Minnesota Lawmakers Seek to Ban Reverse Location Warrants

Bipartisan group says warrants that gather data on devices near crime scenes violate constitutional rights

Mar. 17, 2026 at 1:25am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A group of Minnesota lawmakers has proposed a bill to ban the use of reverse location warrants, also known as 'geofence' or 'dragnet' warrants, except in emergency situations. These warrants allow law enforcement to gather data on cellphones and other devices that were present in a certain area at a certain time, which critics say violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The bill is being considered as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case on the constitutionality of these warrants.

Why it matters

The use of reverse location warrants has increased significantly in Minnesota in recent years, raising concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Supporters argue the warrants are a critical tool for solving complex criminal investigations, while opponents say they cast too broad a net and infringe on constitutional rights.

The details

The proposed Minnesota bill would prohibit the use of reverse location warrants except in cases of 'sudden emergency.' It would also allow anyone whose information was obtained through such a warrant to sue law enforcement. Law enforcement groups have argued the warrants are necessary, but say they are open to 'reasonable safeguards' to address privacy concerns.

  • Between 2018 and 2020, the number of reverse location warrants in Minnesota rose from 22 to 173.
  • In 2023, Google announced it would stop storing location data in a way that would make it susceptible to reverse location warrant requests. By July 2025, all location history data previously stored on Google servers had been deleted or moved to device storage only.

The players

Erin Maye-Quade

A Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) state senator from Apple Valley who proposed the Senate bill to ban reverse location warrants.

Eric Lucero

A Republican state senator from Dayton who is an original sponsor of the Senate bill.

Omar Fateh

A Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) state senator from Minneapolis who is an original sponsor of the Senate bill.

Drew Evans

Superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, who argued that an outright ban on reverse location warrants 'would have a major detrimental effect on public safety in Minnesota.'

Jay Henthorne

President of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, who said reverse location warrants are a critical tool for identifying suspects in 'otherwise unsolvable cases.'

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We do believe that we have to balance our constitutional rights and public safety so that we're not essentially sending law enforcement in to search for a needle in a haystack by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack.”

— Erin Maye-Quade, State Senator

“There are numerous examples of case investigations where reverse location data has saved lives, even just recently.”

— Drew Evans, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

“This can generate leads in otherwise unsolvable cases. Removing this tool will make it significantly harder to identify suspects in serious crimes.”

— Jay Henthorne, President, Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association

“We simply want to make sure that those time tested principles are protected in the new digital realm.”

— Eric Lucero, State Senator

What’s next

The Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee discussed the bill on March 9, and a companion bill was discussed in the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on Feb. 24. The U.S. Supreme Court is also set to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of reverse location warrants in April.

The takeaway

This debate over reverse location warrants highlights the ongoing tension between law enforcement's need for digital investigative tools and the public's constitutional rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. As technology continues to advance, lawmakers and the courts will need to carefully balance these competing interests.