Government entities prohibition from requesting or obtaining reverse-location information
SF 1120 would create a new Minnesota law in chapter 626A restricting government access to “reverse-location” and “reverse-keyword” data. The bill defines reverse-location data as information that can identify devices or users present in a geographic area at a given time, and reverse-keyword data as records identifying people who searched for a particular word, phrase, or website or clicked a generated link. It generally bars state and local government entities, and people acting on their behalf, from seeking, obtaining, purchasing, or using such data through court orders or voluntary requests.
The bill also prohibits Minnesota courts from issuing reverse-location or reverse-keyword orders, and from enforcing similar orders from other states, except during a declared “sudden emergency” tied to a peacetime emergency such as a natural disaster, technological failure, terrorist incident, industrial accident, or hazardous materials accident. Evidence obtained in violation of the bill would be inadmissible in criminal, civil, administrative, or other proceedings, and the bill also limits contempt consequences for noncompliance with prohibited orders or requests.
If enacted, the bill would significantly limit law enforcement and other government agencies’ ability to use geofence-style location data and keyword-search data in investigations. It would add new statutory prohibitions in Minnesota Statutes chapter 626A, restrict cooperation with federal or out-of-state authorities when Minnesota entities are barred from acting directly, and create an exclusionary rule for unlawfully obtained data and derivative evidence. The bill also creates a private right of action, requiring notice to affected persons and allowing damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs against government entities that violate the law.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded vote to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsors, the measure appears to be a privacy- and civil-liberties-focused proposal intended to limit digital surveillance by government entities. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s apparent protective purpose.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between privacy and public safety. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s restrictions on broad digital surveillance, especially geofence warrants and keyword-based searches that can sweep in many innocent people. Potential opponents may argue that the bill could hinder criminal investigations, emergency response, and cooperation with other jurisdictions, though the bill preserves a narrow exception for “sudden emergencies.” Another possible point of debate is the private right of action and damages remedy, which could expose government entities to litigation and liability for violations.