Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Roll Call]

Yes. So we have Senator Umberg, who's presenting SB 918, if you would like to present.

Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 918 addresses an issue concerning the platforms being able to respond, in particular to search warrants. Amendments taken do the following. One is the original bill, and the Assembly said that the platforms had to respond immediately. We substituted in 72 hours.

Also dealt with an issue concerning whether or not, for example, a law enforcement official from a state that, to be blunt, that may have laws that are offensive to Californians, whether they could, for example, take advantage of this.

We made it clear this only applies this to California law, California enforcement, and we also, the same is true both with respect to reproductive rights as well as rights concerning gender assignment. Oh, and we also delayed implementation until July 1 of 2025. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Lead Oppo over there.

Good evening, chair and members. George Parampathu, speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition to SB 918. Social media platforms store a tremendous amount of information about each of us, who we talk to, what we're talking about, and where we are at any given moment.

Between the government's eyes and all that information about us are two main hurdles, the Fourth Amendment in California's historic privacy laws. These laws don't block police from seeing crucial information. They simply require platforms to do their due diligence before they hand that information over. Protecting people's rights takes time.

When a platform receives a search warrant, they must carefully review it, perform a reasonable search for responsive material, and understand the scope of those records to determine whether the warrant is tailored as our laws require and doesn't. For example, violates shield laws protecting those seeking abortions or gender affirming care.

These platforms might also want to talk to their lawyers about the breadth of the warrant and whether they want to challenge it in court.

At the same time, if you are notified that you are the subject of one of these searches, you need time to read the warrant, you need time to talk to a lawyer about your rights, and you need time to decide if you're going to file a challenge in court.

But given SB 918's short timeline, you might only get notice of your search after your information has already been turned over to police.

SB 918's 72-hour timeline puts unnecessary pressure on fundamental protections, platforms will be incentivized into cutting corners during their review of warrants, and individuals simply will not have enough time to vindicate their own rights because SB 918 threatens California's liberties. We urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have. Do we have. Do we have any other opposition lead witnessess?

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed to SB 918, have had some really productive conversations with the author, share some of the due process concerns of our colleagues at ACLU. Really appreciate the delayed implementation and look forward to continuing our conversations in the next session and address some of those issues. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danny Kando-Kaiser. On behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead? I mean, sorry. Support or oppose witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move on to committee members. Committee members, do you guys have any questions, concerns, thoughts? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion?

I'll move the Bill.

We have Senator Seyarto, who has moved the bill.

SB 918 motion is amendments be concurred in. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call until our other senators show up. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, do we have our other presenter, Assemblymember Ramos? We will give assemblymember Ramos five minutes to show up, otherwise we're closing. Thank you. Choose not to. I'm going to lift the call for Senator Umberg's SB 918.

Current vote is three to zero. Skinner, aye.

Thank you. That Bill is still on call. Again, we are waiting for assemblymember Ramos to present. AB 23482 minutes have passed. Do you have anything to present? Two more minutes for assemblymember Ramos to show up. All right, let's lift the call for Senator Umberg's SB 918 for Senator Bradford to vote.

Current vote is four to one. Bradford? Bradford. Aye.

All right, that bill is out. Assembly Member Ramos is on his way. All right. Assembly Member Ramos, AB 2348 would you like to present? Floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, AB 2348 is a bill that makes simple clarifications to the feather alert system. This bill clarifies that California tribes have to make contact with local law enforcement agencies at least 24 hours before going directly to the California Highway Patrol to request activation of the alert.

This can be simply done by calling 911 or a full investigation from a local law enforcement agency. If local law enforcement mistakenly determines that the person missing is not at risk, the tribe can still directly request for CHBPto activate a feather alert. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I also want to make it clear I know you and I had conversations. A lot of the amendments are not from necessarily from this Committee. So I just wanted to be very clear about that conversation earlier. Do we have any lead witnesses? Lead opposition witnesses. #MeToo support or oppose.

All right, we're going to bring it back to the Committee Members. Okay. Senator Bradford, who has moved the bill would you like to close?

Well, thank you. I asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. So, we have a motion by Senator Bradford.

Motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] All right, that bills out. Thank you.

Meeting adjourned. Thank you.