A State Assembly bill to allow businesses access to their seized computer records while they're under government investigation has a powerful supporter - the Free Speech Coalition, which is trying to stir up a letter-writing campaign in support of the bill by April 2, six days before it's set for a hearing.
"Ours is an industry made up of thousands of small and moderate-sized entrepreneurs - [who] can suffer enormous financial losses, even the viability of their business, if they become the target of an investigation in which they lose access to their computerized business files," said FSC Legislative Affairs Director Kat Sunlove in a letter to Assemblyman John Longville (D-Rialto), who co-wrote the bill with Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton).
The bill would allow a small business to demand copies of any and all seized computer records from the agency investigating it or to demand access to the records if copies can't be provided. The copies or access would have to be granted within a 72-hour period. The bill would also require the business to declare "under penalty of perjury" that denying copies or access would create significant financial hardship or other injury.
"[T]he loss of business records, absent a procedure by which to obtain a copy of the hard drive, essentially punishes the [business] under investigation before guilt has been established," Sunlove wrote. "We feel that [the bill] offers a common-sense approach to a problem that falls disproportionately on the small businessperson."
The bill also provides for judicial review by requiring a hearing within two days if the investigating agency refuses access or copies. The agency could file a court action asking for an order to deny access or copies on public safety grounds, provided it could offer concrete proof of risk. The bill allows for the agency to file a request for extra time with the court if the volume of material to be copied is too large to make copying possible within the 72-hour time frame, provided that the agency can prove it, too, would suffer financial harm if forced to stay within the 72-hour limit.
FSC noted in a talking-points paper that a major concern is the difference between hard-copy records, which allow for discrimination in deciding what actual records need to be reviewed by investigators, and seizing a computer hard drive, which also includes records having nothing to do with the matter that might be at hand.
"When a business entity’s computer records are seized, review can be time-consuming for law enforcement," according to FSC’s talking-points paper. "The ongoing loss of the records causes problems in creating tax records, making payroll, fulfilling orders. Many small business computers contain personal as well as business records, such as vital medical or school records. Arguably, warrants authorizing such seizures suffer from over-breadth, allowing for litigation for damages to the entity. When records were on paper, reasonable discrimination was possible in a seizure. No such precision is evident when an entire computer hard drive is taken."
Those who want to voice their support of the bill should write to The Hon. John Longville, State Capitol - Rm 3123, Sacramento, CA 95814.
