Listen to the article
Minnesota Lawmakers Propose Ban on Reverse Location Warrants, Citing Privacy Concerns
A bipartisan group of Minnesota legislators has introduced legislation that would prohibit law enforcement from using so-called “reverse location warrants” to collect data on mobile devices near crime scenes, marking a significant push to limit digital surveillance powers in the state.
The bill, introduced by Democratic State Senator Erin Maye Quade with co-sponsors Senator Omar Fateh (D) and Senator Eric Lucero (R), would ban these controversial warrants except in emergency situations. It would also grant individuals whose information was collected the right to sue law enforcement agencies.
“We do believe that we have to balance our constitutional rights and public safety so that we’re not essentially sending law enforcement in to search for a needle in a haystack by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack,” Maye Quade said during a March 9 legislative hearing.
These warrants, also called “geofence” or “dragnet” warrants, allow police to obtain data showing which mobile devices were in a specific location during a certain time period. Critics argue they violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by indiscriminately gathering data on potentially thousands of innocent people.
Between 2018 and 2020, the use of reverse location warrants in Minnesota increased dramatically, jumping from 22 to 173 instances. This surge reflects a nationwide trend of law enforcement increasingly relying on digital surveillance tools in criminal investigations.
Law enforcement organizations have pushed back against the proposed ban. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension argue that the bill is overly broad, though both have expressed willingness to discuss data privacy safeguards.
“There are numerous examples of case investigations where reverse location data has saved lives, even just recently,” wrote Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans in a letter to lawmakers. Evans noted that while he supports “reasonable safeguards for data privacy protections,” he believes a complete ban “would have a major detrimental effect on public safety in Minnesota.”
As currently written, the Senate bill would prohibit warrants that collect information on devices that searched for specific keywords, phrases, or websites. It would also ban similar collection of GPS coordinates, cell tower, and Wi-Fi connectivity data.
The bill comes amid growing national debate over digital privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in April regarding the constitutionality of reverse location warrants, a case that could establish significant precedent for digital privacy rights nationwide.
Tech companies have also responded to privacy concerns. In 2023, Google announced it would stop storing location data in ways that would make it susceptible to reverse location warrant requests. By July of that year, the company reported that all previously stored location history data had been deleted or moved to on-device storage.
However, privacy advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have questioned whether such corporate policy changes are sufficient protection without legislative guardrails.
Senator Lucero emphasized during the March 9 hearing that the bill should not be viewed as anti-law enforcement but rather as upholding constitutional principles in the digital age.
“We simply want to make sure that those time-tested principles are protected in the new digital realm,” Lucero said, adding that “reverse search warrants are the antithesis” of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that warrants specify a particular place and the items to be seized.
The Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee first discussed the bill on March 9, while House lawmakers reviewed a companion bill proposed by Democratic Representative Sandra Feist in the Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on February 24.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Police use of geofence warrants raises valid civil liberties concerns. This bill seems like a reasonable attempt to find the right balance, but the implementation details will be crucial. Glad to see Minnesota lawmakers grappling with this difficult issue.
Restricting geofence warrants could hamper some criminal investigations, but the privacy risks are also significant. I’m glad to see lawmakers taking a thoughtful, bipartisan approach to this complex issue and looking to strike the right balance.
This is an interesting move to protect privacy rights and limit the scope of digital surveillance by law enforcement. Geofence warrants can be a slippery slope, so I’m glad to see efforts to rein them in and require higher justification standards.
Glad to see bipartisan support for this bill in Minnesota. Digital privacy protections are important, but so is enabling law enforcement to effectively investigate crimes. Curious to learn more about the specifics and how they plan to implement this.
Striking the right balance between public safety and civil liberties is crucial. While geofence warrants may aid investigations, the broad data collection raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns that need to be addressed.
Agree, this legislation seems to strike a reasonable compromise by allowing the warrants in true emergencies while otherwise restricting their use. Curious to see how it progresses.
Geofence warrants are a powerful investigative tool, but the broad data collection is concerning from a civil liberties standpoint. This proposed legislation in Minnesota looks like a reasonable compromise that warrants close attention.
Geofence warrants are a complex issue, with valid arguments on both sides. I’m curious to see how this proposed legislation would define the “emergency situations” where they could still be used. The devil will be in the details.