Assembly passes bill requiring search warrants for electronic devices amid law-enforcement concerns

Assemblymember Dinowitz sponsored and the Assembly passed legislation on Tuesday aimed at tightening rules for police searches of electronic devices, a measure supporters said updates privacy protections and opponents said could create operational hurdles for investigators.

"This bill would . . . clarify that law enforcement agents and agencies are required to obtain a search warrant for both physical and electronic access to electronic devices and information contained within," Assemblymember Dinowitz said while explaining A.2565‑A on the floor. The bill adds a new Article 695 to New York’s Criminal Procedure Law and includes provisions on voluntary disclosures, sealed access, emergency exceptions and remedies for improperly obtained evidence.

Why it matters: Sponsors framed the proposal as responding to modern technology and protecting constitutional and privacy rights. Dinowitz and backers argued the bill balances the need for effective policing with stronger safeguards for electronic data.

Key details and debate: During extended questioning, colleagues pressed the sponsor on several operational points. Mister Molitor asked whether the bill would prevent police from using tower-location “pings” to determine a device’s location without a warrant; Dinowitz answered that the bill does not bar that technique. Members also asked how officers should identify the owner of an abandoned phone without accessing the device, and whether a judge’s affidavit filed with a warrant would become public record.

The bill requires courts to file warrant affidavits and permits judges to delay notice in limited circumstances; it also directs courts to order destruction of improperly obtained information if an emergency exception is later disallowed. The measure creates suppression remedies and authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil proceedings in some cases, according to the sponsor’s floor explanation.

Opponents, including several Republican members and some on the floor, warned the new obligations could slow investigations or produce unintended consequences. "This bill creates so many additional obligations on the police that it will essentially eliminate electronic search warrants in this state," one member argued, urging a no vote. Supporters countered that the bill preserves the courts’ ability to manage delays and exceptions.

Vote and next steps: After a party-line floor vote and floor explanations, the Assembly recorded 96 votes in favor and 45 against and the bill passed. The text sets out procedures for sealing voluntarily obtained communications for 90 days and for expedited judicial review of emergency searches.

What remains unclear: Floor exchanges highlighted implementation questions — for example, how officers will identify device ownership without searching, and how courts will handle requests for delayed notice in practice. The sponsor said many details are best resolved through judicial processes and case law, and that the bill provides guardrails rather than absolute prohibitions.

The Assembly advanced several other measures on Tuesday; the session record shows the chamber moved to other calendar items after the vote on A.2565‑A. The bill will follow the normal legislative process toward possible enactment.