House Bill 211, known as the Kelsey Smith Act, would require wireless telecommunications carriers to provide available phone location information to law enforcement or a public safety answering point without delay in certain emergency situations. The request may be made when the device was used to place a 911 call seeking emergency assistance, or when there is reasonable suspicion that the device is with a person involved in an emergency posing a risk of death or serious physical harm.
The bill also authorizes carriers to maintain voluntary disclosure protocols and provides immunity from civil liability for carriers and related personnel who act in good faith and in accordance with the law. In addition, all wireless carriers and resellers doing business in North Carolina would have to submit emergency contact information to the State Bureau of Investigation, which must maintain a database of that information for use by public safety answering points. The SBI is directed to adopt temporary rules to implement the act, which would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill amends Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes by adding a new Article 16C governing the provision of wireless call location information to law enforcement. It creates a statutory duty for carriers to disclose location data in specified emergencies, establishes a liability shield for compliant good-faith disclosures, and imposes new administrative reporting and database-maintenance obligations on carriers, resellers, and the SBI. The measure affects law enforcement agencies, public safety answering points, wireless carriers, and telecommunications resellers operating in the state.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad legislative support for the bill, with the House passing second reading by a wide margin of 103 yeas to 8 nays. No committee transcript is available, but the strong vote indicates general agreement with the bill’s public-safety purpose and its goal of speeding access to location information in emergencies. The limited opposition appears to have been small and likely centered on privacy, data-disclosure, or carrier-liability concerns rather than the overall emergency-response objective.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the privacy implications of requiring carriers to disclose location information, the breadth of the emergency standard allowing disclosure based on reasonable suspicion, and the extent of immunity granted to carriers and their agents. Opponents may also be concerned about the administrative burden of annual contact-information reporting and SBI database maintenance, while supporters are likely to emphasize the need for rapid location access in life-threatening emergencies and missing-person or 911-related situations.