A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 17-13-180 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS MUST TREAT A SUBPOENA, COURT ORDER, OR WARRANT ISSUED BY ANOTHER STATE AS IF THE SUBPOENA, COURT ORDER, OR WARRANT WERE ISSUED BY A SOUTH CAROLINA COURT; AND BY ADDING SECTION 17-13-190 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE, EXECUTION, AND RETURN OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA OR INFORMATION.
H3519 would add two new sections to Title 17 of the South Carolina Code dealing with electronic records and cross-border law enforcement requests. First, it would require a “South Carolina business” to treat subpoenas, court orders, and warrants issued by another state as if they were issued by a South Carolina court when the request seeks customer-identifying records, stored customer data, usage information, or communication metadata. The bill defines South Carolina business broadly to include entities organized in South Carolina, headquartered in the state, foreign businesses storing covered data in South Carolina, and foreign businesses doing business in the state.
Second, the bill would authorize a circuit court judge to issue search warrants for electronic data or information from a business that operates or provides services in South Carolina, regardless of where the data is physically stored. The warrant process would require a sworn affidavit and probable cause, allow service on a registered agent, require execution and return within ten days, and permit a preclusion-of-notice order under federal law. The bill also sets out rules for inventories and makes seized records admissible at trial if accompanied by a qualifying custodian certification and advance notice to the opposing party.
If enacted, H3519 would expand South Carolina law enforcement and judicial authority over electronic data held by businesses connected to the state, including data stored outside South Carolina. It would also create a state-law mechanism for enforcing out-of-state subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against covered businesses, potentially affecting technology companies, internet service providers, cloud storage providers, and other entities that hold customer communications or account data. The bill would add new procedures and evidentiary rules for electronic-data warrants and would likely interact with privacy, criminal procedure, and electronic communications laws.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and law-enforcement oriented rather than overtly controversial in the available record. The measure is framed as a modernization of warrant and subpoena practice for electronic data, suggesting support from those concerned with investigative access to digital evidence. No formal opposition, amendments, or recorded vote history is included here, so there is no documented split in the provided context.
The main points of potential contention are privacy, jurisdiction, and compliance burdens. The bill’s requirement that South Carolina businesses honor out-of-state legal process as if issued locally could raise concerns among businesses and civil-liberties advocates about due process, forum shopping, and the reach of other states’ laws into South Carolina-based entities. The warrant provision allowing seizure of electronic data regardless of where it is stored may also draw scrutiny from technology companies and privacy advocates concerned about extraterritorial access to data, notice restrictions, and the breadth of law-enforcement authority. Supporters would likely emphasize investigative efficiency and the need to obtain digital evidence in a cloud-based environment.