WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 2631

Criminal procedure: prohibited violations.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and 1 co-sponsor

AB 2631 expands prohibited violations to include First Amendment activities and protests, then shields related records from warrants while tightening attestation and timelines for

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.
#criminalprocedure #prohibitedviolations
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 2631

Summary of AB 2631 (2025-2026) – California criminal procedure: prohibited violations

Purpose and intent

AB 2631, introduced by Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan and Schultz, seeks to redefine what constitutes a “prohibited violation” in the context of criminal procedure and to limit the production of records in response to certain warrants or court orders. Specifically, the bill adds participation in lawful protests, criticizing the government, and exercising First Amendment rights to the list of activities that, if tied to investigations, would create a prohibition on producing records or complying with certain orders. It also extends existing protections against California- and federal-out-of-state orders to prohibit the production of records in federal court orders or similar processes when they relate to prohibited violations.

Key provisions and changes

  • Section 629.51 (definitions)

    • Expands “Prohibited violation” to include:
    • Providing, facilitating, or obtaining a legally protected health care activity (as defined in California law)
    • Intending or attempting to provide, facilitate, or obtain such an activity
    • Participating in a lawful protest
    • Criticizing the government
    • Exercising rights protected by the First Amendment
    • Clarifies that “facilitating” refers to assisting in obtaining a legally protected health care activity that is lawful in California
    • Applies to wire and electronic intercepts (not stored communications)

  • Section 1524.2 (records production and warrants for foreign and California corporations)

    • For foreign corporations that hold electronic communication services or remote computing services:
    • When served with a California-issued warrant seeking records that reveal customer identities, usage, or content, the foreign corporation must produce the records within five business days (with possible extensions for good cause if an adverse result would occur)
    • The court must address motions to quash within five court days
    • Requires an affidavit verifying the authenticity of produced records
    • Records produced under these terms are admissible per Evidence Code provisions
    • California corporations serving warrants from federal or other state courts to produce customer data:
    • Must produce records as if the warrant were issued by a California court
    • Must include an attestation that the warrant is not related to a prohibited violation (as defined in 629.51)
    • May rely on the attestation to determine if the warrant relates to a prohibited violation
    • A cause of action cannot lie against these corporations or their personnel for producing records in accordance with a warranted request

  • Section 1546.5 (limitations on providing records in response to non-California orders)

    • Prohibits California-based electronic-communication-service providers from providing records or facilities in response to warrants or other processes issued by federal courts or other states if the request relates to a prohibited violation
    • The Attorney General may file a civil action to compel compliance with these provisions
    • Protection from liability for providing records in accordance with such orders unless the corporation knew or should have known the order related to a prohibited violation

Who would be affected

  • California corporations and foreign corporations that provide electronic communications services or remote computing services
  • Law enforcement agencies issuing warrants, orders, or subpoenas
  • Individuals whose data, usage, or communications may be sought by warrants (e.g., customers of electronic communication providers)
  • Courts handling warrants and motions to quash related to these records

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Production timelines: Foreign corporations must respond within five business days of proper service, with potential extensions for good cause if an adverse result would occur.
  • Quash process: Courts must adjudicate quash motions within five court days after filing.
  • Attestation requirement: Federal or out-of-state warrants must include or be accompanied by an attestation stating the evidence sought is not related to a prohibited violation; California corporations can rely on these attestations when determining whether a warrant relates to a prohibited violation.
  • Evidence handling: Requires authentication affidavits for produced records; admissibility is governed by the Evidence Code.
  • Civil action: The Attorney General may pursue civil action to enforce compliance with the new prohibitions.

Fiscal and policy considerations

  • The bill has fiscal committee involvement but does not itself create an appropriation.
  • It broadens protections around First Amendment activities and lawful protests, potentially reducing compelled production of records in cases tied to such activities.
  • It may increase compliance and litigation costs for providers and government agencies due to attestation requirements and expedited timelines.

Summary in plain language

AB 2631 broadens the scope of what counts as a prohibited violation to include First Amendment activities (protests, criticizing government, exercising rights) and adds protections for those activities in the context of records requests. It tightens limits on California and foreign telecommunications/electronic service providers when faced with warrants from California, federal, or other states, requiring attestation that the request is not connected to a prohibited violation and imposing strict production timelines and verification requirements. The bill aims to shield individuals exercising constitutional rights from government or third-party data requests when those requests are tied to prohibited violations, while preserving the ability of authorities to obtain information in other contexts.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.