The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Massachusetts updates wiretap statutes to modernize electronic surveillance rules and judicial oversight
Last action · December 18, 2025: Accompanied a study order (under JR10), see S2886Sponsors: Bruce Tarr and 1 other
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Would Do
Massachusetts law enforcement officials are permitted to use modern electronic surveillance under strict judicial supervision for specific non-organized-crime offenses, while body-mounted and vehicle-mounted cameras used openly by uniformed officers are excluded from definitions.
Law enforcement agencies gain explicit authority to intercept communications crossing state borders when the crime falls under Massachusetts jurisdiction, while private individuals remain strictly prohibited from using secret surveillance devices.
- Bruce E. Tarr filed Senate Bill 1266 in the Massachusetts Senate during the 195th legislative session to update state wiretap statutes. context
Who It Would Affect
Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
law enforcement officials
Law enforcement personnel gain explicit authorization to use modern electronic surveillance and body cameras without classification as intercepting devices under specified conditions.
communications service providers
Providers of wire or electronic communications service may be ordered by a judge to furnish technical assistance and facilities to accomplish interceptions unobtrusively.
citizens of the commonwealth
Citizens are subject to updated wiretap and electronic surveillance rules while receiving privacy protections against unauthorized secret use by private individuals.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this bill allow private citizens to use secret recording devices?
Are police body cameras considered illegal wiretapping under this bill?
What is the maximum duration for a wiretap warrant under the updated law?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Currently in committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.
Procedural history
5 actions- Dec 18, 2025SenateAccompanied a study order (under JR10), see S2886
- Oct 20, 2025JointHearing scheduled for 09/09/2025 from 01:00 PM-05:00 PM in A-2
- Sep 2, 2025JointHearing scheduled for 09/09/2025 from 1:00 PM-5:00 PM in A-2 and virtual
- Feb 27, 2025HouseHouse concurred
- Feb 27, 2025SenateCommitteeReferred to the committee on The Judiciary
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Modernization of Wiretap Statutes for Digital and Cellular Tech
The bill expands traditional wiretap definitions to explicitly cover cellular telephones, smartphones, and digital communications while establishing clear rules for police body cameras.
Connected Entities
Sources
malegislature.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance75How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy60Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment10Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz35Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools