WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 707

Constitutional amendment providing the right of citizens to be secure from unreasonable searches seizures including protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of electronic communications and data

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Eric Lucero

Constitutional amendment explicitly protecting Minnesota citizens from unreasonable searches of electronic communications and data, requiring voter approval.

Author stricken Eichorn
#constitutionalamendments #datapracticesandprivacy #telecommunicationsandinformationtechnology
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 707

Legislative bill overview

SF 707 proposes a constitutional amendment to Minnesota's state constitution explicitly protecting citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures of electronic communications and data. This would expand the existing Fourth Amendment-style protections (already in Minnesota's constitution) by specifically addressing digital privacy in an era of advanced surveillance technology. The amendment would require voter approval through a statewide referendum to take effect.

Why is this important

Digital privacy has become increasingly contentious as law enforcement, tech companies, and government agencies access phone records, emails, and location data. Minnesota currently relies on statutory protections and federal law for digital privacy, which can be changed legislatively or reinterpreted by courts. A constitutional amendment would provide the strongest legal protection, making it much harder to erode these rights through future legislation or executive action. This directly affects how police can conduct investigations, how companies must handle data requests, and what privacy expectations citizens can claim.

Potential points of contention

  • Law enforcement scope: Police argue broad digital privacy protections could hamper criminal investigations, terrorism prevention, and child exploitation cases by making warrants harder to obtain or more narrowly defined
  • Business compliance costs: Technology companies and employers may face increased costs implementing stronger data security requirements and limiting surveillance capabilities
  • Definitional vagueness: "Unreasonable" is subjective—disputes will likely arise over what constitutes reasonable versus unreasonable digital searches, creating ongoing litigation and uncertainty

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.