Senate Bill 92 would let a person petition for a peace order when a respondent conducts unwanted visual surveillance of an area of a residence where the petitioner has a reasonable expectation of privacy and would let judges order devices used for surveillance removed or repositioned.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Paul Quarterman (District 2), told the Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 15 that the measure is intended to fill a gap in the current peace order statute: "it authorizes a person to petition for a peace order and to be heard in court on the grounds that the respondent is conducting unwanted visual surveillance of an area of a residence where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy." Quarterman said the bill expands available relief to permit a judge to order the removal or repositioning of devices within 15 days of a final peace order and to order the respondent to refrain from further visual surveillance.

Quarterman described a constituent case that prompted the bill: a new neighbor installed more than a dozen cameras along a property line and placed some to view a backyard area used by two minor children. The constituent attempted to seek relief through local law enforcement and later tried to use the existing peace order process, Quarterman said, but was told the current law did not permit the relief they sought. A witness who identified themself as Ms. Lezerman told the committee her family had placed plywood and other screening after repeated attempts to have the neighbor remove cameras failed and after attempts to serve a peace order were unsuccessful.

Committee members asked whether the bill would solve service-of-process issues; Quarterman said the serving problem is separate and that he would work with local state's attorneys and sheriff’s offices to improve service. He also said the judiciary had previously raised concerns that existing statute did not allow judges to provide the specific relief being sought, which this bill aims to clarify.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing. Quarterman asked the committee for a favorable report.

The hearing record includes committee questions and short discussion but no formal meeting action on SB 92.

If enacted as written, SB 92 would add explicit remedies to the final peace order and create a statutory basis for judges to order physical removal or repositioning of cameras used to conduct unwanted surveillance of private residential areas. The bill would not itself resolve service-of-process problems, which the sponsor said would require coordination with local law enforcement and prosecutors.