In one paragraph
Massachusetts' H 4359 (193rd General Court, 2023-2024) would have made it unlawful for law enforcement to use biometric surveillance technology, including facial recognition, absent express legal authorization. The registrar of motor vehicles could use facial recognition to verify identity for licenses, and State Police could run searches for limited purposes such as a judge-authorized warrant for a felony or an emergency. Reported by Judiciary and sent to House Ways and Means on February 12, 2024, it saw no further action and died with the session.
Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.
What it means for business
None: the bill did not pass and is not law. Had it passed, it would have restricted Massachusetts police use of facial recognition and required public agencies to report searches, affecting vendors of such tools.
Key provisions
- Would replace section 220 of chapter 6, defining biometric surveillance technology, facial recognition and other remote biometric recognition
- Would bar law enforcement agencies and officers from acquiring, possessing or using biometric surveillance technology, or obtaining information derived from it, absent express authorization in law, and make information obtained in violation inadmissible
- Would let State Police perform or request facial recognition searches only for specified purposes: assisting the registrar, a judge-authorized warrant for a felony, an emergency, identifying a deceased person, or on behalf of another agency with a warrant or written reason
- Would require emergency searches to be documented and a sworn statement filed with the superior court within 48 hours, and require notice and disclosure of search records to criminal defendants
- Would require quarterly reporting of searches to the executive office of public safety and security, and annual public data by March 31, including the race and gender of subjects as assessed by the officer
- Would bar law enforcement from using biometric surveillance to infer emotions or to analyze moving images or video, though authorized facial recognition could be run on a still image taken from video
- Not enacted: reported favorably by Judiciary and referred to House Ways and Means February 12, 2024; "No further action taken" December 31, 2024
Latest legislative action
Dec 31, 2024. No further action taken
Sponsors (showing 5 of 53)
| Name | Role | District |
|---|---|---|
| Adam Gomez D | Sponsor | SD-HAMPDE |
| Brian Murray D | Sponsor | HD-10-WOR |
| Carol Doherty D | Sponsor | HD-03-BRI |
| Cynthia Creem D | Sponsor | SD-NORFOL |
| David LeBoeuf D | Sponsor | HD-17-WOR |
Topics and industries
Related topics
Affected industries
This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error