Okay. That's where I think we're getting our wires crossed. I worry, because Ms. Kwan's amendment says—I have it right here—“demand only if they have reasonable grounds to believe”. The parallel I am drawing is that “reasonable grounds to believe” is used throughout the code.
If we accept this amendment, “reasonable grounds to believe” will be in the subscriber demand section. “Reasonable grounds to believe” under the arrest provision has been interpreted to be below a prima facie case.
Are you with me so far here?