LAW ENFORCEMENT: Provides relative to warrants for interception of communications. (8/1/25)
SB 53 modifies Louisiana's wiretap laws to clarify procedures for law enforcement seeking warrants to intercept communications. It adds a definition for a "monitoring post" (a secure facility, like a police station, controlling surveillance) and requires warrants to specify this location. The bill also mandates that if an anonymous informant's tip is used to justify a warrant, the judge must verify the tip's reliability by having the informant sworn in - though the informant's identity remains protected. These changes directly affect law enforcement agencies conducting electronic surveillance, ensuring greater transparency in warrant requests while maintaining informant confidentiality.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Apr 2025
Committee Review
May 2025
Senate Passage
Apr 2025
House Passage
May 2025
Signed into Law
Jun 2025
Introduced Apr 1, 2025
Signed Jun 4, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons
What changed between versions
SB53 Original
→
SB53 Act
·
4 edits
MODERATE
This bill amends the law regarding law enforcement warrants for intercepting communications. The primary change shifts the requirement for informant testimony from a mandatory rule to a judge's discretion, meaning judges can now choose whether to bring an informant into court for questioning rather than it being required by default. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the application must explicitly state if an informant was presented and sworn to, ensuring transparency about how the warrant was obtained.
Scope change
The bill applies to all law enforcement agencies seeking interception warrants in Louisiana, specifically modifying the procedural requirements for affidavits involving informant information.
REQUIREMENT
Changed the requirement for informant testimony from mandatory to discretionary, allowing judges to decide if an informant must appear in court for questioning.
Added a requirement that the warrant application must explicitly state whether an informant was presented to the judge and sworn in, if that step was taken.
DEFINITION
Added a new definition for 'monitoring post' to clarify where surveillance equipment is located.
TECHNICAL
Updated the legislative document header and page counts to reflect the final enrolled version of the act.
Floor votes · Senate Apr 28, 2025 · House May 22, 2025
How they voted
37–0
Passed
Total votes 37
Apr 28, 2025
D
Democratic11
100% Yea
R
Republican26
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
18
Key actions
4
Committee
4
Amendments
1
May 22, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time by title, roll called on final passage, yeas 95, nays 0. Finally passed, ordered to the Senate.
lower
May 8, 2025
Introduced
Reported without Legislative Bureau amendments.
lower
May 7, 2025
Lower · Passed
Reported favorably (9-0). Referred to the Legislative Bureau.
lower
Apr 29, 2025
Committee
Read by title, under the rules, referred to the Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice.
lower
Apr 28, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read by title, passed by a vote of 39 yeas and 0 nays, and sent to the House. Motion to reconsider tabled.
upper
Apr 22, 2025
Upper · Passed
Reported favorably.
upper
Apr 14, 2025
Committee
Introduced in the Senate; read by title. Rules suspended. Read second time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary B.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Adam Bass
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 53
Scope: LA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 53. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline