WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1883

Professions and occupations; mortgage broker annual fees; effective date.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Stan May

Arkansas HB 1883 would bar state agencies from aiding federal electronic data and metadata collection unless informed consent or a particularized warrant is obtained.

Referred to Business
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1883

Summary — HB 1883

Note on source materials and scope
- The materials provided for HB 1883 contain multiple, inconsistent drafts and cross‑state items (an Arkansas bill text titled the "Arkansas Fourth Amendment Protection Act", an Illinois appropriation bill text, and a separate short title suggesting a Mississippi bond to assist Hinds County). This summary focuses on the principal substantive text included in the packet — the Arkansas "Arkansas Fourth Amendment Protection Act" — and also notes the conflicting/other items and procedural status as provided.

Bill at a glance

  • Bill Number: HB 1883
  • Primary title (from packet): “To create the Arkansas Fourth Amendment Protection Act; to amend the law concerning the collection of electronic data and metadata.” (Arkansas draft)
  • Other titles present in packet: a Mississippi‑style bond title for assistance to Hinds County (Byram Volunteer Fire Dept.) and an Illinois appropriation (a $3,000,000 grant to Kane County State’s Attorney).
  • Introduced: January 16, 2025 (per packet)
  • Status: Died in Committee (sine die adjournment; multiple entries indicate Died In Committee on/around 2025-05-05 / 2025-02-26)
  • Sponsors listed in packet: Rep. Long (primary) and Rep. Stephanie A. Kifowit (primary) — reflects mixed-source materials.

Purpose / intent

  • The Arkansas draft seeks to establish an “Arkansas Fourth Amendment Protection Act” limiting how the State of Arkansas and its agencies may assist federal agencies in collecting or using electronic data and metadata from individuals. The purpose is to restrict state assistance in federal electronic surveillance/data‑collection absent informed consent, a properly particularized warrant, or a legally recognized exception.

Key provisions (Arkansas draft)

  • New subchapter added to Arkansas Code Title 25 (Subchapter 13, 25-1-1301 et seq.).
  • Definitions (25-1-1302):
    • “Electronic data” — content or characteristics of electronic communications (content, sender/recipient, precise/approximate location during communication, timestamps, device or individual identity such as IP addresses).
    • “Metadata” — non‑visible information about an electronic document (history, tracking, management, who/when/how data created/accessed/modified; formatting).
    • “State agency” — broad definition including boards, commissions, departments, offices, etc.
  • Prohibition on state assistance (25-1-1303): the state/state agencies shall not assist, participate with, or provide material support/resources to enable a U.S. Government agency in collecting or using a person’s electronic data or metadata unless:
    1. The person has given informed consent; or
    2. The collection/use is pursuant to a warrant that is based on reasonable cause and describes with particularity the person/place/thing to be searched or seized; or
    3. The collection/use falls under a legally recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

Who would be affected

  • State of Arkansas and its agencies, employees, and contractors involved in information systems, law enforcement, public safety, licensing, or any information sharing with federal entities.
  • Federal investigative agencies that rely on state assistance (technical, logistical, or data‑sharing) to collect electronic data from persons in Arkansas.
  • Arkansas residents: protections on state‑facilitated electronic data collection; potential impacts on investigations where state cooperation is normally used.

Potential implications and considerations

  • Operational: would require changes to state agency policies, data‑sharing agreements, and possibly technical/contractual arrangements to ensure non‑assistance absent consent or proper warrant.
  • Legal: could create friction or litigation regarding federal‑state cooperation and federal preemption (Supremacy Clause) if federal law or federal court orders compel state cooperation.
  • Law enforcement: may limit speed/availability of certain investigatory tools if federal agencies previously relied on state assistance.

Procedural status and timeline (as provided)

  • Introduced/Filed: January 16, 2025 (packet); other entries show filings on Jan 29 and Mar 20, 2025 consistent with mixed-source material.
  • Committee referrals: multiple (Ways and Means; State Agencies & Govt’l Affairs – House; Appropriations‑Public Safety & Infrastructure; etc.) consistent with mixed entries.
  • Final status: Died in Committee at sine die adjournment (not enacted).

If you want, I can:
- Produce a focused summary limited to only the Arkansas draft (cleaned of other-state materials), or
- Compare the Arkansas draft language to existing Arkansas law and note specific statutory changes and potential conflicts with federal law and existing state practices.

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

Sign in to ask a question.