Mass. judicial committee hears broad support for warrant requirement on police use of facial recognition

Representative Carlos Ramos and other sponsors told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary they are seeking to convert the Special Commission’s recommendations on facial recognition into state law and to tighten the rules for police use. The bill would raise the standard for searches using facial recognition from the current “relevant and material” test to a warrant requirement. Supporters told the committee that legal protections and due‑process safeguards are necessary because the technology can be used for mass surveillance and is error‑prone in many operational settings. “The commission … came up with recommendations as to how and when this technology should be used,” Representative Ramos said, describing his municipal moratorium experience and the path that led to state legislation. Kate Crawford of the ACLU of Massachusetts, who served on the special commission, told the committee “they would improve the standard that police use to perform a facial recognition search … to a warrant standard. That's the gold standard of American justice.” Experts from the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, UMass Amherst and others testified in a similar vein. Jake LaPeruke of CDT said the proposed warrant rule would protect people “attending a protest, going to a house of worship, or visiting a medical clinic” from automatic cataloging. Professor Eric Leonard Miller of UMass cautioned that "no matter how good the technology gets, there will always be cases in which face recognition software makes errors." Proponents urged two other changes: (1) requiring notice to criminal defendants when a facial‑recognition match was used and (2) banning untargeted or “continuous” facial‑recognition scans of the public. Jake LaPeruke said a defendant’s right to review how the technology was used is increasingly common in state law and that several states now require defendant notice. Opposition testimony at the hearing was limited in number compared with proponents, but committee members were told that some local bans remain in place and that state law preemption already gives the Massachusetts State Police a central role. Supporters said the bill would preserve a statewide common standard while protecting civil liberties. The committee heard the proposals at length and invited written follow‑up. Sponsors and many witnesses asked for a favorable report so the reforms can move to the next legislative steps.