The bill amends the Communications Act to require providers of a covered service to disclose the available location information of a user’s telecommunications device to an investigative or law enforcement officer or an employee or agent of a public safety answering point in an emergency involving risk of death or serious physical harm, or to respond to a user’s call for emergency services. It creates a narrow, time-bound disclosure framework intended to speed emergency responses by clarifying when and how location data can be shared, and it builds in record-keeping, civil-immunity, and state-law interaction protections.
The scope centers on two data-use conditions (a recent 9-1-1 call or reasonable suspicion of emergency risk) and defines the terms “covered service” and “investigative or law enforcement officer” for clarity. The bill also creates a conforming cross-reference to existing federal statutes to align enforcement tools.
This is a policy lever to shorten response times in life-threatening situations, at the cost of expanding access to sensitive location information.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a location-information disclosure pathway to Section 222, allowing a covered-service provider to furnish location data to law enforcement or PSAPs without delay when a 9-1-1 call occurred in the prior 48 hours or when there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in an emergency risk.
Who It Affects
Directly affects providers of covered services (commercial mobile service and IP-enabled voice service), investigative or law enforcement officers, and public safety answering points; it also implicates device users in emergencies.
Why It Matters
It formalizes rapid-location disclosures to emergency responders, potentially reducing response times in critical cases, while introducing new obligations and privacy considerations for providers and users.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Kelsey Smith Act would require providers of certain communications services to share a user’s location information with law enforcement or PSAPs when there is an emergency risk of death or serious harm, or to respond to an emergency call. The disclosure is allowed when an officer or PSAP agent acting in official duties asks for location data and the device was involved in a 9-1-1 call within the past 48 hours, or when there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in an emergency.
Providers must provide the available location data without delay and must keep a record of each disclosure, including the requesting officer’s name, a description of the request, and a declaration of necessity. The bill includes a hold-harmless provision for providers, clarifies that state laws may also apply, and defines key terms like “covered service” and “investigative or law enforcement officer.” It also adds a cross-reference to align Section 222 with related federal statutes.
The intent is to speed life-saving responses, but the change raises privacy and data-security considerations for both providers and users.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new location-data disclosure duty for providers of covered services to LE/PSAP without delay in emergencies or 9-1-1 contexts.
Requests must be tied to a recent 9-1-1 call (within 48 hours) or reasonable suspicion of a critical emergency.
Disclosures must be documented by the requesting agency with the officer’s name, a description of the request, and a justification.
Providers receive a hold-harmless shield for compliance with these disclosures.
A conforming amendment links this provision to 18 U.S.C. and defines key terms like ‘covered service’ and ‘investigative or law enforcement officer.’.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section designates the bill’s official name as the Kelsey Smith Act.
Required emergency disclosure of location information to law enforcement or public safety answering point
This is the substantive provision. It amends Section 222 to authorize location-information disclosures to LE or PSAPs when the officer or agent is acting in official duties and the device was used to place a 9-1-1 call in the preceding 48 hours or there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in an emergency risk. It requires the disclosing provider to maintain a record of the request, including the requester’s name, a description of the request, and a declaration of necessity. It adds a hold-harmless clause for providers and clarifies how state law interacts with this federal requirement.
Conforming amendment
This section cross-references the new 222(d) framework in Section 2707(a) of title 18 U.S.C., ensuring the federal code aligns with the emergency-location-disclosure mechanism and its use in emergency-response contexts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Public safety answer points (PSAPs) and investigative or law enforcement officers gain a clearer, faster mechanism to obtain location data needed to respond to emergencies.
- Emergency responders and agencies can act more quickly in life-threatening situations, potentially saving lives.
- Telecommunications providers gain judicial clarity and immunity from certain civil actions when complying with valid requests.
- Families and individuals in imminent danger benefit from more rapid emergency responses.
Who Bears the Cost
- Providers must implement and maintain processes to handle requests, logs, and privacy controls, incurring compliance costs.
- PSAPs and law enforcement agencies may need to adopt or adapt record-keeping systems to capture required data fields.
- Users’ privacy and data-security risk could increase due to broader access to location information in emergencies.
- Regulators and inspectors may face greater oversight duties to ensure proper use and retention of disclosed data.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the life-saving urgency of emergency-location disclosures with the right to privacy and data-security, all while ensuring consistency across federal and state regimes and avoiding mission creep in law-enforcement access to location data.
The bill advances a clear emergency-response objective by mandating rapid access to location data under tightly defined conditions. However, it introduces policy tensions that warrant attention: it widens access to sensitive location information, creating potential privacy and data-security risks for users and increased operational exposure for providers.
The record-keeping requirement, while fostering accountability, raises questions about data retention, auditing, and potential misuse if disclosures are inappropriately sought or stored. The provision’s reliance on “without delay” and “reasonable suspicion” standards may still invite disputes about scope and necessity, especially across different states with varying privacy norms.
Finally, the cross-jurisdictional interaction with state laws means enforcement and compliance can diverge in practice, creating a compliance burden for providers operating nationwide.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.