Montana’s Prohibition of Facial Recognition Technology
Montana has adopted some of the strongest restrictions in the United States on government use of facial-recognition technology. The state’s law is designed to limit the ability of government agencies and law-enforcement authorities to use automated facial identification and continuous facial surveillance while allowing limited use in serious circumstances.
Under Montana Code Annotated Title 44, Chapter 15, government agencies and law-enforcement agencies are generally prohibited from obtaining, retaining, possessing, accessing, requesting, or using facial-recognition technology or information generated through a facial-recognition search. The law also restricts government contracts with third-party companies for prohibited facial-recognition activities.
A particularly significant provision addresses continuous facial surveillance. Montana law generally prohibits government entities and law-enforcement agencies from installing or using systems that continuously conduct facial surveillance on public buildings, public roads, or highways. The intent is to prevent the creation of a system capable of constantly identifying and tracking people as they move through public spaces.
The law, however, is not an absolute prohibition on every use of facial recognition. Montana permits law enforcement to use facial-recognition technology in narrowly defined circumstances. These include investigations involving serious crimes, efforts to locate or identify missing or endangered people, and identification of deceased individuals.
In many circumstances, law enforcement must obtain a warrant before conducting a facial-recognition search. An emergency exception exists when there is an imminent threat to a person, although the law requires law enforcement to seek a warrant within 24 hours after an emergency search.
Montana also places safeguards on how facial-recognition results can be used. A facial-recognition match cannot, by itself, establish probable cause. Human review is required before an adverse final decision is made based on a facial identification. These provisions recognize that facial-recognition systems can produce inaccurate matches and that an automated result should not automatically be treated as proof of a person’s identity.
The law also distinguishes facial recognition from facial verification used to provide government services. Under certain conditions, government agencies may use facial verification, but they must establish privacy and use policies, obtain written consent for the collection of facial biometric information, and provide an alternative method for people who do not want to use facial verification.
Montana’s approach therefore represents a balance between privacy protections and limited public-safety applications. Rather than banning facial-recognition technology in every circumstance, the state places substantial restrictions on government use and establishes specific exceptions for law enforcement and government services.
The Montana law reflects a broader national debate over facial recognition. Supporters of restrictions argue that widespread biometric surveillance can threaten privacy, enable tracking of innocent people, and disproportionately affect individuals when recognition systems make mistakes. Supporters of limited law-enforcement use, meanwhile, argue that facial recognition can help investigators identify suspects, locate missing people, and respond to serious threats.
Montana’s framework attempts to address both concerns by restricting routine government use while permitting narrowly defined applications under legal safeguards. Its prohibition on continuous facial surveillance is particularly significant because it limits the development of systems capable of monitoring and identifying people throughout public spaces.
Ultimately, Montana’s facial-recognition law establishes an important principle: the government’s ability to use powerful biometric identification technology should be subject to legal limits, oversight, and specific public-interest requirements. As facial-recognition technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, Montana’s approach may continue to serve as an important example in the national discussion about privacy, surveillance, civil liberties, and public safety.
Montana has increasingly become a national example of a state willing to challenge powerful institutions, international organizations, and Federal government policies that many residents believe threaten individual freedom, medical choice, and state sovereignty.
Supporters of Montana’s approach point to a series of controversial legislative efforts involving vaccines, blood donations, surveillance, and international organizations. The State of Montana was among the first states to introduce legislation restricting blood donations from people vaccinated against COVID-19, proposed a ban on mRNA vaccines, and enacted legislation preventing state and local governments from enforcing or funding certain policies associated with the UN, WHO, and WEF.
Together, these measures have helped establish Montana as one of the more outspoken states in the American debate over personal liberty and government authority. For many Montanans, the answer is increasingly clear: individual liberty, informed consent, and constitutional government should come first.
British Columbia should follow the example set by its southern neighbour.
NN, DB
