Minnesota House Bill HF147

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/25
• Refer: 2/10/25

Caption

Estate tax; general subtraction amount increased.

Summary

HF147 amends Minnesota’s mobile tracking device law to expand when law enforcement may attach and use tracking devices on vehicles. Under current law, the general prohibition on tracking devices does not apply in limited stolen-vehicle situations, including when the owner consents or when the vehicle is reported stolen and occupied at the time the device is installed. The bill keeps the existing stolen-vehicle exception but removes the requirement that the vehicle be unoccupied, allowing officers to install a tracking device even if a stolen vehicle is occupied. It also adds a new exception allowing use of a mobile tracking device on a fleeing motor vehicle. The bill preserves several safeguards for stolen-vehicle tracking. If a device is attached under the stolen-vehicle exception, officers must remove or disable it, or obtain a warrant, within 24 hours. If the vehicle is recovered and returned to the owner, the device must be removed and any evidence collected after return is inadmissible. The bill also requires agencies that obtain warrants under this provision to report the number of warrants to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which must summarize the data in its biennial report to the legislature.

Impact

HF147 would amend Minnesota Statutes section 626A.35 by broadening law enforcement authority to use mobile tracking devices in two additional circumstances: when a stolen vehicle is occupied at the time of installation and when a vehicle is fleeing. This changes the scope of the state’s electronic surveillance and tracking rules for motor vehicles, while leaving in place warrant and removal requirements for continued use in stolen-vehicle cases. The bill affects law enforcement agencies, vehicle owners, and criminal investigations involving stolen or fleeing vehicles, and it adds reporting obligations to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be pro-law-enforcement and public-safety oriented. The measure is framed as a tool to improve the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles and to assist in apprehending fleeing vehicles. No opposing arguments are documented in the provided record, but the inclusion of warrant, removal, and inadmissibility provisions suggests an effort to balance investigative needs with privacy and evidentiary limits.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the expansion of tracking authority into situations involving occupied stolen vehicles and fleeing vehicles, which raises privacy, surveillance, and Fourth Amendment concerns. Supporters would likely emphasize public safety, vehicle recovery, and officer safety, while critics may question whether the bill gives law enforcement too much discretion to monitor vehicles without a warrant in fast-moving situations. The bill’s safeguards—such as the 24-hour warrant requirement for continued use, mandatory removal after recovery, and reporting to the BCA—appear designed to address those concerns, but no specific recorded objections or supporters are included in the provided materials.