CA AB 358
in committeeCriminal procedure: privacy.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 358 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 358 is in committee as of 2025-08-29 and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2025-08-29): In committee: Held under submission.
What is CA AB 358 about?
Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.
Who sponsors CA AB 358?
Alvarez is the primary sponsor of CA AB 358, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.
- Introduced
- 2025-03-17
- Latest action
- 2025-08-29 — In committee: Held under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Alvarezauthor
- Macedocoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-01-30
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-01-31
From printer. May be heard in committee March 2.
2025-02-18
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2025-03-17
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (March 11).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-03-18
Read second time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-03-19
Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2025-03-21
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
2025-04-10
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-21
Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2025-04-23
Coauthors revised.
2025-04-23
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-30
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 30).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-01
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-15
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 63. Noes 1. Page 1556.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-15
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-05-28
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2025-06-24
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 24).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-06-25
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-07
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-08-29
In committee: Held under submission.
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]
2025-03-11 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (9)
- Lackey: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Haney: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Ramos: other
- Sharp-Collins: other
- Mark González: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-22 · pass · 10-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: other
- Ortega: other
- McKinnor: other
- Ward: other
- Patterson: other
Do pass.
2025-04-30 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Dixon: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Solache: yes
- Fong: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Pellerin: other
AB 358 Alvarez Assembly Third Reading
2025-05-15 · pass · 63-1
Member-level votes (79)
- Sanchez: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Bains: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Chen: yes
- Flora: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Patel: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Krell: yes
- Addis: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Solache: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Soria: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Papan: yes
- Ward: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Berman: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Davies: yes
- Haney: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Garcia: no
- Alanis: other
- Elhawary: other
- Kalra: other
- Ortega: other
- McKinnor: other
- Mark González: other
- Hart: other
- Arambula: other
- Bryan: other
- Ransom: other
- Bonta: other
- Quirk-Silva: other
- Lee: other
- Castillo: other
- Stefani: other
- Alvarez: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Nguyen: yes
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-06-24 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (6)
- Gonzalez: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Pérez: yes
Placed on suspense file
2025-07-07 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Cabaldon: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 358. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.