Revises provisions relating to criminal procedure. (BDR 14-341)
SB361 revises Nevada criminal procedure law to create a detailed warrant process for obtaining location information from electronic devices and unique identifiers. The bill defines key terms such as “tracking warrant,” “location information,” “electronic device,” and “unique identifier,” and generally bars state and local governmental entities from obtaining such information without a tracking warrant, subject to specified exceptions.
The bill allows warrantless access in limited situations, including when a device is reported lost or stolen, during emergency services requests, with informed written consent, in certain missing-person or minor-child situations with guardian or next-of-kin consent, and in exigent circumstances involving an immediate threat of death or serious injury. It also sets out procedures for applying for, issuing, sealing, extending, and executing tracking warrants, including probable-cause requirements, time limits, provider assistance, notice to affected persons, suppression remedies, and rules governing disclosure and admissibility of location data in later proceedings.
SB361 would add a new set of provisions to Chapter 179 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing access to digital location data by law enforcement and other governmental entities. It would require a tracking warrant in most cases before location information tied to a device or account can be collected, and it would make unlawfully obtained location information and derivative evidence inadmissible in state proceedings. The bill also amends Nevada’s public records law to recognize the confidentiality of certain tracking-warrant materials and related notices, while preserving limited disclosure pathways.
The bill’s structure suggests a generally privacy-protective approach, with strong procedural safeguards, judicial oversight, and exclusionary rules for violations. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at balancing law-enforcement needs with constitutional and statutory privacy protections for electronic location data.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of law-enforcement access and the breadth of the exceptions. Supporters of privacy protections may favor the warrant requirement, suppression remedy, notice provisions, and short collection periods, while law enforcement and investigative agencies may view the bill as adding procedural burdens or limiting rapid access to location data. The emergency, consent, missing-person, and stolen-device exceptions are likely to be the most scrutinized provisions, along with the requirement to seek a warrant within 48 hours after certain warrantless access and the rule excluding evidence obtained in violation of the section.