Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Tom Scheck
St. Paul, Minn.

Privacy advocates want amendment to protect personal data

Karl Eggers
Liberty Minnesota's Karl Eggers spoke in support of a proposed constitutional amendment to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure of electronic communication. Eggers was flanked by a bipartisan group of state lawmakers and special interest groups, Feb. 16, 2015.
Tom Scheck | MPR News

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

Privacy advocates are pushing to allow Minnesota voters to decide whether their electronic communication should be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers and political organizations is encouraging the Legislature to put the question on the 2016 ballot.

State Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, worries that law enforcement is overstepping its authority in acquiring data like financial and telecommunications records without getting search warrants.

"If data was what it is today — if it would have been that way back when the constitution was being written — I believe they would have included a person's technological communications as part of those things that would have been protected by the Fourth Amendment," Scott said.

A committee in the Republican-controlled House has scheduled a hearing on the bill this week. No committee hearing is scheduled in the Senate and DFL Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk said he's reluctant to put any measures on the ballot next year.

"I think it would be unlikely that we're going to consider something additional for the ballot in 2016," Bakk said. "It's a conversation that I haven't had with the speaker yet if they have any interest to propose something."

Privacy issues are a major theme at the Capitol this year. There are also discussions about the privacy implications of police body cameras and police use of license plate readers.