HB 2668 regulates private individuals or organizations that offer to help locate missing persons in Oregon when they are not acting on behalf of law enforcement or another public body. The bill defines a “private search party” and requires such parties, before beginning search efforts, to disclose to an immediate family member that they are not connected to government and to explain the nature of their involvement. If the private party plans to charge a fee, solicit donations, or profit from photos, videos, or other recordings made in connection with the search, it must also disclose that information to the family in writing and verbally.
The bill also creates a notice requirement to county sheriffs: at least 72 hours before search efforts begin, a private search party must notify the sheriff in the county where the search will occur and provide identifying information, certifications, whether dogs will be used, the anticipated timeframe, and whether required family disclosures have been made. A law enforcement agency for a public body may authorize the search to begin sooner than 72 hours. Counties are authorized, but not required, to adopt ordinances or resolutions imposing civil penalties for violations of these requirements.
Impact
HB 2668 adds new provisions to ORS chapter 404 governing search and rescue by creating disclosure and notification rules for private search parties. It does not change the duties of public search-and-rescue agencies directly, but it gives counties authority to enforce compliance through civil penalties and requires coordination with sheriffs before private searches begin. The bill is aimed at protecting missing persons’ families from misleading or profit-driven private search efforts while giving local law enforcement advance notice of such activities.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support. It passed the House committee unanimously, passed the House on the floor 55-0, and passed the Senate committee unanimously. On the Senate floor it passed 23-3, indicating overall favorable sentiment with limited opposition. The votes suggest the measure was generally viewed as a practical regulation of private search activity rather than a controversial expansion of state authority.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the 72-hour advance notice requirement, the disclosure obligations to families, and the possibility of civil penalties at the county level. Critics may view these provisions as burdensome for private volunteers or as limiting rapid response efforts, while supporters likely see them as necessary consumer-protection and public-safety safeguards against uncoordinated or profit-motivated searches. The bill also leaves counties discretion to adopt penalties, which may raise concerns about uneven local enforcement.