RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- WARRANTLESS PURCHASES, OF PERSONAL DATA -- THE 4TH AMENDMENT IS NOT FOR SALE ACT
H8119, titled the “4th Amendment Is Not for Sale Act,” would create a new chapter in Rhode Island law prohibiting law enforcement and other governmental entities from obtaining a person’s personal data from third parties in exchange for money or other value when the data is sought for criminal, civil, or other investigatory or enforcement purposes. The bill defines personal data broadly to include items such as name and billing information, web browsing and search history, app usage, location data, financial and health information, biometric data, device identifiers, and communications content.
The bill generally bars law enforcement from buying personal data directly from data brokers or from receiving such data from other government agencies if it was originally obtained from a third party for value. It also restricts governmental entities from sharing this kind of purchased data with other agencies. The bill includes exceptions for a valid probable-cause warrant, exigent circumstances involving imminent danger, information already public, data voluntarily made public by the individual, express consent, authorized disclosure by a third party with express consent, and data involving the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It further directs the attorney general to adopt procedures to prevent, prohibit, and destroy unlawfully acquired data, and it allows civil enforcement by private parties, including injunctive relief, declaratory relief, mandamus, and attorneys’ fees. Evidence obtained in violation of the chapter would generally be inadmissible, except to prove a violation of the chapter itself.
If enacted, the bill would add a new privacy and criminal-procedure restriction to Title 42 of the Rhode Island General Laws, limiting how state and local agencies may acquire and use commercially purchased personal data. It would affect law enforcement practices, data brokers, and other third parties that sell or transfer sensitive consumer information, and it would create a suppression-like rule for unlawfully obtained data. The measure would also require the attorney general to establish procedures for handling improperly acquired data and would provide a private right of action for enforcement.
The bill’s framing and findings indicate strong support for digital privacy and Fourth Amendment protections, with the sponsors presenting the measure as a response to law enforcement’s use of data brokers to bypass warrant requirements. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be motivated by concern over surveillance, privacy, and constitutional limits on government access to personal data.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether law enforcement should be allowed to purchase personal data without a warrant for investigative purposes. Supporters would emphasize privacy, constitutional protections, and the risk that agencies can evade judicial oversight by buying data from brokers. Opponents may argue that the bill could hinder investigations, especially where rapid access to location or communications data is useful, though the bill preserves exceptions for warrants, emergencies, public information, consent, and missing-child investigations. Another likely issue is the breadth of the definition of personal data and the scope of the private enforcement remedy.