CA SB 325
deadCellular telephones: communications interceptions.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 325 pass?
No. CA SB 325 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-02-02). Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA SB 325 about?
Existing law makes a person who, among other things, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving, a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone guilty of a crime, unless consented to by all parties to the communications. Under existing law, subject to specified exceptions, a person who manufactures, assembles, sells, or offers for sale, advertises for sale, possesses, transports, imports, or furnishes to another person a device that is primarily or exclusively designed or intended for eavesdropping upon the communication of another person, in violation of the prohibition described above is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would make nonsubstantive, technical changes to that latter existing provision.
Who sponsors CA SB 325?
Niello is the primary sponsor of CA SB 325.
Description
Existing law makes a person who, among other things, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving, a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone guilty of a crime, unless consented to by all parties to the communications. Under existing law, subject to specified exceptions, a person who manufactures, assembles, sells, or offers for sale, advertises for sale, possesses, transports, imports, or furnishes to another person a device that is primarily or exclusively designed or intended for eavesdropping upon the communication of another person, in violation of the prohibition described above is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would make nonsubstantive, technical changes to that latter existing provision.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-11
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Nielloauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-11
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2025-02-12
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 14.
2025-02-19
Referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2026-02-02
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
failure
Versions
Documents
Votes
Not provided by source.
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=SB 325. 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.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.