Government Surveillance Series — Part Two
Model legislation and a citizen action guide
Part One of this series compared all 50 states across five protections involving cash and central-bank digital currency, facial recognition, government artificial intelligence, electronic information, and commercial data brokers. The comparison revealed a national patchwork: some states lead in one or two areas, but very few address the entire surveillance system as a coordinated whole.
The series began with an Instagram video from Montana Senator Ken Bogner describing five protections his state has pursued. This second article turns that comparison into a practical legislative agenda. It identifies enacted laws worth studying, explains how privacy protections can preserve legitimate public-safety tools, and provides model language that legislators can adapt with the assistance of state legislative counsel.
The goal is not to prohibit every useful technology. It is to prevent suspicionless monitoring, require judicial process for targeted access, preserve narrow emergency exceptions, and ensure that an agency cannot purchase or automate its way around protections that would otherwise apply.
From State Law to Model Legislation
A state does not have to invent these protections from scratch. Several legislatures have already adopted useful components that can be studied, combined, and improved. The strongest approach is not a total prohibition on every investigative tool. It draws a clear line between targeted access based on evidence and indiscriminate collection involving the public at large.
Leading State Laws Worth Studying
Cash Choice — Colorado
Colorado's HB 21-1048 requires many in-person retail establishments to accept U.S. currency while preserving workable exceptions for unattended sales, certain specialized transactions, financial institutions, and qualifying cash-to-card devices.
Facial Surveillance — Maine and Montana
Maine broadly restricts government facial surveillance while allowing carefully defined searches involving serious crimes and missing or endangered people. Montana separately prohibits continuous facial surveillance.
Government AI — Montana
Montana prohibits specified harmful government AI uses, including cognitive manipulation, malicious activity, unlawful discriminatory classifications, and public-space surveillance outside defined exceptions.
Electronic Information — California
The California Electronic Communications Privacy Act generally requires a warrant before government compels electronic information from a provider or accesses information on a device, subject to defined exceptions.
Purchased Personal Data — Montana
Montana prevents government entities from purchasing specified communications, location, financial-network, pseudonymous, and sensitive data without the judicial process otherwise required.
Central-Bank Digital Currency — Montana
Montana prohibits a governing authority from accepting or requiring payment through a CBDC and from participating in a federal CBDC test. This is distinct from—and ideally paired with—a retail cash-choice law.
The Privacy and Public Safety Balance
The best legislation protects the majority of people from suspicionless monitoring while preserving focused tools for circumstances in which government can identify a legitimate need. Privacy is not achieved by preventing every search. It is achieved by requiring government to justify a targeted search, limiting what may be collected, recording how the tool was used, and imposing consequences when officials ignore the rules.
Identify the person, account, device, location, suspected offense, and time period whenever practicable.
Allow carefully defined responses to imminent threats, missing people, deceased-person identification, and cybersecurity emergencies.
Treat algorithmic results as investigative leads—not the sole basis for arrest, denial of benefits, or another consequential action.
Delete irrelevant information, non-target data, and emergency-access records unless a court authorizes continued retention.
Publish policies, system inventories, aggregate use statistics, accuracy testing, vendor information, and audit results.
Attach meaningful consequences to unlawful collection, improper retention, evasive contracts, and repeated agency violations.
Five Model Provisions for State Legislation
The following language is an advocacy starting point based on features found in enacted state laws. It is not a complete bill. A legislator should ask nonpartisan legislative counsel to conform it to the state's constitution, definitions, criminal procedure, public-records law, procurement law, and enforcement structure. Select each provision to expand it.
1. Protect Cash Choice and Limit Compulsory CBDC Participation
Model provision
A retail establishment that offers goods or services to a consumer in an in-person transaction shall accept United States currency as payment. This requirement does not apply to an online transaction, an unattended point of sale, a transaction requiring a security deposit or payment guarantee, a financial institution, or an establishment that provides a no-fee device converting cash to a generally accepted prepaid card.
A state or local governing authority may not require, accept, or condition access to a public benefit or service on payment through a central-bank digital currency, and may not use public funds to test or implement a central-bank digital currency unless expressly authorized by a subsequent act of the legislature.
Why this balance works: It protects an inclusive and comparatively private payment option while recognizing legitimate operational exceptions. It also prevents administrative adoption of a CBDC without a public legislative decision.
