We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Beginning July 1, 2021 all TDC training courses will resume being held in person at all locations

Electronic Communication Privacy Act

The California Legislature passed SB 178, California’s equivalent to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act. For those officers who are in high tech units or Internet Crimes Against Children Units there are many new rules that deal with Search Warrants, access to Electronic Devices, Notice requirements and remedies for violations of the act that are too numerous for this article. The Legal update page HIGHLY recommends you contact the California District Attorney’s Association for information on the act and access to a webinar that CDAA produced detailing the changes in the law that were enacted on January 1, 2016.

This legal update will address only a confusing new term and potential ramifications when you deal with arrestees/parolees who have cell phones or other electronic devices. The statute also limits your access to electronic devices that are abandoned, lost, or stolen.

“Electronic Device”

The new statute defines an electronic device as one that stores, generates or transmits information in electronic form. (Penal Code section 1546(f).)

The new statute provides that the government may only physically or electronically access data on an electronic device in the following manner:
1. Search Warrant
2. Wiretap order
3. With the Specific Consent of the authorized possessor of the device
4. With the Specific Consent of the OWNER when the device has been reported as lost or stolen
5. An exigent circumstance involving death or great bodily injury
6. If the device is believed to be lost, stolen or abandoned the government may only access the device to attempt to identify, verify, or contact the owner or actual possessor of the device (you may not look for evidence of a crime of the fruits or instrumentality of a crime – this is a BIG change)

There are clearly a few new problems for you as an officer. What is “specific consent” and the legislature has provided standing to move to suppress evidence in lost, stolen, or abandoned property.

“Specific Consent”

Specific Consent means consent provided directly to the governmental entity seeking information. This applies whether the governmental entity was an intended recipient of the information or not and fortunately the suspect doesn’t have to know a recipient of information was a governmental agent. This means you have to get consent to search for the authorized possessor of an electronic device or the owner directly.


Going forward your best bet now with any electronic device search is to get a warrant. The courts are going to take years to flesh this section out. A couple of problems that may arise is does a parolee or a person released on PRCS specifically consent to search? They are mandated to have search conditions but unlike probationers they don’t specifically agree to their search condition. When you come in contact with a parolee with an electronic device try to get consent or a warrant before you search. Your evidence may get suppressed if you don’t because a court may find that a parolee did not specifically consent to their parole condition and therefore your search may be invalid. This section is going to be interesting going forward. Good Luck.

Thanks to Robert Morgester Senior Assistant Attorney General for disseminating timely effective training in this area.



  • Your instructional style is engaging and your tag-team style is highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend the Interview and Interrogation training presented by Paul Francois and Enrique Garcia.

    —Todd Almason, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
  • Your class gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • ...Provides useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • The information that they have presented is highly relevant to my job, and was presented in a manner that was highly organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Your class has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department