Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (2025)

Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (1)

Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (2)

Allie Bohm,
Policy Counsel,
NYCLU

Share This Page

April 8, 2014

In the wake of the NSA revelations, there has been an avalanche of state bills requiring law enforcement to obtain a probable cause warrant before tracking an individual’s location in an investigation. Most state legislators know they can’t control the NSA—but they can control their state and local law enforcement, which are engaging in some of the same invasive practices. The trend actually started in the wake of the ACLU’s nationwide public records requests on location tracking and the 2012 U.S. v. Jones decision, when Montana and Maine enacted the first two location tracking laws in the country—the recent revelations have simply increased the momentum.

Working closely with our lobbyists in state capitols around the country, we’ve been tracking this activity and working hard to make sure these privacy-protective bills become law. The chart below shows the current status of state legislation as we understand it. We will keep this chart up-to-date as we receive new information.

Updated 6/30/14

2014 legislation proposed in 11 states and laws enacted in 11 states.

State

Status

Notes

Colorado
Law (2014)
Passed Senate unanimously

Illinois
Law (2014)
Only covers real-time location information. Passed Senate unanimously.

Indiana
Law (2014)
Only covers real-time location information, but also requires a warrant for drone use and for electronic device searches.

Iowa
Law (2014)
Applies only to GPS tracking.

Kansas
Legislature adjourned.
Covers all third-party held data.

Maine
Law (2013)

Maryland
Law (2014)
Only covers real-time location information.

Massachusetts

Also requires a warrant for electronic communications content.

Michigan
Introduced
Legislation focused on the use of StingRays.

Minnesota
Law (2014)

Missouri
Passed the House and Senate; awaiting governor's action.
Bill amended in the Senate to allow location tracking under a less protective legal standard.

Montana
Law (2013)

New Hampshire
Passed House. Senate Committee referred for interim study (dead for this year)

Ohio
Passed the Senate

Oklahoma
Dead for this year

South Carolina
Passed the House. Legislature adjourned without further action.
Also covers law enforcement access to electronic communications content.

Tennessee
Law (2014)
Amended to undermine all privacy protections in the bill.

Utah
Law (2014)
Also requires a warrant for electronic communications content.

Vermont
Legislature adjourned.

Virginia
Law (2014)
Only covers real-time location information.

West Virginia
Legislature adjourned

Wisconsin
Law (2014)
The bill allows location tracking under a less protective legal standard.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

  • National Security
  • Surveillance by Other Agencies
  • Privacy and Surveillance
  • Location Tracking

Related Content

  • Washington, D.C.

    Feb 2025

    Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (3)

    Immigrants' Rights

    National Security

    Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem

    Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration on Feb. 12, 2025, for access to immigrants transferred from the United States to detention at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.

    Status: Ongoing

    Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem

  • Press Release

    Feb 2025

    Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (4)

    Free Speech

    +2 Issues

    ACLU Seeks Records on DOGE’s Unrestricted Access to Americans’ Data, Urges Congress to Step Up

    WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with more than 40 federal agencies seeking urgent transparency about the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s secretive efforts to access and analyze Americans’ sensitive personal information. The ACLU also sent letters to key congressional leaders, calling on Congress to fulfill its constitutional role in conducting immediate oversight of this executive overreach and DOGE’s unchecked access to Americans’ data.The move comes amid growing concerns that DOGE—a hastily assembled office created on President Trump’s first day in office—has been infiltrating federal agencies and gaining access to databases, including Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS) systems, that contain information on individuals’ finances, health records, and social security data. As DOGE reportedly uses AI to decide what critical public services and programs to cut, failure to protect this data not only creates the perfect storm for an unimaginable data breach or hack but also endangers the health and safety of millions of Americans. Ultimately, Trump cannot slash federal programs – including community health centers, refugee resettlement agencies, and early education programs without massive amounts of data, and DOGE is providing him with everything he needs.In its FOIA requests, the ACLU is asking for any records that reveal whether DOGE or its representatives have sought or obtained access to databases containing personally identifiable information, financial records, healthcare data, or other sensitive government-held records of Americans. The request also seeks information on DOGE’s use of artificial intelligence to analyze government data, raising alarms about the potential for mass surveillance and politically motivated misuse of that deeply personal information. The letter to congressional leaders similarly underscores that the executive branch’s flaunting of long-standing legal requirements and norms undermines Americans’ privacy and Congress’s constitutional role.“The American people deserve to know if their private financial, medical, and personal records are being illegally accessed, analyzed, or weaponized by Trump's unaccountable team of unvetted outsiders,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “There’s every indication that DOGE has forced its way into the government’s most tightly protected databases and systems, without consideration of longstanding privacy safeguards mandated by Congress. We need answers now.”DOGE leadership is cynically claiming that its employees and representatives, who are largely housed within government agencies, are not subject to FOIA. That is why – in addition to DOGE – the ACLU has sent FOIA requests to more than 40 agencies that maintain sensitive or personal information, including the Treasury Department, the IRS, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, among others.“DOGE's access to sensitive personal records of millions of people is deeply alarming and raises significant legal questions,” said Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “Congress must step up, do its job, and check the president’s overreach.”

