Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 2547 to require landowner consent or warrant for government game cameras on private property
Summary
Representative Mitch Boggs introduced HB 2547 to ban government placement of surveillance/game cameras on private property without written landowner consent or a search warrant. Proponents framed the bill as protecting property rights; the Missouri Department of Conservation described rare operational uses where cameras aided enforcement.
Representative Mitch Boggs (District 157) introduced House Bill 2547 to close a statutory loophole that, he said, allows government agencies to place surveillance or game cameras on private property without landowner consent or a warrant when an agency's highest-ranking official gives approval.
Boggs told the committee the bill would require written landowner consent or a valid search warrant for any government-placed surveillance camera on private property. ‘‘No surveillance or game camera may be placed on private property without the written landowner's consent or a valid search warrant,’’ he said, framing the measure as protecting property owners from unauthorized government surveillance while preserving law enforcement’s ability to obtain warrants.
Members questioned how rare operational uses — for example to catch poachers or commercial fishing violations — would be handled. Boggs and supporters noted warrants remain available; Boggs said the change prevents unilateral internal approvals and emphasizes judicial oversight.
A witness from Americans for Prosperity supported the bill as a property-rights protection. In an informational presentation, Aaron Jeffries, deputy director for the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), said MDC worked with the Legislature on this issue in 2021, adopted an internal policy and that the agency has used cameras on private property twice in five years for enforcement (an elk poaching case and a commercial fishing case). Jeffries described those uses as limited but operationally necessary in the two instances he cited and said the agency tries to act transparently.
Committee members raised scenarios about cameras placed on private trees that face public trails or roads and asked whether the camera's orientation matters; MDC testimony clarified the agency’s internal policy requires cameras on private property to face public or open land when used. Members also probed whether cameras should be clearly marked or otherwise identified.
The committee concluded the hearing on HB 2547 without voting; members debated tradeoffs between property rights and investigatory tools and asked the agencies and sponsors to provide further detail for future consideration.
The chairman adjourned the committee with no votes taken on the bills heard that day.
