Criminal procedure; prohibiting reverse-location or reverse-keyword court orders; codification; effective date.
HB 1913 would create a new section of Oklahoma criminal procedure law prohibiting state and local government entities, and Oklahoma courts, from seeking, issuing, enforcing, or relying on “reverse-location” and “reverse-keyword” orders or requests. The bill defines reverse-keyword orders/requests as efforts to identify people who searched for particular terms, phrases, or websites, and reverse-location orders/requests as efforts to identify unnamed users or devices present in a geographic area through location data such as GPS, cell-site, or Wi-Fi positioning.
The measure also bars the use of information obtained through those prohibited orders or requests in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings, except as proof that the section was violated. It requires written notice to any person whose identifying information was obtained in violation of the law and authorizes that person to bring a civil action for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, and attorney fees. The bill sets a minimum recovery of $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, and directs courts to consider the scope of disclosure, whether protected constitutional activity was targeted, and whether the violations were persistent when assessing punitive damages.
If enacted, HB 1913 would significantly restrict law enforcement and other government entities in Oklahoma from using geofence-style location data requests and keyword-search warrants, as well as from cooperating with similar requests from other jurisdictions. It would add a new statutory prohibition in Title 22 and create an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the section, while also establishing a private right of action against violating government entities. The bill would therefore affect criminal investigations, civil and administrative proceedings, digital privacy practices, and the handling of location and search data by public agencies and courts.
Based on the bill text and its procedural posture, the measure appears to reflect a privacy-protective and civil-liberties-oriented approach, aimed at limiting broad digital surveillance tools. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so no direct debate or amendment history is available. The bill was referred to the Criminal Judiciary committee, indicating it was still early in the legislative process at the time of the last action.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between privacy rights and investigative needs. Supporters would likely view the bill as a safeguard against overly broad searches that can capture large numbers of innocent people and potentially chill constitutionally protected activity. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the restrictions could hinder law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes using modern digital evidence and could limit cooperation with out-of-state or federal investigations. The bill’s private right of action, damages provisions, and exclusion of evidence would also be likely focal points of debate.