Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House chairman returns privacy bill on in-person recordings after extensive debate
Summary
Representative Schlegel’s bill that would require notice for in-person recordings prompted lengthy floor debate about exceptions for law enforcement, journalists, harassment victims and emergencies; the author agreed to return HB 410 to the calendar for amendments after members expressed concern about scope and evidentiary effects.
Representative Schlegel introduced HB 410 to require notice in the narrow circumstance when a person participates in a direct in-person conversation and seeks to give individuals a civil remedy if surreptitious recordings cause harm. "What is reasonable today when you're having a direct in person conversation with someone?" she asked, explaining the bill focuses on in-person interactions and not ambient or public recordings.
Lawmakers raised a broad set of questions. Representative Jordan and others asked whether exceptions that allow recordings for harassment evidence, civil proceedings, or criminal investigations would swallow the rule; Schlegel said the bill includes narrowly tailored exemptions for evidence of crimes, emergency situations, recordings to preserve evidence, and for public officials where a heightened public interest applies. Representative Owen and others pressed on potential impacts for undercover investigations and journalism; Schlegel said the bill includes specific carve-outs but welcomed further drafting.
Concerns about clarity, enforcement, permissible devices, and whether the proposal would change rules of evidence led the author to withdraw the bill from immediate consideration and return it to the calendar for amendment. "I'll return it," Schlegel told the chamber after members across the political spectrum sought time to propose tweaks; the return-to-calendar motion was agreed without objection.
