AB 2055 California Assembly · 2011-2012 Regular Session

Search warrants: tracking devices.

Summary
Existing law prohibits, with exceptions, the use of an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person. Under existing law a violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law states that these provisions do not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency. Existing decisional law, in the case of U.S. v. Jones, holds that the attachment of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device to a vehicle and the use of the device to track the vehicle is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Existing law states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including when the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony. This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the information to be received from the use of a tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show that either a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code has been committed or is being committed, tends to show that a particular person has committed that act or is committing that act, or will assist in locating an individual that has committed or is committing that act. The bill would state that these provisions shall not be construed as creating a cause of action against any foreign or California corporation for providing location information. The bill would require that a tracking device search warrant issued pursuant to these provisions identify the person or property to be tracked, and specify a reasonable time that the device may be used, not to exceed 30 days, plus extensions, as provided. The bill would require that the warrant be executed within 10 days, as provided.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Aug 2012
Signed into Law
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 23, 2012 Signed Sep 30, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Aug 28, 2012 · Assembly Aug 29, 2012

How they voted

280
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 31
Aug 28, 2012
D Democratic20
18 Yea 2
90% Yea
R Republican11
10 Yea 1
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
27
Key actions
7
Committee
5
Amendments
3
Sep 30, 2012
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 29, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (69-0-1)
assembly
Aug 29, 2012
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6545.).
lower
Aug 28, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (28-0-3)
senate
Aug 28, 2012
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 6, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 3).
upper
May 17, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Apr 24, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. To consent calendar. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 17).
lower
Apr 9, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 29, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
FF
Felipe Fuentes
DDemocratic
CA
39