Police warn Westminster bill on third‑party data platforms could hamper investigations

The police chief told the City of Westminster's weekly legislative call that House Bill 1037, which would regulate access to third‑party data platforms, "would put us back several years" and could hinder local criminal investigations that rely on aggregated public records databases.

Jenna Roth, the department's police legal advisor, told councilors the city supports constitutional privacy protections but said HB1037 appears broader than existing Fourth Amendment case law and is "pretty vaguely written," which could sweep in platforms that contain only publicly available information. Roth noted the bill cites People v. Seymour — a case about IP address search history — in ways she called misleading because Seymour involved search history for which courts have required a warrant, whereas the databases at issue here are built from public records.

Chiefs and investigators use subscription services such as Accurint, Roth and the chief said, to aggregate vehicle registrations, addresses and other public records that can help track suspects across jurisdictions; the chief said those tools aided an arrest in a multi‑state auto theft case and, in one homicide investigation, helped identify a relative who led to probable cause. Roth warned that HB1037’s language could bar access to that type of searchable public‑records information and also could expose the city to attorney’s‑fee liability if a court deemed a search improper.

Councilors asked whether the bill intends to block purchases of location or brokered data (for example, from commercial sources) or only to address government searches of surveillance‑style data. Roth and the chief said law enforcement systems must be CJIS‑compliant for access and that, in general, if investigators knew a commercial provider such as a streaming or location service held potentially probative data, the preferred route would be to seek a warrant rather than buying it ad hoc — both to preserve admissibility and align with prosecutorial expectations.

Several councilors urged staff to consider whether technical amendments could narrow HB1037’s scope to preserve legitimate investigative uses of public‑records aggregators while protecting privacy for data that courts have treated differently. Amy Atwood, the city's contract legislative lobbyist, said staff will keep the council informed and circulate the bill text and suggested edits for review.

Westminster staff did not take a formal position during the call; next steps include circulating the bill language to relevant departments and returning recommended clarifications or a proposed position to the council for consideration.