MN LPR Bill Bites the Dust

Bill Dies in House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee

Two days ago, I reported a story about a new Minnesota bill that made broad sweeping proposals to limit, inhibit and require signage for repossession companies to use LPR cameras and data. And just like that, it died in committee. That’s the good news. The bad news is, it wasn’t because anyone gave a damn about LPR’s use in the repo industry.

By the time I was done writing and posting Thursday’s story about it, it had already been voted down in a 7-7 vote split along party lines on Tuesday! My apologies for the late and false alarm.

Rep. Brad Tabke (DFL-Shakopee) was the sponsor of this bill who almost facetiously claimed that this bill was simply about “…critical data that needs to be protected,” he said.

Republicans said the restrictions could unintentionally impede legitimate law enforcement investigations.

John Boehler, policy counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union Minnesota, supports the bill because it would require law enforcement agencies to maintain detailed audit trails on when data is entered, accessed, shared or disseminated.

Those audits would reveal if the technology is being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, he said, or if it is violating Fourth Amendment rights requiring warrants before tracking the movements of law-abiding people.

Committee Co-Chair Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover) shares the data privacy concerns raised by the bill, adding that the 2015 law authorizing the use of automated license readers needs to be revisited to keep up with the quickly advancing technology they employ. But she said this bill is not the correct path to do so.

As amended, the bill failed to advance out of the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee Tuesday on a 7-7 party-line roll-call vote.

“There are some things that need to be tweaked,” she said. “I really do want to work on this going forward and I commit to doing that.”

Of note, the only point of contention surrounding this bill was its requirements of the auditing of police data. Should this bill, or anything like it, show the light of day again, that saving obstacle will likely not exist as is.

As far as my timing goes, they made amendments to it and changed the bill name. I was only looking for the first bill and was unaware of the amended version. My apologies.

Source: Minnesota House of Representatives