A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 30-2-500, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE DEFINITION OF "PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION" AND TO DEFINE "DISCLOSED RECORDS"; BY AMENDING SECTION 30-2-510, RELATING TO OPTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO MAKE PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL; EXCEPTIONS; PROCEDURES, SO AS TO RESTRICT PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION IN A DISCLOSED RECORD FROM A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INTERNET WEBSITE MAINTAINED BY OR OPERATED ON BEHALF OF A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION RESTRICTED FROM DISCLOSED RECORDS UNDER THIS SECTION MUST REMAIN WITHIN THE OFFICIAL RECORD HELD OR MAINTAINED BY A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY, AND TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES; BY ADDING SECTION 30-2-515 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO COURT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARTICLE AND TO PREVENT LIABILITY FROM ACCRUING TO A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR THE EMPLOYEE'S AGENTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 30-2-700, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE DEFINITION OF "PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION" AND TO DEFINE "DISCLOSED RECORDS"; BY AMENDING SECTION 30-2-710, RELATING TO OPTIONS FOR JUDGES TO MAKE PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL; EXCEPTIONS; PROCEDURES, SO AS TO RESTRICT PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION IN A DISCLOSED RECORD FROM A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INTERNET WEBSITE MAINTAINED BY OR OPERATED ON BEHALF OF A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION RESTRICTED FROM DISCLOSED RECORDS UNDER THIS SECTION MUST REMAIN WITHIN THE OFFICIAL RECORD HELD OR MAINTAINED BY A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY, AND TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES; BY ADDING SECTION 30-2-715 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO COURT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARTICLE AND TO PREVENT LIABILITY FROM ACCRUING TO A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR THE EMPLOYEE'S AGENTS; TO DIRECT THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY TO COLLABORATE IN THE CREATION OF THE DESIGNATED FORM FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FOR A JUDGE TO USE TO REQUEST THE RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION IN DISCLOSED RECORDS; AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES.
H3736 expands and clarifies South Carolina’s existing privacy protections for active and former law enforcement officers and judges by allowing them to request that certain personal contact information be restricted from publicly available government websites. The bill defines “disclosed records” as official records or images of records posted on public government websites, and it broadens the definition of protected personal contact information to include items such as home address, personal cellular number, name, and, where applicable, property tax map number. It also requires state and local agencies to use designated forms, supported by notarized affidavits, when a covered person seeks to restrict access to that information.
The bill also creates procedures for compliance and enforcement. It directs the Office of Court Administration and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy to collaborate on a standard request form for law enforcement officers and judges, and it allows eligible requesting parties to petition a court for an order compelling compliance. In addition, it provides that liability does not accrue to state or local government employees or their agents for claims or damages arising from personal contact information appearing in the public record. The measure makes conforming changes across the statutes governing law enforcement and judicial privacy protections and delays the effective date of Act 56 of 2023 from July 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026.
The bill’s practical impact is to limit online public access to certain identifying information while preserving the underlying information in official government records. It affects state and local agencies that maintain public-facing databases, county registers of deeds, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Secretary of State’s filing systems, while preserving disclosure in specified circumstances such as subpoenas, court orders, written consent, and certain title and legal uses. It also clarifies that the restriction does not apply indefinitely to a later home address and requires updated notice if the protected person moves.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a privacy and safety-oriented bill intended to protect current and former law enforcement officers and judges from public exposure of home and contact information. The structure of the bill suggests a generally supportive policy purpose, with the main emphasis on administrative implementation rather than broad policy conflict.
The main points of contention, as reflected in the text itself, are likely to involve the balance between privacy and public access to records. The bill narrows public website access but preserves access for certain entities and situations, which may raise questions about transparency, recordkeeping burdens, and the scope of exemptions. It also places responsibility on the requesting party to update agencies when a home address changes, and it creates a liability shield for government employees, both of which could be areas of administrative or legal concern.
H3736 amends Title 30, Chapter 2 of the South Carolina Code to expand and standardize privacy protections for law enforcement officers and judges by restricting specified personal contact information from public government websites while keeping it in official records. It adds definitions for “disclosed records,” expands the categories of protected information, establishes petition-to-court enforcement provisions, and requires state and local agencies to use designated forms and affidavits for requests. The bill also delays the effective date of Act 56 of 2023 to January 1, 2026, and makes conforming changes affecting agencies that maintain public records and online record systems.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to gauge sentiment. From the bill’s caption and structure, the measure appears to be framed positively as a privacy and safety protection for law enforcement officers and judges, with no evident partisan or procedural opposition in the supplied materials. The overall tone is administrative and protective rather than controversial.
The likely areas of contention are the tension between privacy protections and public access to government records, and the administrative burden on agencies that must implement redaction and notice procedures. The bill preserves access for certain parties and record types, but it also limits what can appear on publicly available websites, which may concern transparency advocates. Another possible point of dispute is the liability shield for government employees and the requirement that requesting parties keep agencies updated about address changes, which shifts some compliance responsibility to the protected individual.