SF1242, titled the "Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act of 2025," would regulate how state agencies and law enforcement in Minnesota may use facial recognition technology for public-space surveillance. The bill generally prohibits agencies from using facial recognition to conduct ongoing surveillance of an individual or group unless the use supports a law enforcement activity and a covered court order has been obtained, or unless an officer determines exigent circumstances make obtaining a court order impractical and then seeks one within 48 hours. The bill defines key terms such as facial recognition technology, agency, covered court order, and ongoing surveillance, and it limits surveillance orders to 30 days, with possible 30-day extensions.
Impact
The bill would add new provisions to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 626A, creating a warrant-like framework for facial recognition surveillance. It would require minimization of data collection and retention, allow suppression motions for unlawfully obtained evidence, and establish reporting duties for judges and the Minnesota Supreme Court about applications, approvals, denials, duration, offenses investigated, and misidentifications. It also requires agencies to use trained human review before acting on facial recognition outputs and to adopt testing procedures, including evaluation of error rates across subpopulations and steps to address disparate performance.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a civil-liberties and accountability measure rather than a broad expansion of surveillance authority. Its structure suggests support for law enforcement use in limited circumstances while imposing judicial oversight, reporting, and accuracy safeguards. No formal vote history or hearing record is provided here to indicate broader legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern whether facial recognition should be treated like other investigative tools or subjected to warrant-level restrictions, especially for ongoing surveillance in public spaces. Privacy advocates would likely support the bill’s limits, suppression remedy, and bias-testing requirements, while law enforcement agencies may object to the added procedural burden, short authorization periods, and reporting obligations. Another likely issue is the emergency-use provision, which allows temporary use without a prior order but still requires rapid judicial review.