Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mass. representative files bill to shield library patron records from public disclosure
Summary
Representative Jay D. Livingstone filed House Bill No. 638 on Jan. 15 to amend chapter 78 of the Massachusetts General Laws so that portions of public library records revealing a patron’s identity and intellectual pursuits would not be public records and could be accessed only by warrant or under exigent circumstances.
Get email alerts on the Library Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Jay D. Livingstone filed legislation Jan. 15 that would make portions of public library records revealing a patron’s identity and intellectual pursuits exempt from the state public‑records law and accessible only with a warrant or under exigent circumstances. The bill was submitted to the General Court as House No. 638.
If enacted, the proposal would amend chapter 78 of the Massachusetts General Laws by striking the third sentence of current section 7 and by inserting a new section 7A. The filing says the new section would specify that “that part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty six of section seven of chapter four,” and that access to such records would be allowed “only with a warrant issued pursuant to chapter 276 or under exigent circumstances.”
The petition lists Representative Jay D. Livingstone of the 8th Suffolk as the presenting legislator and shows Representatives Lindsay N. Sabadosa (1st Hampshire) and Adrianne Pusateri Ramos (14th Essex) were added as petitioners on later dates. The document records the bill title as “An Act to protect library patron privacy.”
The filing text does not include any committee referral, votes, or an effective date. The document likewise does not include explanatory findings, legislative intent beyond the statutory language, or examples of circumstances that would qualify as exigent.
Because the change would alter statutory access rules and references warrant authority in chapter 276, any enforcement or application would be subject to later legislative action and to judicial or executive-branch processes set out elsewhere in state law. The filing itself is a petition for consideration by the General Court and does not constitute passage or implementation of the proposed changes.
