Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Privacy Protection Judges topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances bill extending privacy protections for judges and law‑enforcement contact information

2886138 · April 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

S.126 clarifies that restrictions apply to publicly available government websites, extends the effective date to Jan. 1, 2026, and directs court administration and the Criminal Justice Academy to create a form for restricting access to personal contact information; the committee gave the bill a favorable report.

The committee gave S.126 a favorable report after proponents said the bill clarifies and extends prior privacy protections for judges and law‑enforcement personnel.

Representative Jordan explained the bill’s background: last session’s Act 56 established a personal privacy protection framework for law enforcement and judges; subsequent action (Act 220) postponed the effective date to July 1, 2025. S.126 would further clarify that the restriction on disclosure applies only to publicly available internet websites operated by state or local government agencies, would extend the effective date to Jan. 1, 2026, and would clarify that title insurers, title insurance agencies and attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina Bar may receive protected contact information when necessary for their duties.

Jordan also said the bill directs the Office of Court Administration and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy to collaborate on a designated form that law‑enforcement officers or judges may use to request restriction of access to personal contact information. Representatives from county clerks of court and registers of deeds supported the approach as a more practicable method for their offices to comply.

After discussion and questions about whether the bill would interfere with existing registries, committee members voted to give S.126 a favorable report by roll call: 23 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 not voting. The bill will proceed to the full Judiciary Committee.