Senate Counsel, Research
and Fiscal Analysis
Minnesota Senate Bldg.
95 University Avenue W. Suite 3300
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-4791
Tom Bottern
State of Minnesota
S.F. No. 1263 - Omnibus Privacy Bill (First Engrossment)
Author: Senator Warren Limmer
Prepared By: Kenneth P. Backhus, Senate Counsel (651/296-4396)
Priyanka Premo, Senate Counsel (651/296-3914)
Date: April 1, 2019



SF 1263 is a privacy omnibus bill. It makes changes related to information collection, use, sharing, and access.


Section 1 extends the Legislative Commission on Data Practices expiration date from 2019 to 2026.

Sections 2 expands current rideshare data classifications to cover data collected by any government entity administering a rideshare program and classifies additional data as either private or nonpublic. Under current law, only rideshare data collected by the Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council are classified as private.

Section 3 makes current transit customer data classifications and sharing authorizations applicable to all government entities.

Section 4 requires that the contracts between ignition interlock device manufacturers and their Internet or cellular service providers prohibit the providers from sharing or transferring information about a device’s location unless required to do so by a court order or warrant. Also similarly prohibits manufacturers from sharing or transferring this information.

Section 5 authorizes the Department of Human Rights to share private or nonpublic data in a closed case file with a charging party and respondent when a charging party brings a court action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Chapter 363A.

Section 6 makes a conforming change deleting a cross-reference to a provision being repealed under section 17 of this bill.

Sections 7 and 10 to 15 require that a government entity obtain a search warrant prior to accessing electronic communication information. Provide exceptions for emergencies and consent. Address notice to the subject of the information and the filing, sealing, and reporting on warrants under these provisions. Define terms. Of note, “electronic communication information” is limited to the contents of electronic communications and the precise or approximate location of the sender or recipient at any point during the communication.

Section 8 requires a law enforcement agency to obtain a search warrant for the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV” or drone) unless the law enforcement agency meets one of the exceptions for use without a warrant. Exceptions include an emergency situation, a public event imposing substantial risk to the safety of participants or bystanders, natural or man-made disasters, to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack, officer training purposes, and for a non-law enforcement purpose at the request of a government entity.  Provides limitations on use including requiring documentation in certain circumstances. Requires governing body approval prior to purchasing a UAV.  Requires UAV data collection to be limited to a narrowly defined target.  Prohibits the use of facial recognition or other biometric-matching technology unless expressly authorized by a court.  Classifies UAV surveillance data as private or nonpublic data subject to certain limitations, including criminal investigative data. Prohibits evidence collected in violation of this section from being admitted in criminal, civil, or administrative against a data subject. Authorizes a civil cause of action for parties aggrieved by a violation of this section. Requires law enforcement agencies, through the Commissioner of Public Safety, to annually create a public report to the Legislature on their use of UAVs.  Requires the judiciary to annually create a public report to the Legislature on requests for UAV warrants.

Sections 9 and 16 clarify the applicability of overlapping laws relating to court-issued warrants to the electronic device location-tracking warrant law.  This language was part of the 2018 vetoed Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations bill.  Section 9 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.  Location-tracking warrants have unique restrictions and requirements under statute.  Section 16 amends the statute concerning the sealing of a warrant for a pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device to distinguish and exempt location-tracking warrants from the requirements.

Section 17 repeals statutory sections superseded by section 7 and repeals a duplicative section (the same language appears at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.201 (see section 2, rideshare data).

Section 18 contains the effective dates.

Check on the status of this bill
Back to Senate Counsel and Research Bill Summaries page

This page is maintained by the Office of Senate Counsel, Research, and Fiscal Analysis for the Minnesota Senate.
Last review or update: 04/01/2019
If you see any errors on this page, please e-mail us at