    Court Case: U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems FOIA

    ACLU Seeks Records on DOGE’s Unrestricted Access to Americans’ Data, Urges Congress to Step Up

  • Press Release

    Feb 2025

    Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (5)

    National Security

    Free Speech

    ACLU Urges Court to Order Government to Release Records on Fusion Center and Joint Terrorism Task Force Surveillance

    WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union is urging a federal court to step in after the FBI and DHS failed to produce even a single record on the use of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and fusion centers to monitor and disseminate information on protestors and communities of color. This comes eight months after the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for these documents, and six months after we sued for them.JTTFs and fusion centers are core components of the U.S. government’s massive domestic intelligence apparatus, serving as nexus points for information sharing among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. There are nearly 200 JTTFs and 80 fusion centers around the country. They operate with minimal oversight and scant accountability, and have long histories of wrongly targeting activists and communities of color, often associating protest with “terrorism,” without any evidence of wrongdoing.The ACLU’s FOIA request seeks to shed light on JTTF and fusion center surveillance during both the Biden administration and the first Trump administration to assess their impact on privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. These documents are especially timely given the recent order by the Trump administration that, pending the creation of “Homeland Security Task Forces,” the JTTFs are to directly coordinate with DHS, as well as all state and local agencies, “to assist in the execution of President Trump’s immigration-related initiatives.”“As Donald Trump ramps up his abhorrent mass deportation regime and pressures government agencies and officials to follow his reckless orders, it’s more important than ever for the American people to know what guardrails, if any, the FBI and DHS have in place to protect the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of our communities,” said Aamra Ahmad, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. During the first Trump administration, then-Attorney General Barr deployed JTTFs to surveil racial justice activists protesting the police killings of George Floyd and other Black people. And, around the country, fusion centers have similarly targeted political, religious, and social justice activists, disseminating intelligence reports that warn law enforcement to surveil and report on protestors and protest activity. For example, in 2019, the Virginia Fusion Center sensationalized environmental activists’ protests against gas pipeline construction, equating a boycott threat and ignoring police commands with designated foreign terrorist organizations’ bombings and violence.

    Court Case: ACLU v. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the Use of JTTFs and Fusion Centers to Target Protesters and Communities of Color

    ACLU Urges Court to Order Government to Release Records on Fusion Center and Joint Terrorism Task Force Surveillance

  • News & Commentary

    Jan 2025

    Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (6)

    National Security

    Why Sanctioning the ICC Would Be Terrible for Civil Liberties

    Sanctions would endanger the investigation of war crimes across the globe and prove a grave blow to human rights.

    By: Kia Hamadanchy, Charlie Hogle

    Why Sanctioning the ICC Would Be Terrible for Civil Liberties

Status of Location Privacy Legislation in the States | ACLU (2025)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Margart Wisoky

Last Updated:

Views: 6006

Rating: 4.8 / 5 (78 voted)

Reviews: 93% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Margart Wisoky

Birthday: 1993-05-13

Address: 2113 Abernathy Knoll, New Tamerafurt, CT 66893-2169

Phone: +25815234346805

Job: Central Developer

Hobby: Machining, Pottery, Rafting, Cosplaying, Jogging, Taekwondo, Scouting

Introduction: My name is Margart Wisoky, I am a gorgeous, shiny, successful, beautiful, adventurous, excited, pleasant person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.