communication service information; technical correction
HB 2414 is a technical correction bill that amends Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3006, which makes it a class 6 felony to unlawfully obtain or disclose the contents of wire or electronic communications. The bill does not appear to change the substance of the offense or penalties. Instead, it cleans up drafting errors in the statute by correcting repeated wording such as “communications communication service provider” to “communication service provider.”
The measure preserves the existing prohibition on intentionally obtaining communication contents through collusion with a provider or its employees, and on a provider or employee intentionally divulging the contents or nature of a wire or electronic communication without authorization. It also retains the existing cross-reference to the statutory exemption in section 13-3012 and the current classification of the offense as a class 6 felony.
HB 2414 would have a narrow legal impact by updating the text of section 13-3006 for clarity and consistency without changing the underlying criminal law. The affected parties are communication service providers, their officers and employees, and anyone who unlawfully accesses or discloses wire or electronic communications. Because the bill is framed as a technical correction, it is intended to improve statutory readability and reduce ambiguity in enforcement or interpretation rather than expand or contract liability.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the overall sentiment appears neutral and procedural. The bill is presented as a noncontroversial cleanup measure, and there is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or debate. Its technical nature suggests it would likely be viewed as a housekeeping correction rather than a policy change.
No specific points of contention are identified in the available record. The only potentially notable issue is the repeated and awkward statutory wording being corrected, but that appears to be a drafting error rather than a substantive policy dispute. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, there is no indication of disagreement over the scope of the felony provision, the privacy protections for communications, or the cross-reference to the statutory exemption.