HER FAMILY AND HER FRIENDS ASKED THE POLICE TO BEGIN SEARCHING FOR HER. ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER KELSEY WAS KIDNAPPED, A SIGNAL FROM HER CELL PHONE WAS PICKED UP. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS REACHED OUT TO HER CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, AND ASKED FOR THE PING RECORDS THAT WOULD HELP LOCATE HER LOCATION VIA HER CELL PHONE. THE CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY DID NOT DO IT. IT REFUSED. IT WAS NOT UNTIL ABOUT 3 DAYS LATER THAT THEY TURNED OVER THE RECORDS, AND WHEN THEY DID TURN OVER THE RECORDS, IT TOOK AUTHORITIES ONLY 45 MINUTES, TOOK THEM 45 MINUTES TO BE ABLE TO LOCATE KELSEY. UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT THEY LOCATED WAS HER DEAD BODY. SHE WAS FOUND DEAD AFTER BEING RAPED AND MURDERED. KELSEY'S PARENTS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN MORE THAN 20 STATES. IT HAS SAVED LIVES, AND IT HAS THE CAPACITY TO SAVE LIVES HERE IN VIRGINIA. SO MR. PRESIDENT, WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO THE BACKGROUND, I HOPE THAT THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WAS OFFERED BY THE DELEGATE FROM FAIRFAX, AND IT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY WOULD PASS THIS GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION, ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY, MR. PRESIDENT, COMING ON A DAY JUST FOLLOWING THE REALLY EMOTIONAL EVENTS OF THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE. THIS HAS THE REAL ABILITY TO ADDRESS THE HEARTACHE OF PARENTS. IT HAS THE REAL AICT ABILITY TO SAVE LIVES OF OUR KIDS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND ELSEWHERE. SO IT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT THIS BILL WILL PASS. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE, I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROCKINGHAM FOR HIS EXPLANATION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAS MUCH TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THIS BILL. THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THIS BILL DEALS WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT BEFORE YOU CAN OBTAIN DATA, AND THE EXCEPTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW IS WHERE A POLICE OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS, AND THAT IS ALSO ACCEPTED IN GOOD FAITH BY THE EMERGENCY -- THE PERSON -- THE DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN REQUIRED FROM. YOU MIGHT ASK, WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE A ROLE? THEY HOLD THE DATA. THE BOTTOM LINE, IS YOU GO GET A SEARCH WARRANT. YOU CAN'T JUST REQUEST IT. YOU HAVE TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT FROM IT. THAT'S REALLY THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. AND WE HAD THIS IMEPTION EXCEPTION WRITTEN INTO THE CODE, BUT IT WAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE REQUIREMENT, AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS ESSENTIALLY GUT IT BY SAYING NOW ANY TIME A POLICE OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVES AN EMERGENCY EXISTS, THEY CAN REQUEST THIS CELL TOWER DATA. ANYONE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND HAVE A POLICE OFFICER SAY THEY UNREASONABLY WANT SOMETHING? OF COURSE NOT. ANY TIME BY DEFINITION THEY REQUEST SOMETHING, IT'S GOING TO BE REASONABLE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE HAD A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. WE'VE GOT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY. WE'RE TRYING TO PUT SOME LIMITS SO THERE ARE SOME FOURTH AMENDMENT PARAMETERS AROUND IT. AGAIN, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO AND GET A SEARCH WARRANT. THEY'RE AVAILABLE 24/7. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF WE ADOPT THIS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD, BUT IT WILL BE CERTAINLY ONE STEP BACK IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. BLACK. A COUPLE OF POINTS. WHILE I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN ABOUT THE WARRANT, IT'S ALWAYS BEST TO OBTAIN A WARRANT, BUT BECAUSE WE CANNOT ALWAYS DO IT IN A TIMELY FASHION, FOURTH AMENDMENT INJURES -- JURIS PRUDENCE HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE CONCEPT OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CAN TAKE ACTION BECAUSE THERE SIMPLY IS NOT TIME WITHOUT RISKING LIFE OR LIMB. MY NEPHEW IS A MAJOR WITH THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, AND ONE OF HIS MORE DISTRESSING DAYS WAS WHERE THEY GOT A CALL FROM A WOMAN WHO HAD DEMENTIA, AND SHE HAD DRIVEN OFF AND SHE HAD GOTTEN LOST, AND IT WAS A BLITSERRING -- BLISTERING HOT DAY, AND SHE JUST FINALLY