In one paragraph
Massachusetts H4640, a new draft of H1946, would replace G.L. c. 6, s. 220 to bar law enforcement from using facial recognition and other biometric surveillance except for State Police searches under set conditions (registrar identity checks, judge-authorized felony warrant, emergency, deceased identification, another agency's request). Reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and referred to House Ways and Means October 23, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.
What it means for business
None yet: the bill has not been enacted. If enacted, Massachusetts law enforcement could acquire or use biometric surveillance only as listed, affecting vendors that sell to police; no direct duties on businesses.
Key provisions
- Replaces G.L. c. 6, s. 220: absent express legal authorization, law enforcement may not acquire, possess, use or fund biometric surveillance technology (facial recognition or other remote biometric recognition) or obtain its information through third parties, including federal agencies; information obtained in violation is generally inadmissible.
- The registrar of motor vehicles may use facial recognition to verify identity for licenses and permits; the State Police (or the FBI at their request) may run facial recognition searches only for specified purposes, including executing a judge-authorized felony warrant, an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious injury, and identifying a deceased person.
- Emergency searches require documentation of the factual basis and a sworn statement filed with the superior court within 48 hours.
- Defendants identified through a search must receive notice and access to records, including accuracy rates and audits; State Police report quarterly to the executive office of public safety and security, which publishes annual data by March 31.
- Law enforcement may not use biometric surveillance to infer emotions or affect or to analyze moving images or video; the bill sets no penalties beyond evidence exclusion and no effective date.
Latest legislative action
Oct 23, 2025. Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means
Sponsors (showing 5 of 103)
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| House Committee on Ways and Means | Primary |
| Joint Committee on Public Health | Primary |
| Joint Committee on the Judiciary | Primary |
| Michael S. Day | Primary |
| Adrian C. Madaro D | Cosponsor |
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