HB7752, titled the Kelsey Smith Act, would amend federal wiretap and stored communications law to require providers of electronic communication service to disclose available location information to law enforcement or a public safety answering point without delay in certain emergency circumstances. The bill defines “location information” broadly as data about the current or most recently known location of a telecommunications device, while excluding the contents of communications. It also defines “telecommunications device” and “public safety answering point” for purposes of the new rule.
Under the bill, disclosure would be required when an officer or authorized public safety answering point employee requests the information and either the device was used to contact emergency services within the prior 48 hours or the officer has reasonable suspicion that the device is with a person involved in an emergency posing a risk of death or serious physical harm. The request must also be supported by subscriber consent, next-of-kin consent if the subscriber is unavailable, or documented reasonable efforts to obtain consent when delay could increase the risk of death or serious physical harm. The bill requires agencies to keep records of such requests and the basis for disclosure.
The bill would affect federal law by adding a new emergency-disclosure requirement to 18 U.S.C. § 2703 and by amending definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2510. It would apply to providers of electronic communication services and law enforcement agencies, and it expressly preserves any more protective or otherwise applicable state laws requiring disclosure of location information in similar emergency situations. The bill also sets a priority order for determining next of kin for consent purposes.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a public-safety measure and appears to have been introduced without recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The overall sentiment is therefore best characterized as supportive or safety-oriented, with the main policy emphasis on faster access to location data during emergencies. The principal point of contention is the balance between emergency response needs and privacy/civil-liberties concerns, especially because the bill authorizes disclosure based on reasonable suspicion and allows disclosure when consent cannot be promptly obtained if delay could increase the risk of serious harm.
Impact
The bill would create a new federal emergency disclosure pathway requiring telecommunications and electronic communication service providers to turn over available location information to law enforcement or public safety answering points under specified urgent circumstances. It would amend 18 U.S.C. § 2510 to define key terms and 18 U.S.C. § 2703 to add a new subsection governing emergency requests, recordkeeping, and next-of-kin consent procedures. The bill would not preempt more protective state laws and explicitly preserves state requirements that already compel disclosure in emergency situations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided context, the bill appears to have been introduced as a public-safety and missing-person/emergency-response measure with generally favorable framing. The title, the emergency-disclosure structure, and the reference to the Kelsey Smith Act all indicate a focus on enabling faster rescue efforts. No opposing statements are provided, but the policy design suggests likely support from law enforcement and emergency-response advocates, alongside expected caution from privacy advocates.
Contention
The main area of contention is the privacy and due-process tradeoff created by mandatory emergency disclosure of location data. Supporters are likely to emphasize rapid access to location information in life-threatening situations and when a person has contacted emergency services, while critics may focus on the breadth of the “reasonable suspicion” standard, the ability to proceed after only reasonable efforts to obtain consent, and the potential for misuse or overbroad disclosure. Another possible point of debate is the bill’s interaction with state law, since it preserves state requirements but also establishes a federal baseline for emergency access.