Committee approves revised surveillance-camera bill that narrows scope and adds exigent exception

The committee approved a revised committee substitute for Senate Bill 84 that changes several drafting terms, narrows covered devices, and adds an exigent-circumstances exception intended to address stakeholder concerns. Counsel told the committee the revisions were circulated to stakeholders and the sponsor prior to the hearing.

Counsel said the revised substitute replaces the word “place” with “install” when referring to surveillance cameras on private land and expressly defines “surveillance camera” to include game cameras while excluding vehicle dash cams and body-worn cameras. Counsel also said the bill’s private-land definition was revised to mirror terms (posted, cultivated, fenced) used elsewhere in state law and that the bill now defines “property owner” as an individual or entity other than a government that owns, leases, or possesses the real property or an employee/agent of that entity.

In addition, counsel said the prior narrow exception for using a camera to locate a missing person was broadened to encompass any exigent circumstance — for example, officers in pursuit, an escaped inmate, or officers seeking to render aid. Counsel described the changes as intended to preserve the sponsor’s overall intent while addressing ambiguities raised earlier in the session and by stakeholders.

After counsel’s explanation the committee agreed to the committee substitute and voted to report it to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass. The committee did not place a roll-call tally in the transcript; the chair declared the ayes have it. The substitute will be sent to the Senate for further consideration.