Drone use, search warrant changes included in omnibus data practices law

The omnibus data practices law changes five areas of Minnesota statutes, including law enforcement’s drone use; the need for a search warrant and changes to publication criteria for court of appeals opinions.

Sponsored by Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St. Paul) and Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove), the law takes effect Aug. 1, 2020, unless otherwise noted.

Drone use by law enforcement

This law requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant for using an unmanned aerial vehicle — or drone — unless an exception applies, including:

• during, or in the aftermath of, an emergency;

• over a public event where there is heightened risk to the public;

• to counter the risk of a terrorist attack;

• to prevent the loss of life and property in natural or man-made disasters;

• to conduct a threat assessment;

• to collect information over a public area if there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity;

• for crash-reconstruction purposes; and

• for officer training or public relations purposes.

An unmanned aerial vehicle cannot be armed and the law prohibits the use of facial recognition technology and data collection at public protests unless authorized by a warrant. It requires a law enforcement agency to document each use of an unmanned aerial vehicle and to delete data collected within seven days unless the information obtained is part of an active criminal investigation.

Law enforcement agencies must, by Feb. 15, 2021, create a written policy for using create unmanned aerial vehicles. The policy must include a way for the public to comment on such usage.

Warrants for electronic communication data

A government entity will be required to obtain a search warrant prior to accessing electronic communication information, such as images, email and text messages from cell phones or other wired or wireless electronic communication devices. The law specifies that information gathering requiring a warrant includes the “precise or approximate location of the sender or recipients at any point during the communication.”

Exceptions are allowed if a person gives permission to a law enforcement agency to collect electronic data, or if “exigent circumstances exist where there is a danger to the life or physical safety of an individual.”

The law requires courts, within 90 days of unsealing an electronic warrant, to disclose to the subject of the warrant the nature and duration of the surveillance investigation and if electronic communication information was collected during the surveillance period.

Warrants for electronic location-tracking devices

Effective May 17, 2020, the law makes changes relating to court-issued warrants for electronic location-tracking devices, which have unique statutory restrictions and requirements.

One provision amends the statute concerning the sealing and disclosure of a warrant for wire, electronic, or oral communications to distinguish and exempt location-tracking warrants from the general requirements.

Another provision amends the statute concerning the sealing of a warrant for a pen register (an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line), trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device to distinguish and exempt location-tracking warrants from the requirements relating to those other devices.

Scope of warrants for location-tracking expanded

Current law that prohibits a government entity from obtaining location information of an electronic device without a tracking warrant will be expanded to include “unique identifiers,” defined as any numeric or alphanumeric string associated with a single entity or account within an electronic communication application or service.

Publication criteria for court of appeals opinions

This new law removes a requirement that the court of appeals only publish decisions that establish a new rule, overrule a prior decision, provide important procedural guidelines in interpreting statutes or administrative rules, or significantly aid in the administration of justice.

It also removes requirements related to how attorneys may cite unpublished opinions in their legal briefs and memoranda.

HF3012/SF3072*/CH82

SF3072* / HF3012 / CH82