Democrats Unleash Big Brother on Federal Law Enforcement [WATCH]

The Maryland House of Delegates approved House Bill 351 by a 96-38 vote, granting Maryland residents the ability to sue federal officials for alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution. The measure passed with a constitutional majority after debate over its legal framework and data collection provisions.

During floor discussion, Del. Matthew Morgan asked for clarification about the bill’s intent.

“Can you tell me what the purpose of this bill is?” Morgan asked.

Here’s What They’re Not Telling You About Your Retirement

Del. Elizabeth Embry responded by outlining the legislation’s structure.

“The purpose of this bill is creating the equivalent of a 1983 action under Maryland law. So 1983 allows Marylanders to sue local and state officials for violating the Constitution. This allows Marylanders to sue federal officials for violating the US Constitution, and excuse me, and also it provides the ability for attorney general, state prosecutor and State’s Attorneys to assist in obtaining the identity of the official who is would be the subject of the complaint,” Embry said.

House Bill 351 is modeled on Section 1983 of federal law, which permits lawsuits against state and local officials for constitutional violations. Under the Maryland proposal, similar legal action would be available against federal officials, and state prosecutors could assist in identifying the federal official named in a complaint.

Morgan raised concerns about how the bill addresses data collection, particularly language related to investigative tools.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“So I had some concerns over there. I appreciate it. Thank you for your feedback on it. On the bill, Madam Speaker, what this bill allows you to do was simply file a complaint of a Federal officer. It allows for data collection,” Morgan said.

He referenced specific language in the bill.

“And I’m going to turn to page four the bill, and it allows, on line 11, a device called a stingray data now, if you don’t know what that is, and of course, I didn’t know what that was until about yesterday, when I started researching it,” Morgan said.

Morgan described the device as a tool that mimics a cell phone tower.

“What it allows is a fake cell phone tower to be set up so your bill so your phone attaches to it, and it connects it to G, I believe, and it gets all kinds of data, your individual ID number, any type of metadata, any type of text message that you might have sent via SMS that wasn’t encrypted,” he said.

He also expressed concern about broader data capture.

“And the other thing that it does that I think it’s really interesting, it sets up dragnet up, because if you’re like the grandmother dropping their kid off, or you’re a jogger going down the street, or you’re the Amazon driver just driving past this it also captures your data,” Morgan said.

Morgan pointed to additional bill language regarding data retention.

“Now in the bill, it talks about on page four, line 25, it’s set up to gather and secure, retain as much identifying data as possible, recapturing all this data from people that did nothing wrong,” he said.

He questioned what would happen to the collected information.

“And then you look inside, well, what are we going to do with that data? Well, I don’t see any provision in the bill to delete that data ever,” Morgan said.

Morgan concluded his remarks by criticizing the measure.

“It’s hard to believe that the same people that will vote against voter ID are willing to pass this into law. We should be renaming this the bill of the it’s like the Maryland State of police KGB act 2026 we’re going to collect this data for the purposes of identifying doxing and obstructing federal law enforcement when they’re doing their job, and then allow for searchable results GPS Data and facial recognition for the purpose of what identifying doxing, intimidating and obstructing federal law enforcement, this bill is a tragedy. Thank you, Madam Speaker,” he said.

Supporters of the bill argued that it provides accountability mechanisms and protects residents from potential constitutional violations.

Del. Lorig Charkoudian spoke in favor of the measure.

“Both because we need to protect the most vulnerable people in our state, but also because without the accountability, without holding the officers and the agencies accountable, the authoritarian government continues until nobody has any rights left across our state and across our country,” Charkoudian said.

She added, “So I’m proud to be voting yes on this bill. I’m proud to be part of Maryland where we protect the vulnerable people, and we recognize what authoritarianism looks like when it’s taking over and we stop it in its tracks. Madam Speaker, I’ll be voting yes.”

WATCH:

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.