2. Prohibit Continuous Facial Surveillance and Control Targeted Searches
Model provision
A government entity shall not use or contract for continuous or real-time facial surveillance in a public space. A law enforcement agency may conduct a targeted facial-recognition search only pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause, or to identify a missing or endangered person, identify a deceased person, or respond to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Emergency use must be documented and submitted for judicial review within 48 hours. A potential match must receive trained human review and may not serve as the sole basis for arrest, search, seizure, or probable cause. Agencies shall maintain auditable logs, publish annual aggregate reports, and delete nonmatching and unlawfully obtained data.
Why this balance works: It stops population-level tracking but retains a narrow path for serious investigations, missing-person cases, and immediate danger. Corroboration reduces the risk that an inaccurate match harms an innocent person.
3. Require Transparent and Accountable Government AI
Model provision
Each state and local agency shall maintain a public inventory of artificial-intelligence systems that identifies the vendor, purpose, data sources, affected population, decision supported, human-review procedure, accuracy testing, known limitations, retention period, and appeal process. Before deploying a high-impact system, the agency shall complete and publish an impact assessment and obtain approval through a public process.
A government AI system may not be used for cognitive manipulation, unlawful discrimination, social scoring, malicious activity, or suspicionless surveillance of public spaces. No AI output may be the sole basis for arrest, denial of a benefit, employment action, licensing decision, or other material adverse action. Emergency and investigative use remains subject to applicable warrant, facial-surveillance, and records laws.
Why this balance works: It permits useful administrative tools but requires visibility, testing, human responsibility, and an avenue to challenge consequential decisions.
4. Require Warrants for Sensitive Electronic Information
Model provision
Except with the specific consent of the owner or authorized user, or in a documented emergency involving imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, a government entity shall not compel a service provider to disclose—or directly access—electronic communication information, electronic device information, precise location information, stored content, or records revealing a person's associations or activities without a warrant issued upon probable cause.
The warrant must describe with particularity the person, account, device, information, and time period to be searched. The agency shall provide notice to the affected person within a defined period unless a court authorizes delayed notice, minimize collection outside the warrant, and delete nonresponsive information according to a written retention schedule.
Why this balance works: Investigators retain access to relevant digital evidence, but an independent court limits the search and emergency access must be justified after the fact.
5. Close the Government Data-Broker Loophole
Model provision
A government entity, employee, contractor, or person acting on behalf of a government entity shall not purchase, license, request, obtain, or access from a data broker or other third party personal information that the government entity would be prohibited from obtaining without a warrant, court order, subpoena, or other legal process if the information were sought directly from the individual or a service provider.
The prohibition applies to direct purchases, trial access, subscriptions, reimbursements, intermediaries, and contracts structured to avoid this section. Access is permitted when supported by the otherwise required legal process or by a documented emergency involving imminent danger, subject to prompt judicial review. Contracts, aggregate usage, and compliance audits shall be public, and unlawfully obtained information must be deleted and may not be used in a proceeding.
Why this balance works: It does not create a new barrier to evidence government may lawfully obtain. It prevents an agency from buying its way around the safeguard that would apply if it requested the same information directly.
What a Complete Bill Should Also Include
Definitions determine whether a privacy law works. A complete bill should clearly define government entity, data broker, personal information, precise location, facial recognition, continuous surveillance, artificial intelligence, high-impact decision, emergency, and service provider. It should also address agency procurement, vendor duties, data security, retention, public reporting, independent audits, employee training, complaint procedures, judicial remedies, exclusion or nonuse of unlawfully obtained information, and whether local governments may enact stronger protections.
Important: Model language is a starting point for advocacy—not filing-ready legal text. Every proposal should be reviewed and conformed by qualified, nonpartisan legislative counsel in the state considering it.
Turn This Information Into Action
Knowing where your state stands is only the beginning. These protections will not appear automatically, and waiting until a surveillance network is fully established makes reform harder. State legislators need to hear a clear, practical request from the people they represent: technology may assist legitimate investigations, but it must remain subject to warrants, narrow legal authority, transparency, and human accountability.
Make One Clear Request
Do not begin with a long speech or a general complaint about technology. Identify the most serious gap in your state and ask the legislator to sponsor, support, or study legislation addressing it. A focused request is easier for an elected official and legislative staff to understand, research, and answer.
- Require a warrant before government uses facial recognition to identify or track a person, with narrow emergency and missing-person exceptions.
