86-2,106. Electronic communication service; remote computing service; disclosure; government access.
(1) A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of an electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of the contents of an electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred eighty days by the means available under subsection (2) of this section.
(2)(a) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any electronic communication to which this subsection is made applicable by subdivision (2)(b) of this section (i) without required notice to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity obtains a warrant or (ii) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity (A) uses an administrative subpoena or (B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (4) of this section, except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 86-2,108.
(b) Subdivision (2)(a) of this section shall apply to any electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service (i) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from, a subscriber to or customer of such remote computing service and (ii) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing.
(3)(a)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (3)(a)(ii) of this section, a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service may disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (1) or (2) of this section to any person other than a governmental entity.
(ii) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (1) or (2) of this section to a governmental entity only when the governmental entity (A) uses an administrative subpoena, (B) obtains a warrant, (C) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (4) of this section, or (D) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure.
(b) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
(4) A court order for disclosure under subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall issue only if the governmental entity shows that there is reason to believe the contents of a wire or electronic communication or the records or other information sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the provider, may quash or modify such order if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order would otherwise cause an undue burden on such provider.
(5) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider, its officers, employees, or agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, or certification under sections 86-2,104 to 86-2,110.
Source
Annotations
Even if subdivision (3)(a) of this section prohibits a county attorney from obtaining a person’s noncontent telecommunication records by issuing an investigative subpoena, the Legislature has not provided a remedy for a violation of this provision, and the violation of a state statute restricting searches is insufficient to show a Fourth Amendment violation under the U.S. Constitution. State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823, 852 N.W.2d 307 (2014).