The following provisions apply to a service of criminal process on an electronic communication service provider and a remote computing service provider that are domestic or foreign entities. [2017, c. 144, §3(NEW).]
If service is made pursuant to subparagraph (1) or (3) and the provider promptly notifies the law enforcement agency of the specific means of service identified by the provider pursuant to subparagraph (2) for criminal process, service must be made by the means of service specified by the provider if possible. [2017, c. 144, §3(NEW).]
[2019, c. 489, §1(AMD).]
If the court finds that good cause exists for the delay, the court may extend the 14-day period to the date of production specified by the foreign entity provider and the provider is prohibited from asserting that the warrant has expired. For purposes of this paragraph, good cause includes, but is not limited to, impracticability of timely response, difficulty of identifying and retrieving the data requested and the volume of data or number of sources sought. [2017, c. 144, §3(NEW).]
[2017, c. 377, §1(AMD).]
If the court finds that good cause exists for the delay, the court may extend the 14-day period to the date of production specified by the domestic entity provider and the provider is prohibited from asserting that the warrant has expired. For purposes of this paragraph, good cause includes, but is not limited to, impracticability of timely response, difficulty of identifying and retrieving the data requested and the volume of data or number of sources sought. [2017, c. 144, §3(NEW).]
[2017, c. 144, §3(NEW).]
[2019, c. 489, §2(AMD).]
15 M.R.S. § 56