Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

Legislation looks to untangle location-tracking warrants from traditional searches

Law enforcement and courts have been sidestepping the intent of a 2014 law requiring them to publicly disclose electronic location-tracking warrants. Instead, authorities have been bundling traditional search warrants with certain electronic-monitoring counterparts, which keeps the entire package classified.

Sponsored by Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St. Paul), HF2309 would further clarify that the court must unseal location-tracking warrants for electronic devices — pinging cell phones, for instance — and keep them separate from traditional warrants. The goal, advocates say, is to provide adequate reporting and notice for a growing number of warrant subjects.

The House Civil Law and Data Practices Policy Committee approved the bill Thursday night, sending it to the House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee. Its companion, SF1589, sponsored by Sen. Jim Abeler (R-Anoka), awaits action by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.

“The new technologies allow for very invasive tracking,” ACLU Minnesota Legislative Director Ben Feist said. “We were disappointed to see the report from court administration come out that was really kind of a mess in terms of what the public can now know.”

While no one testified against the bill, Lesch said he spoke with representatives from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension who agreed with the legislation’s intent.

In its 2016 report, the State Court Administrator’s Office said there were 1,820 warrants for intercepting communication issued throughout Minnesota’s 10 judicial districts, mostly lasting 60 days. The report states authorities collected data from 1,202 phones and 182 social media accounts through these warrants.

“It’s important to me that this fixed language get through this session to make sure that the legislative intent is reflected in what the courts are doing,” Lesch said during the committee’s morning session. He added later, “The reason we’re in this position now is because we thought the language we passed was adequate, but based on practice, it wasn’t.”


Related Articles


Priority Dailies

Minnesota’s projected budget surplus balloons to $3.7 billion, but fiscal pressure still looms
(House Photography file photo) Just as Minnesota has experienced a warmer winter than usual, so has the state’s budget outlook warmed over the past few months. On Thursday, Minnesota Management and Budget...
Legislative leaders announce 2024 committee deadlines
(House Photography file photo) Legislators and the public officially know the timeline for getting bills through the House committee process during the upcoming 2024 session. Here are the two deadlines fo...

Minnesota House on Twitter