Bill Description: Senate Bill 1299 would prohibit government from requiring digital ID or using it for extraneous purposes.
Rating: +1
Amendment Note: The Senate Amendment to the bill made the bill worse in several ways. It removed the provision stating that “information incidentally observed on a device shall not be used to establish probable cause or justification for further search or seizure.” The amendment also gutted the bill's enforcement provisions and removed any personal liability when a government employee violates someone's rights in violation of this law. The rating has not changed.
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
Senate Bill 1299 would create Section 67-2364, Idaho Code, to prohibit government entities from requiring “any person to obtain, maintain, present, or use digital identification.” It would also say that they shall not “deny, delay, condition, or reduce any service, benefit, license, employment, education, or access based on a person's refusal or inability to use digital identification.”
It further clarifies that “physical, non-digital identification authorized under Idaho law shall remain valid for all governmental purposes.”
In cases where someone chooses to use digital ID, a government entity shall not “require a person to surrender, unlock, or relinquish control of a personal electronic device for identity verification.”
Furthermore, “presentation of digital identification shall not constitute consent to search or access any other contents of a device.”
The original bill also said, “information incidentally observed on a device shall not be used to establish probable cause or justification for further search or seizure,” but the Senate Amendment to the bill removed this important protection.
It says digital ID “may be used only for immediate identity verification,” and government entities shall not “track individuals, retain identity data beyond a transaction, or use digital identification as a universal or shared credential across agencies.”
Finally, the bill provides enforcement mechanisms, allowing an aggrieved individual to seek declaratory or injunctive relief and to receive statutory damages of $500 – $2,500. The court could also impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 against the government entity.
The amended version of the bill removed the primary enforcement mechanisms of the original bill, including statutory damages and civil penalties. As amended, it says, “The attorney general shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this section. Before filing an action for injunctive relief, the attorney general shall provide written notice of the alleged violation and allow the public entity fifteen (15) days to cure the violation. If the violation is not cured within fifteen (15) days, the attorney general may bring an action in district court to enjoin the public entity from violating the provisions of this section.”
It further says, “Any person aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring an action in district court for declaratory or injunctive relief. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section may enforce such order through the court's contempt authority as provided by law. A prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this section shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.”
This is far weaker than the statutory damages and civil penalties provided for in the original bill.
Finally, the amendment adds a new provision that states, “No public employee shall be personally liable for actions taken within the employee's scope of employment.” This greatly reduces accountability by affirmatively limiting liability when government employees violate someone's individual rights.
(+1)
