Requires expedited compliance with certain search warrants in domestic violence and stalking investigations.
Assembly Bill 5155 would amend New Jersey’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act to create expedited compliance rules for certain search warrants served on communications providers in domestic violence and stalking investigations. The bill applies when law enforcement seeks documents, records, or other information from a communications provider in connection with domestic violence, stalking, or violations of domestic violence court orders. In those cases, the warrant must be marked "Immediate Response Required" and must state that it is subject to the bill’s special procedures.
The bill sets specific deadlines for providers to produce the requested material: social media platforms must respond within 72 hours of proper service, and all other communications providers must respond within five business days. It also directs the Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt any necessary rules or directives to implement the law, and it takes effect immediately. The bill is modeled on Oregon’s "Kristil’s Law," which was enacted in response to a stalking and digital impersonation case that ended in murder.
The bill would add a new expedited warrant-compliance requirement to New Jersey’s electronic surveillance and communications privacy statutes, specifically affecting providers such as internet service providers, cellular carriers, voice over Internet protocol providers, social media platforms, and other digital communications companies. It would not broadly change the standard warrant or subpoena framework, but it would create a special fast-track process for domestic violence- and stalking-related investigations, including cases involving violations of domestic violence restraining orders or other court orders. The measure would also require courts and law enforcement to use specific warrant language and would likely impose operational compliance obligations on communications providers doing business in the state.
Based on the bill text and sponsor statement, the overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and protective of victims of domestic violence and stalking. The bill is framed as a public safety and victim-protection measure intended to help law enforcement obtain digital evidence more quickly in urgent cases. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the available record of formal opposition or divided sentiment.
The main potential point of contention is the burden the bill places on communications providers, especially social media platforms, which would have to produce records within a short timeframe after service of a warrant. Providers may also be concerned about the administrative and technical difficulty of meeting the deadlines, particularly for broad or complex requests. On the other side, supporters are likely to emphasize the need for rapid access to digital records in domestic violence and stalking cases, where delays could increase danger to victims. Because no hearing transcripts or votes are included, no specific legislator, agency, or stakeholder opposition is documented in the available materials.