S3045Introduced in the Senate
Dictates the length a search warrant involving a tracking device would be valid and provide a process to extend the time frame of the tracking device for good cause.
Introduced by Andrew Dimitri, District 25
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -- SEARCH WARRANTS - Dictates the length a search warrant involving a tracking device would be valid and provide a process to extend the time frame of the tracking device for good cause.
Where it stands
Committee recommended measure be held for further study
April 2, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
SenateStage: Senate Committee on Judiciary: Be held for further study · April 2, 2026
10
Yes
0
No
0
Absent or Not Voting
10 senators recorded in this Senate vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each senator voted
| Senator | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jacob Bissaillon | 1 | Yes |
| Ana Quezada | 2 | Yes |
| John Burke | 9 | Yes |
| Dawn Euer | 13 | Yes |
| Thomas Paolino | 17 | Yes |
| Andrew Dimitri | 25 | Yes |
| Todd Patalano | 26 | Yes |
| Mark McKenney | 30 | Yes |
| Matthew LaMountain | 31 | Yes |
| Leonidas Raptakis | 33 | Yes |
Bill history
Introduced, referred to Senate Judiciary
Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration (04/02/2026)
Committee recommended measure be held for further study
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.