Bill Summary
HB26-1037 would prohibit law enforcement and other government entities from obtaining an individual’s personal data from a third party in exchange for anything of value. It also restricts how agencies can request, receive, and share data if that data was originally obtained from a third party for value.
- Prohibits a law enforcement entity from obtaining or receiving access to an individual’s personal data from a third party in exchange for anything of value, including fees and service arrangements.
- Prohibits requesting, obtaining, or receiving personal data from another government agency if it was obtained from a third party in exchange for anything of value.
- Prohibits sharing personal data on a third-party platform or selling it for value, and restricts government entities from sharing third-party purchased personal data with other agencies.
- Creates exceptions, including when a valid judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order is obtained, when there is an emergency risk of death or serious bodily injury, when data is publicly available through government records or widely distributed media, when there is case-specific express consent, and for certain missing or exploited child investigations.
- Creates a private cause of action and allows a plaintiff to seek reasonable attorney fees.
- Generally excludes personal data obtained in violation of the bill from trials and other proceedings, subject to limited procedural exceptions.
Position: Oppose
I support the Fourth Amendment. If government wants your data, it should follow the Constitution and get the right legal process when required.
But HB26-1037 goes past “get a warrant” and into a broad, hard-to-administer system that invites lawsuits, discourages lawful coordination, and risks weakening legitimate cases on technical grounds. We can protect privacy without turning routine, lawful investigative work into a legal minefield. Limited government also means clear laws that people can actually comply with.
Why I Am Taking This Position
1) The bill is sweeping in scope. It applies to “law enforcement and other government entities,” and defines “personal data” broadly. The definition includes items like web browsing or search history, device identifiers, precise geolocation data, communications content, and “profiles or inferences” about an individual. That is not a narrow fix. It is a very large net.
2) “Exchange for anything of value” is defined so broadly it can sweep in ordinary contracts. The bill covers money, “services or benefits” as consideration, and common fees like access fees, service fees, maintenance fees, or licensing fees. In the real world, government often pays for platforms and tools through subscriptions and contracts. This bill risks making standard procurement and legitimate investigative tools a legal hazard. When the lines are blurry, the winners tend to be lawyers, not public safety.
3) The sharing restrictions can wall off lawful coordination. The bill prohibits agencies from requesting or receiving personal data from other agencies if the data was purchased from a third party, and it restricts onward sharing of that data. Criminal activity does not stop at county lines. Putting up barriers between jurisdictions can slow investigations and create avoidable gaps.
4) It creates a new litigation pathway with attorney fees. The bill declares a violation an “injury” and creates a private right of action, with the possibility of reasonable attorney fees. That is an incentive structure that can drive lawsuits over technicalities and definitions. Taxpayers end up funding the defense, even when agencies acted in good faith.
5) The evidence exclusion rule is a blunt instrument. The bill generally keeps personal data obtained in violation out of trials, hearings, and other proceedings, unless the party introducing it provides the required warrant, subpoena, or court order and related materials (with limited waiver options tied to timing under Rule 16). That will predictably lead to more suppression litigation and delays. Privacy matters, and so does justice for victims.
6) The bill contains internal tension that will invite confusion. The bill prohibits obtaining personal data for value, but also states that certain exceptions involving data voluntarily made public do not violate the prohibition even if purchased. That kind of drafting invites inconsistent interpretation and courtroom roulette. Good law should be clear and workable.
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state representative and senator, and ask them to slow down and tighten this bill so it protects constitutional rights without undermining lawful investigations or creating a new “sue first” system.
If you think this bill goes too far, share this with a neighbor who still believes government should stay in its lane.
