New Montana Law Blocks the State From Buying Private Data To Skirt the Fourth Amendment
The Big Sky State becomes the first to close the "data broker loophole" allowing the government to get private information without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not long—only 54 words, in total. But its core premise can be summed up with a simple phrase: Come back with a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment protects people "against unreasonable searches and seizures." Any law enforcement operative hoping to search or seize your "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects" must get a warrant, showing "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But in recent years, as Americans began storing larger portions of their personal information online, governments started buying this data, circumventing the Fourth Amendment's guarantees of protection. This week, Montana became the first state to restrict the practice.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Carpenter v. United States that the government cannot search a suspect's cell phone without a warrant.
"A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere," including by storing personal information on their phone, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Although such records are generated for commercial purposes," that does not "negate" one's "anticipation of privacy."
But in the years since, governments have gotten around that pesky constitutional prohibition by simply buying people's data, with the public's money.
Companies have access to reams of information about their users, and they often sell that data—anonymized—to firms called data brokers, who then bundle it and sell it to other companies, like advertisers. "A large portion of data brokerage is used for identity verification or fraud prevention," Paul Boutin wrote in Newsweek. "Much of it is used for traditional marketing."
But governments got in on the action, too. Federal agencies like the IRS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent millions of dollars buying access to data that would otherwise require a warrant. In 2022, the Associated Press reported that police departments across the country had purchased and used "an obscure cellphone tracking tool, at times without search warrants, that gives them the power to follow people's movements months back in time."
As early as January 2022, the Office of the Department of National Intelligence was aware that the intelligence community "currently acquires a large amount of [commercially available information]," which "includes information on nearly everyone that is of a type and level of sensitivity that historically could have been obtained, if at all, only through targeted (and predicated) collection" and therefore "clearly provides intelligence value." While the data are typically anonymized, intelligence agencies are often able "to deanonymize and identify individuals, including U.S. persons."
The collection nonetheless continued apace. Certain lawmakers tried to rein in the practice, with little success: The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act in the last congressional session but it stalled in the U.S. Senate.
Despite the federal government's failure to halt this practice, there has been success in the states. In February, Montana state Sen. Daniel Emrich (R–Great Falls) introduced Senate Bill 282, which says that except "pursuant to a search warrant or investigative subpoena issued by a court, a governmental entity may not purchase" such data as "electronic communications," "contents of electronic communications," "precise geolocation data," or other "sensitive data."
It further affirms that "a government entity may not obtain the stored data of an electronic device without a search warrant issued by a court upon a finding of probable cause," with exceptions such as when the device's owner gives permission, in the case of "an emergency involving danger, death, or serious physical injury," and "the electronic communications of adults or youth currently incarcerated in a correctional facility."
The bill passed both chambers of the Montana Legislature, and Gov. Greg Gianforte (a Republican) signed it into law this month.
Granted, this still leaves 49 states, plus every federal agency, free to exploit a constitutional loophole by using taxpayer money to spy on taxpayers. But it is a positive step forward and signals that lawmakers could come together and recognize the very real threat the practice poses and put a stop to it.
"Montana has done something that many states and the United States Congress have debated but failed to do: it has just enacted the first attempt to close the dreaded, invasive, unconstitutional, but easily fixed 'data broker loophole,'" wrote Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Montana, with a population of just over one million people, is showing other states how it's done."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Weird this is only criticized now and not for its use in January if 2020.
Remond me. Montana is conservative right? Conservative states are doing these protections correct?
So vote dem?
I kind of remember much of the left losing their shit in the early days of the PATRIOT act over the idea that the government should have access to credit card records and records of who's checking out which books from Public Libraries (as creepy as it seems, the idea of denying the government access to actual government records seems like a difficult argument to support).
Most of those same people had little, if anything to say about making all paypal/venmo/zelle activity in excess of $600/year reportable to the IRS when it was a Dem administration looking for that kind of access, though.
We may have actually degenerated critical thinking in the US to the point where who lined up in favor of vs opposed to a "final solution" style of ethnic cleansing operation in the US would depend mainly on which party was in power when it began, and secondarily on which race/ethinicity/religion was the designated target.
I remember when Montana passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The Act was supposed to circumvent the fuckery known as "The Commerce Clause". It was killed by a federal judge. A federal judge can render a BOR invalid, apparently. Also EOs by a standing president.
I'm guessing this law will die a similar death.
We still use the Firearms freedom act. I know many agreements are never started/invalidated/cancelled because it's still in effect - did I read your comment correctly?
This shouldnt need to be a law but the courts are captured by the regime.
They should pass laws that declare our data our personal property and just forbid the selling of it without our permission and recognize our right to the monetary value of it. And that should go for our financial data that the credit agencies collect too. But then left libertarians wouldn’t like that because they love fascism that’s imposed by corporations, which, by the way are creatures of government.
I'm fine with the law but this isn't a fucking loophole, it is the explicit legal setup with 3rd parties. Fix the actual issue and don't lie about the real issue. This is like the retards calling depreciation or depletion a loophole because they don't understand reality.
Excellent move Montana A+++++++.
Why would Trump defenders support something that will make it harder to catch illegals?
...because they aren't socialists excuse makers like leftard-snowflakes are who will equate 'crime prevention = a surveillance state' or 'local/state RROOAADDZZ = a full blown [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire'.
Excuse after excuse after excuse to entitle themselves to someone else's $, things, nation or privacy.
I want to see Montana extradite a federal employee of the FBI or NSA to the state and charge them with violating the rights of a citizen of Montana. They should have written into the law that federal employees were eligible for the death penalty for violating the law.
The Feds will just spend more money to bribe telecom workers to give them data, which they will use to then generate admissible data. They do that already but will shift their informant spend over to more enticement spend and call them stings that generated unexpected leads.