Advertisement

Personal info on SC police and judges would be off limits, with exceptions, under Senate bill

A South Carolina Senate proposal that would shield personal identifying information of current and former law enforcement personnel from public databases was expanded Tuesday to add judges as lawmakers look to beef up the state’s privacy laws.

But transparency advocates are calling the effort unnecessary and duplicative, warning the legislation would likely create confusion throughout local governments, which could handle requests for information differently depending on their interpretation of the bill should it become law.

On Tuesday, the Senate unanimously voted to send S. 252 to the House, avoiding the Legislature’s April 10 “crossover” deadline.

State Sen. Michael Johnson, a real estate attorney, said he filed the bill after a client, a federal agent, asked about keeping his information private.

“He literally asked me during the closing, ‘Is there a form I can fill out?’” Johnson, R-York, said. “He told me the story of how, in his role, there were bad guys who wanted to kill him, (and) that it was important that he not have his name out in the world.”

Johnson’s bill would allow current and former law enforcement officers, which would range from federal to local and include correctional officers, to request that their personal identifying information be kept confidential from state and local public databases except by subpoena, court order or the officer’s consent.

Personal information might include a person’s name, their Social Security and driver’s license numbers and bank information.

The bill has exceptions that include applications for credit via a private database at a bank or car accident reports, Johnson said.

In addition, a law enforcement officer’s personal information would not be shielded in cases where the officer commits a crime, as the bill aims to protect an officer only within the scope of their duties, according to Johnson.

Other states have similar privacy laws, including California, Florida and Texas — states where the law only applies to active law enforcement members.

“Basically what (the bill is) attempting to do, and it’s been done in several states, is allow our law enforcement officers, who may have people who are out to locate them to do mischief to them or stalk them, not to easily just be able to go look up their information at the courthouse,” attorney and Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, said.

Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the S.C. Sheriff’s Association, said while the bill is not a top priority for the group, an added layer of protection would be appreciated.

“We’ve seen individuals try to identify officers based on their badge number or their name on their uniform, and then turn around and try to basically target them at their house based on actions (the officers took on the) job,” Brudder said, acknowledging that it is not, however, an “every day occurrence.”

That added layer of protection should also be afforded to South Carolina judges, said Sen. Gerald Malloy.

Malloy had asked that judges be included in privacy coverage, noting a rash of threats on the national level.

Last year, after the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, protesters showed up to the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In the same year, a Wisconsin state judge was killed by a man the judge had sentenced in a criminal case.

Taylor Smith, lead counsel for the S.C. Press Association, which advocates for newspapers including The State Media Co., said they’re watching where the proposal goes, but called the bill unnecessary, given state law already protects law enforcement’s private information.

“Presently, under South Carolina law, personal identifying information is supposed to be redacted from government records, such that if a law enforcement officer’s home address or personal cellphone number were included (in a document), there would be a legal obligation to redact that information before sharing it in a Freedom of Information Act request or other types of requests,” he said.

The larger problem, Smith said, would be interpretation of the bill should it become law, given government agencies could treat requests for information differently.

“Personally, as an attorney, who litigates issues of transparency around the state, any time an additional law defines information as a specific classification and requests it be held confidential (it) creates confusion about how information is to be handled by people who work in government and interpret those revisions within the judiciary,” Smith said.