Help Find Missing Americans Act
S0745, the “Help Find Missing Americans Act,” creates a new section of South Carolina law governing access to certain wireless account information in missing-person cases. After a missing person report is filed, the named account holder for the missing child’s or missing person’s telecommunications device may submit a written request to the wireless service provider for limited information tied to that device, including location information, call numbers, and wireless data usage. The request must include a copy of the missing person report and law enforcement contact information, and the requested data is generally limited to the 12 hours before the disappearance through the date of the request, unless law enforcement asks for more.
The bill requires wireless providers to verify the requester’s identity and the existence of an active missing person report before releasing information. If those conditions are met, and law enforcement does not object, the provider must give the information to both the account holder and the investigating law enforcement agency within a reasonable time, no later than 30 days after the request. Providers must also keep detailed records of these requests for three years. The bill limits use of the disclosed information to investigative purposes related to the missing person case, creates misdemeanor penalties for knowing and willful violations, and shields providers from civil or criminal liability when they act in good faith under the act.
In addition to the telecom disclosure provisions, the bill directs the State Law Enforcement Division to submit recommendations to the General Assembly by January 1, 2027, on ways to help law enforcement in missing-person investigations. The act would take effect upon gubernatorial approval and includes a severability clause to preserve the rest of the law if any part is invalidated.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of missing-person investigations and family access to time-sensitive information. The findings emphasize the urgency of locating missing people and the importance of telecommunications data in those efforts. No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded opposition or debate to assess from the available materials.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on privacy, the scope of data access, provider compliance burdens, and the balance between family access and law-enforcement control over release of information. The bill addresses some of those concerns by limiting the categories of data, requiring verification and an active report, allowing law enforcement to block release, imposing recordkeeping requirements, and granting good-faith immunity to providers.
The bill would add Section 23-3-350 to Title 23 of the South Carolina Code, creating a new statutory process for the release of limited wireless device information in missing-person cases. It would impose duties on wireless service providers to verify requests, disclose certain data to account holders and law enforcement, retain records, and comply within specified timeframes, while also creating criminal penalties for misuse and liability protections for good-faith disclosures. It also requires SLED to study and recommend additional measures for aiding missing-person investigations, potentially informing future legislation.
The bill’s tone is highly sympathetic to families of missing persons and supportive of law enforcement efforts to locate missing individuals quickly. The stated purpose emphasizes urgency, public safety, and the importance of telecommunications data in time-sensitive investigations. Because no committee discussion or votes were provided, there is no documented legislative opposition or support beyond the bill’s own framing.
The main likely areas of contention are privacy and civil-liberties concerns about access to location and usage data, the role of wireless providers in releasing sensitive information, and whether the 30-day outer deadline is fast enough for emergency investigations. Another possible issue is the bill’s allocation of control between account holders and law enforcement, since providers may release information unless law enforcement requests otherwise. Supporters would likely emphasize investigative utility and family access, while critics may focus on data protection, due process, and operational burdens on carriers.