Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Electronic Data Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary hears bill to bar government purchase of private electronic data without a warrant
Summary
Senate Bill 282 would prohibit state and local governments from obtaining electronic communications or related records by purchase without a search warrant; witnesses debated scope, law-enforcement and regulatory impacts but no committee action was taken.
Senate Bill 282, introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee, would generally prohibit governmental entities from purchasing or otherwise obtaining private electronic communications and related records without a search warrant or investigatory subpoena.
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Daniel Emrich, told the committee the measure is intended to reaffirm Fourth Amendment protections at the state level. "This is...a very egregious violation of the search and seizure laws and people's constitutional rights," Emrich said, describing private commercial data purchases as a way governments can bypass warrants.
Supporters at the hearing recounted personal experiences and argued for stronger privacy protections. James King, a private citizen, said federal and local agents had used technology to obtain data from his phone and described a later designation by government authorities related to his complaints. "The Fourth Amendment pretty well regulates these things, and yet in the state of Montana, it's absent," King said, urging passage.
Opponents argued the bill is overly broad and would impede routine law enforcement and regulatory work. Brian Thompson, representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, said the bill’s terms could be read to bar many ordinary ways agencies obtain records and evidence, and he noted the bill would make investigations more difficult and potentially prevent evidence from being admissible in court. "Any evidence obtained in violation of this section is not admissible," Thompson told the committee, repeating the bill’s language the sponsor had cited.
Other opponents included Dan Smith of the Montana Police Protective Association, who described instances where witnesses showed messages that led to the prevention or investigation of violent crime, and Alex Sturhan of the Montana Department of Justice, who warned the bill would create operational burdens and likely require additional DOJ staffing. Quinlan O'Connor, chief legal counsel for the Department of Labor and Industry, raised a narrower administrative concern about the department’s civil administrative subpoena authority for unemployment insurance fraud investigations. Melanie Hall, commissioner of the Division of Banking, said the bill would hamper statutorily required examinations of financial institutions and could shift oversight entirely to federal agencies. Chris Quigley of the Consumer Data Industry Association said the measure would also interfere with functions such as identity verification and fraud prevention that rely on commercially available data.
Committee members raised possible compromise options and asked the sponsor to consider narrower exceptions. Emrich told senators the bill does not prevent use of warrants or subpoenas: "It doesn't say that they can't get a subpoena or a warrant. In fact, it says... pursuant to a search warrant or investigative subpoena issued by a court." He and others suggested drafting targeted exceptions if the committee wished to address unintended consequences.
The committee concluded the hearing without taking a formal vote on SB 282. No amendment or executive action on this bill was recorded in the transcript.
