Bills allow more personal data searches

CARSON CITY — In a state where people value small government and little intervention in their private lives, the Nevada Legislature is considering several bills that would increase the power of authorities to collect and store sensitive information on the people they seek to protect.

The proposals range from expanding collection of DNA for genetic analysis of criminals to creating a database of people accused of elder abuse. Others would allow the government to secretly search electronic communications and create a state repository for court records of people with mental health issues that would be shared with federal officials.

While advocates say the plans will make Nevada a safer place, critics are concerned the state may be compromising the privacy of its citizens.

“The first question on every legislator’s mind should be, ‘What is the problem we are trying to address, and is there a less invasive way of achieving that goal?’ ” said Lee Rowland, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.

“This is especially true here in Nevada, where we have a long and proud tradition of skepticism toward the expansion of government power.”

One Senate-approved bill working its way through the Assembly was modeled after the USA Patriot Act, which President Bush signed in 2001. The act gave authorities unprecedented power to search, seize, detain or eavesdrop in their pursuit of terrorists.

Nevada Senate Bill 82 would let the government conduct secret searches on electronic communications without getting a warrant from a judge.

Under the plan, state officials could require a cell phone company or Internet provider to hand over phone logs and the full text of e-mails and text messages.

Even school police officers could use the authority granted under the bill. Amendments under consideration in the Assembly Judiciary Committee could erase those provisions.

“Somebody needs to explain to me why school district police officers need to conduct warrantless searches,” Rowland said. “We are talking really about the most extraordinary powers of law enforcement.”

Bill sponsors in the state attorney general’s office have said law enforcement officials already have that power in Nevada, though critics disagree.

The bill also would allow no-warrant seizures of funds on prepaid debit cards to block money-smuggling by drug-dealers or financing for terrorists.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said the main purpose of the bill is to enable law enforcement to access criminals’ debit cards and keep up with crimes they’re committing over the Internet.

“The intent here is really to give law enforcement the tools, at the same time protecting the constitutional rights of individuals,” Masto said.

Much of the debate in legislative hearings has focused on the seizure of prepaid debit cards. But electronic privacy issues in the bill, which could affect more than criminals, have been largely overlooked.

“With the Patriot Act, there’s a reasonable argument that you have national security concerns and speed issues,” said Orrin Johnson of the Washoe County Public Defender Office. “But here, they need a warrant to read e-mails that are less than 6 months old, but not those that are older, so your privacy diminishes over time. We think they should have to get a warrant.”

Assistant Attorney General Keith Munro sees the bill differently. He said Nevada law already allows police to get phone and Internet records from a service provider with just a subpoena. However, Munro on Friday suggested that the Assembly Judiciary Committee remove provisions that prompted concerns over privacy rights.

Johnson acknowledged the bill in its original form would help law enforcement. “But there are a lot of things that would help law enforcement but are unconstitutional, and are too high a price to pay and intrude on people’s privacy.”

“This is a work in progress,” Masto said. “That’s the intent, to have these open hearings on both sides of the house to address the issues so everybody can address their concerns and we can work through it.”

“We dealt with the Patriot Act several sessions ago, and it caused several of us to be very, very concerned about overly broad intrusion into private lives,” said Assembly Judiciary Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks. “So we will examine it in light of the fact that law enforcement has a legitimate right to know information, and the public has a legitimate right to protect their privacy.”

Anderson said, “This is a great example of why ordinary people have to serve in the Legislature, because we look at it not through the law enforcement prism, but through how it affects all of us.”

Another bill in the Assembly would establish a registry to track people who abuse and neglect the elderly.

Under Assembly Bill 8, a person who works with the elderly who was accused of abuse would have their name added to the database even if the person was not charged with a crime. Potential employers could use the database to screen applicants.

Currently, police officers and adult protective services staffers must report suspected abuse, but those reports aren’t kept in a central database.

“Imagine the potential for abuse,” Rowland said. “We are literally talking about changing someone’s life. You could get someone fired.”

Another Assembly-backed plan would let authorities collect DNA samples from convicted felons without obtaining a court order. A related bill that would have allowed DNA collection from people arrested but not convicted of a felony died in committee.

Johnson said, “I think one of the things people forget, when you’re looking at issues of liberty versus community safety, is at the end of the day, you can’t have anarchy, you can’t have a police state, and you’ve got to draw a line somewhere.”