Modifies provisions relating to the placement of any surveillance or game camera on private property
Summary
HB 2547 revises Missouri law governing the placement of surveillance cameras and game cameras on private property. The bill repeals and reenacts section 542.525, keeping the core rule that state agency and political subdivision employees may not place a surveillance or game camera on private property without first obtaining written consent from the landowner or the landowner’s designee.
The bill also preserves an exception for situations covered by a lawful search warrant under the Missouri Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Compared with the prior version of the statute, the bill removes language that would have allowed permission from the highest-ranking law enforcement officer of the agency or political subdivision in limited circumstances, narrowing the authorization framework for government-installed cameras on private land.
Impact
The bill would amend section 542.525, RSMo, affecting state agencies and local government entities that use surveillance or game cameras in investigations or enforcement activities. It strengthens the requirement for landowner consent and limits government authority to place cameras on private property to situations supported by written consent or a valid search warrant, while eliminating a separate administrative permission pathway for certain public-access locations.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with the House advancing it by a wide margin of 135 yeas to 9 nays and the bill later receiving a Do Pass recommendation in the Senate. No committee transcript is available, but the strong vote indicates the measure was generally viewed favorably, likely as a property-rights and privacy protection bill.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the scope of law enforcement and agency discretion to place cameras without landowner consent. The bill removes a prior allowance for approval by the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in limited circumstances, which may concern agencies that rely on surveillance or game cameras for investigations, wildlife enforcement, or monitoring public-access areas near private land. Supporters likely favor the clearer consent requirement and stronger privacy protections for landowners.