Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says bill would bar government from buying private electronic data; law enforcement and agencies call it overbroad
Summary
Senate Bill 282 would bar governmental entities from purchasing individuals’ electronic data to prevent circumvention of warrant rules. Proponents argued it protects Fourth Amendment rights; law-enforcement groups, the DOJ, banking regulators and data-industry advocates said the draft is too broad and could hinder investigations and agency operations.
Helmed by the sponsor, Senator Daniel Umrich, Senate Bill 282 would prohibit governmental entities from purchasing individuals’ private electronic data and restrict the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of that rule. "Governmental entities may not purchase data," the sponsor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying the bill targets a practice that can circumvent traditional warrant processes.
Supporters framed the measure as an update to Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age. James King, a proponent, recounted a personal instance he said involved law enforcement using a Stingray device to gather contacts from his phone and urged the committee to pass the bill to reaffirm privacy protections.
Opponents argued the draft language sweeps far beyond the sponsor’s stated intent. Brian Thompson, representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, said the bill’s text focuses on "obtaining" information and could bar a wide range of lawful investigatory practices, including evidence provided by victims or gathered through routine investigative steps. "What this is really about is obtaining," Thompson told the committee, saying the title’s reference to 'purchase' understates the bill’s reach.
Law enforcement and state agencies stressed operational concerns. Dan Smith of the Montana Police Protective Association said officers rely on messages, leads and national systems to solve crimes and help victims and urged the committee to reject the bill as written. Alex Sturhan, director of external affairs for the Montana Department of Justice, warned of substantial implementation costs and administrative burdens—citing an internal DOJ estimate of about 18 full-time equivalents to handle routine inquiries under the proposed restrictions.
Regulatory agencies raised sector-specific problems. Melanie Hall, commissioner of the Division of Banking, said the bill could prevent statutorily authorized bank examiners from reviewing electronic funds-transfer information and other records needed to detect fraud and ensure safety and soundness of financial institutions. Kris Quigley, speaking for the Consumer Data Industry Association, warned that limiting access to consumer data could impede identity verification, benefit administration and background checks used by government programs.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on exceptions, interactions with federal reporting requirements and possible unintended consequences. Senator Ricky asked whether a specific incident prompted the bill; the sponsor reiterated the bill’s purpose to prevent warrant circumvention. The sponsor said the bill retains explicit exceptions for search warrants and investigative subpoenas and noted that federal law would continue to require certain reports to law enforcement.
No committee vote on SB 282 took place at the hearing. The sponsor said he would consider amendments and dialogue with agencies to address unintended consequences.
Next steps: the committee closed the hearing on SB 282 and will consider amendments and additional agency input before any executive action.