DROVE UNTIL SHE STOPPED, AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. SOMEHOW, SHE WAS ABLE TO MAKE A CALL, AND SHE WAS ABLE TO GET THEM ON THE LINE AND TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, AND THEY SAID, WELL, JUST OPEN THE DOOR AND LET YOURSELF OUT. GET OUT OF THE CAR, AND SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO DO THAT. SHE WAS SO CONFUSED THAT SHE COULDN'T GET OUT OF THE CAR. AND THEY TALKED HER THROUGH IT, AND THEY STRUGGLED TO GET HER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TO DO. CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU ARE? SHE COULDN'T SAY WHERE SHE WAS. AND EVENTUALLY SHE DIED. HE WAS VERY DEVASTATED BY THE FACT THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED, AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS. I REALLY BELIEVE IN PRIVACY, AND I THINK PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE PRIVACY, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE CALL EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS NOT TIME. THERE WAS NO TIME. THE TEMPERATURE WAS SOARING IN THAT CAR, AND SHE WAS TOTALLY CONFUSED. SHE COULDN'T GET OUT. WHAT DO YOU DO? SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO TAKE ACTION, AND I THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW FOR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THIS BILL DOES THAT. SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL PASS THE BILL. THANK YOU SENATOR. SENATOR FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, SENATOR MCPIKE. MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING ON THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. SPEAKING FOR THIS BILL, AS A PARENT OF THREE GIRLS, FRANKLY, OUR OLDEST GIRL, WHEN SHE GOT TO MIDDLE SCHOOL, WE BOUGHT HER A CELL PHONE AND BOUGHT HER A CELL PHONE FOR EMERGENCIES AND PROTECTION. I VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS HERE, BUT THIS CLEARLY DELINEATES INVOLVING THE IMMEDIATE DANGER TO A PERSON. I'M VOTING FOR THIS BILL AND FOR EVERY PARENT WHO HAS ALSO BOUGHT THEIR KID A CELL PHONE FOR THIS EXACT REASON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN. MR. PRESIDENT, I'M IN A POSITION TO WRAP THIS UP. ABSOLUTELY SENATOR. ALL RIGHT. MR. PRESIDENT, JUST VERY BRIEFLY, WHAT I WILL SAY ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS. NO. 1, SEARCH WARRANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE 24/7 IN VIRGINIA. SOME PLACES THEY ARE. A LOT OF PLACES AROUND VIRGINIA, THEY JUST AREN'T. YOU JUST CAN'T GET A MAGISTRATE, CAN'T GET IN. SECOND OF ALL, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ABOUT FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS, IF I DIDN'T PROVE THAT I'M A CONSTITUTIONAL PURIST YESTERDAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN DO. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THERE REALLY ISN'T A FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUE HERE. WE'RE NOT ASKING AND SPECIFICALLY WE'RE CARVING OUT THE PERSONALIZED COMMUNICATION OF THE CONTENT. WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT VERIZON OR T MOBILE OR WHATEVER THE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS, IS TO PROVIDE ITS INFORMATION. TO THE EXTENT ANYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, IT WOULD BE THE TELEPHONE COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO THAT. I HATE TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT LOOK AT YOUR SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENTS. IT IS NOT YOUR INFORMATION. AND THIS BILL IS GOING TO SAVE LIVES. IT DOES NOT COMPROMISE OUR FIRST AND -- OR OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND FINALLY, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS, I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME SUGGESTION THAT MAYBE WE ADOPT AN EXCLUSIONNARY RULE OR SOMETHING. ANYBODY WHO IS FOUND, ANY INFORMATION FOUND PURSUANT TO THIS WOULD BE EXCLUDED. WHAT I'D SAY IS, THINK ABOUT THAT. THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND. KELSEY SMITH. I MEAN, HOW DID THEY FIND HER BODY? THEY FOUND IT THROUGH THOSE RECORDS. AND IF WE ADOPT SOME KIND OF AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE, THE BODY OF A VICTIM OF A CRIME COULDN'T BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN A PROSECUTION AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR, AND WE'VE GOT CLASSIC EXAMPLES OF THAT IN THE NEWS ON FRONT PAGES OF OUR NEWSPAPER RIGHT NOW HERE IN VIRGINIA TODAY. THIS IS COMMON SENSE LEGISLATION. IT'S GOING TO SAVE LIVES. I WOULD URGE THE BODY TO PASS IT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL HAS BILL 875 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NO.

---