How much snooping is too much?

Stopping unwanted snooping isn't easy.

Just ask Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel.

His anti-surveillance bill stalled in an Indiana Senate committee last week on a 5-5 vote, but Delph pledged to try to amend the language into another bill this week.

Senate Bill 231 would impose felony penalties for illegal searches and seizures of electronic communication without court-ordered warrants or under exigent circumstances.

The bill is one of three anti-surveillance measures being considered by the legislature now, one of which has passed the House.

During a hearing of Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee, Delph said his bill is "an assertion of our state sovereignty and tells the federal government we think your policies are against the public policies of Indiana."

Most senators on the committee expressed support for the bill's concept of protecting citizens from an invasion of privacy. But several said they are concerned about too many unanswered questions in the bill and that Delph doesn't yet have the support of the Indiana State Police.

They also are worried about a provision that makes state and local agencies or individuals at risk of being charged with a felony, if they assist the federal government in obtaining electronic communication without the proper court authority or under exigent circumstances.

The Indiana State Police acknowledged in December it had acquired the Stingray technology, a surveillance device which acquires cell phone data potentially from hundreds of people at once. Gov. Mike Pence has said he supports limited use of the technology, as long as it is overseen by a judge.

Delph said he was motivated to introduce the bill, primarily after reports of widespread electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency.

"If you're a bad guy, we're going to go after you," he said. "If you're a good guy we're going to respect you and not go after you."

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, who voted to approve the bill, said he's still not comfortable with it and wants Delph to be able to work out any differences with the State Police before voting for it on the floor.

"I don't want to impede the work of the State Police," he said.

Delph said he can't make a commitment that the State Police will agree with the bill, but that he is continuing to work with the agency and other stakeholders who have issues with the bill.

Sen. Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said it's an important and timely issue to bring forward, based on the NSA's actions. But he voted against it until he's comfortable that changes will be made to improve the bill.

One of the other measures, House Bill 1384, concerning the downloading of cellular telephone information by police, passed the House this week by a vote of 87-3. It prohibits a police officer from extracting or downloading information from a telecommunications device without the owner's consent, unless the officer has probable cause to believe the device was used in committing a crime, has a search warrant or is otherwise authorized by law.

A similar bill, Senate Bill 64, regarding downloading of cell phone information by police, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning, but has not been heard by the full Senate.

Delph's proposal is more restrictive. Under his Senate Bill 231, a warrant showing "probable cause" of a crime must be obtained from a judge before any searching or seizing of an electronic device. Without court-ordered warrants, these illegal searches, if successfully prosecuted, would be considered Level 5 felonies that can result in prison terms from one to six years and fines up to $10,000.

"We cannot allow governments to ride roughshod over the privacy rights of individuals," Delph said last week. "There needs to be a check on that."

He said the public needs this type of protection now because of the fast-growing technological advances that make it possible for governments to conduct these kinds of "Orwellian-type" searches of ordinary citizens without their knowledge. Delph cited the surveillance controversies involving the National Security Agency and the Indiana State Police as indications of the broader problem.

But he added, "The idea isn't to take away the capability of an agency to take out threats and act on due process. I want to shift the burden back to governments to prove why they need the surveillance."

Delph realizes the felony penalty is strong and is open to changes in the bill. "I wanted to send a message."

According to Delph, Maine became the second state in July 2013, after Montana, to require police to obtain a warrant for location data and other state legislatures have considered laws requiring similar laws for emails as well.