- Prohibit continuous, suspicionless facial surveillance and prevent an algorithmic match from serving as the sole basis for arrest.
- Require agencies to publish an inventory of AI systems, vendors, purposes, data sources, accuracy testing, and human-review procedures.
- Require a warrant for sensitive electronic communications, precise location information, and device data.
- Close the data-broker loophole for information that would otherwise require legal process.
- Protect access to physical cash and prevent compulsory state participation in a CBDC.
Use a Firm but Productive Approach
The strongest message is not partisan and does not assume every public official intends to misuse technology. It establishes a durable principle: if government could not lawfully seize information without judicial process, it should not be allowed to buy or generate the same information through a vendor, an algorithm, or a surveillance network.
- Introduce yourself as a constituent and include your city or ZIP Code.
- Name the specific protection you want and briefly explain why it matters to your family, business, community, or constitutional rights.
- Reference the relevant section of this guide and ask the office to study Montana or another leading state as a starting point.
- Ask directly: Will the legislator sponsor or support this protection? If not, what concern prevents support?
- Request a written response and the name of the staff member handling privacy, technology, public safety, or judiciary issues.
- Follow the bill after introduction. Contact committee members, submit testimony, attend hearings or town halls, and encourage other constituents to make the same focused request.
- Remain respectful and persistent. One message can be overlooked; organized and informed follow-up is harder to dismiss.
A Message You Can Send
Subject: Protect Our State from Warrantless Digital Surveillance
Dear Senator or Representative [Name],
I am a constituent from [City or ZIP Code], and I am asking you to support strong statewide protections against warrantless digital surveillance. Our laws should require government agencies to obtain proper judicial authorization before using facial recognition, accessing sensitive electronic information, or purchasing personal data from commercial brokers.
Please consider sponsoring or supporting legislation that closes these loopholes while preserving narrowly defined uses for emergencies, missing persons, and serious criminal investigations. Montana and several other states provide useful models that our legislature can examine.
Will you support legislation addressing this issue? I would appreciate a written response explaining your position and any action your office plans to take.
Respectfully,
[Name]
[City and State]
Five Questions Every Legislator Should Answer
Find the State Legislators Who Represent You
Once you have reviewed the five questions, send them to the people who can act on them. State legislative districts are based on your home address, so use one of the resources below to identify the correct state representative and state senator. Then follow the official contact links to send an email, call the office, or request a meeting.
Plural — Find Your Legislator
Enter your address for a quick list of the state lawmakers connected to your district. Plural notes that users should confirm the most current information with their secretary of state or official legislature website.
USA.gov — Elected Officials
Use the official federal directory to reach resources for federal, state, and local officials. Choose the state-legislator option and follow it to official names and contact information.
Ask for a bill, a hearing, a vote, and an answer.
Privacy protections become real only when lawmakers put clear limits into law and citizens insist that those limits be enforced.
The Bottom Line
The strongest state policy does not force a choice between privacy and public safety. It gives investigators a lawful path to targeted information while protecting the public from continuous or suspicionless monitoring. Citizens can help move that policy forward by asking for a specific bill, insisting on clear definitions and enforceable safeguards, and following the proposal through hearings, amendments, and a vote.
Editorial and Legal Note
This public-interest guide was reviewed in September 2026 and summarizes a fast-changing area of law. It is not legal advice. State statutes contain definitions, exemptions, delayed effective dates, agency-specific rules, and judicial interpretations that cannot be fully reproduced in a short national guide. Readers should consult the linked sources and current official code before relying on a provision in a legal matter.
Sources and Further Reading
- Instagram. Ken Bogner, “Is Your State Doing Any of These?”
- Colorado General Assembly. HB 21-1048, Retail Business Must Accept Cash
- Maine Legislature. Maine Revised Statutes, Title 25 §6001, Facial Surveillance
- Montana Legislature. Montana Code §44-15-104, Prohibition of Continuous Facial Surveillance
- Montana Legislature. Montana Code §2-21-102, Prohibited Use of Artificial Intelligence
- California Legislative Information. California Penal Code §§1546–1546.4
- Montana Legislature. Montana Code §46-5-603, Governmental Entities May Not Purchase Data
- Montana Legislature. Montana Code §30-24-103, Central-Bank Digital Currency
- Federal Reserve. Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation
- Plural. Find Your Legislator
- USA.gov. Find and Contact Elected Officials