Bill would let state prosecutors order limited digital evidence preservation in serious claims involving officers

Delegate Moon described HB 351 as an evidence‑preservation measure to collect and store for later judicial review digital data in cases where a state's attorney or the attorney general finds a credible allegation of violent or constitutional misconduct by an officer. Supporters said the bill would preserve evidence that can disappear quickly and that it would include narrow gatekeeping and court-order release procedures.

Proponents argued the bill focuses on government devices and publicly collected surveillance (license‑plate readers, building cameras, operational GPS and agency-managed device logs) and that information would be kept under secure conditions and released only by court order in litigation. Counsel for proponents said judges can put tailored restrictions on disclosure when ordering release.

Members raised Fourth Amendment and intergovernmental‑immunity questions and asked whether the state would need to apply for warrants or subpoenas for certain device data. Legal witnesses urged that the bill be drafted to apply equally to federal, state and local officers to reduce preemption risk under the intergovernmental‑immunity doctrine and to clarify warrant/subpoena rules for personal devices.

Supporters acknowledged some technical drafting will be needed to reconcile existing statutory warrant and privacy rules with the new preservation authority, and said they will work on those specifics. The committee asked for clarified language on triggers for collection, the proof required for a prosecutor to authorize collection, and safeguards on retention and disclosure.

The bill's sponsors said the measure is a targeted, high‑bar investigatory tool intended to preserve rapidly‑evaporating digital traces in cases alleging serious misconduct, not a broad surveillance expansion.