Texas Law Kills Warrantless Searches of Email

While the rest of the country worries about what the NSA is doing with our data on the Internet, the state of Texas is securing the privacy of its citizens' emails. On Friday Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) signed into law a privacy bill that will guard Texans from warrantless searches by state law enforcement officials. House Bill 2268 in effect requires that state investigators obtain a warrant to access emails no matter how old the communication might be. The bill passed in both houses of the Texas Legislature with absolutely no opposition before arriving on the governor's desk last month. Gov. Perry signed the bill into law Friday, just two days before the deadline to approve or veto it expired.

This law, authored by State Rep. John Frullo (R-Lubbock) now makes Texas the first state in the country to pass such a pro-privacy law concerning both opened and unopened emails.

Frullo said that the legislation "allows Texas to join other states in making sure law enforcement agencies are able to obtain critical evidence when criminals are using the Internet to commit crimes."

You can learn more about the bill here


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Imautobot says:

    Wouldn't those times have to involve a person doing something in a public space?  I mean, if I owned a building with a security monitoring system, I doubt the government can just walk in an legally seize that video without a warrant.  

    I mean, if they can, what's the point is trying to combat this legally, since they don't respect law anyway.

  2. 0
    Truec says:

    Not really.  There are plenty of times  you can legally be searched or spied on without a warrant.  The Constitution only guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

  3. 0
    Imautobot says:

    Ignore the fact that Warrantless anything is unconstitutional, the fact that it's carried out by a federal entity will likely make anything done at the state level irrelevant.  I suppose this has more to do with political posturing rather than legal efficacy. 

Leave a Reply