Law Enforcement Personal Privacy Protection and Judicial Personal Privacy Protection
S. 126 revises South Carolina’s privacy protections for active and former law enforcement officers and judges by expanding the definitions of protected “personal contact information” and “disclosed records.” The bill covers home addresses, personal cellular telephone numbers, and, where applicable, tax map numbers, and it defines disclosed records as official-record images or database records posted on publicly available government websites. It requires state and local agencies to restrict that information from public internet display when an eligible officer or judge submits the designated form and a notarized affidavit verifying service or employment status.
The bill also clarifies how the restriction works in practice. Protected information must remain in the official record but cannot appear in public indexes or on images posted online, and if redaction cannot be done without exposing the record, the image may not be displayed. The bill allows limited disclosures to specified parties such as other government agencies, courts, title insurers, attorneys, engineers, surveyors, and personal representatives of deceased eligible parties. It also requires agencies to provide a description and citation when information is withheld, and it adds court-petition procedures and liability protections for government employees and their agents.
In addition to amending the existing law enforcement and judicial privacy statutes, the bill delays the effective date of Act No. 56 of 2023 from July 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026. It directs the Office of Court Administration and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy to create a standardized request form for officers and judges, including fields for identifying information, service status, and the location of the records to be restricted. The bill also makes conforming changes to align the two privacy protection articles.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The Senate passed the bill 44-0 on second reading, and the House passed it 110-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. The committee report recommended passage, and there is no recorded opposition in the provided materials.
The main points of contention, to the extent they are visible in the text, are operational rather than ideological: how agencies will implement redaction, how the request form will work, and how to handle records that cannot be partially redacted without suppressing the entire image. The bill also places responsibility on the requesting officer or judge to update agencies when a home address changes, and it preserves access for certain third parties and for records covered by other laws such as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
This bill amends Title 30, Chapter 2 of the South Carolina Code to expand and clarify privacy protections for law enforcement officers and judges. It changes the statutory definitions of protected information and disclosed records, requires public websites maintained by or for state and local governments to restrict qualifying personal contact information, adds court-enforcement and immunity provisions, and delays the effective date of the 2023 privacy act to January 1, 2026. It also imposes administrative duties on the Office of Court Administration and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy to create a standardized request form, affecting state and local recordkeeping, web posting practices, and disclosure procedures for government agencies.
The bill’s reception appears overwhelmingly positive. It advanced unanimously in both chambers, with a 44-0 Senate vote on second reading and a 110-0 House vote for passage, suggesting broad support for strengthening privacy protections for current and former law enforcement officers and judges. The committee report also recommended passage, and no dissenting views are reflected in the provided materials.
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The main issues raised by the bill itself concern implementation details: how agencies must redact or suppress online records, how to handle subsequent address changes, what information must be included on the standardized form, and how exceptions for courts, title professionals, attorneys, engineers, surveyors, and other government agencies will operate. The bill also balances privacy with public-record access by preserving access to nonprotected information and by allowing disclosure in limited circumstances, which may be the primary area where administrative questions arise.