Communication service information; technical correction
Summary
HB 2140 is a narrow technical-correction bill that amends Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3006, which governs the unlawful divulgence of wire or electronic communication contents. The bill does not appear to change the underlying criminal prohibition or penalty; instead, it cleans up wording in the statute by correcting repeated language and terminology in the description of a “communication service provider” and its officers or employees.
Under the bill, the offense remains a class 6 felony for a person who intentionally and without lawful authority obtains the contents of a wire or electronic communication through collusion with a communication service provider, or for a provider or its personnel who intentionally disclose the contents or nature of such communications to someone other than the intended recipient, except where permission or another statutory exemption applies. The measure is framed as a drafting fix to improve clarity and consistency in the statute governing privacy and confidentiality of communications.
Impact
HB 2140 would have a limited but clarifying effect on Arizona criminal law by amending the text of A.R.S. § 13-3006 without changing the statute’s substantive scope or felony classification. The bill affects communication service providers, their officers and employees, and individuals who unlawfully obtain or disclose wire or electronic communications, while leaving the existing penalties and exemptions intact.
Sentiment
Because the bill is described as a technical correction and there is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, the available context suggests a neutral or routine legislative posture. The measure appears to be noncontroversial on its face, focused on statutory cleanup rather than policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record. If any concerns were to arise, they would likely center on the wording changes themselves—particularly whether the correction is purely clerical or could affect interpretation of who is covered by the statute—but no opposition or debate is shown in the available materials.