Kelsey Smith Act

Bill Number

H.R. 7752

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Crime and Law Enforcement

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-03-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-03-19T15:27:50Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Kelsey Smith Act (H.R. 7752) aims to enhance public safety by requiring telecommunications providers to disclose location information of devices in emergency situations. This allows law enforcement or public safety answering points (PSAPs, which are call centers that receive 911 emergency calls) to quickly locate individuals at risk of death or serious injury, without needing a court order in urgent cases. The bill is named after Kelsey Smith, likely referencing a real-life emergency where timely location data could have been lifesaving.

Key Provisions

• Definitions Added: Updates federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2510) to define:
• Location information: Data about the current or most recent position of a device, generated by its operation (e.g., GPS or cell tower signals), but excluding the actual content of communications like texts or calls.
• Telecommunications device: Equipment at a customer's location used for communication, such as cell phones or modems.
• Public safety answering point (PSAP): Emergency call centers as defined in existing federal law.

• Mandatory Disclosure Requirement (new 18 U.S.C. § 2703(i)):
• Providers of electronic communication services (e.g., cell phone companies) must immediately share available location information upon request from a law enforcement officer or PSAP agent acting officially.
• Requests are valid if:
• The device contacted a PSAP for emergency help in the last 48 hours, or there's reasonable suspicion it's with someone in an emergency risking death or serious harm.
• And either:
• The device's owner (subscriber or customer) consents, or if they're unavailable, their next of kin consents.
• Or: Reasonable efforts were made to get consent from the owner or next of kin, consent wasn't obtained or refused, and delaying disclosure could worsen the risk of harm.

• Record-Keeping: Law enforcement agencies must document each request, including the officer's name, a sworn statement justifying the need, a description of the emergency, and details on consent efforts.

• Interaction with State Laws: The bill does not override stricter state requirements for disclosing location data in emergencies; providers must still follow state rules for 911 responses or similar urgent situations.

• Next of Kin Priority: Establishes a clear order for identifying next of kin (e.g., spouse first, then adult children, parents, siblings, etc.), based on legal relationships and state inheritance laws if needed.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Previously, under 18 U.S.C. § 2703, location information could only be obtained through warrants, court orders, or subpoenas, which can take time in emergencies. This bill creates a new "without delay" pathway for urgent cases, similar to existing voluntary disclosures but making it mandatory with specific safeguards.
• Adds emergency-specific exceptions to privacy protections in the Stored Communications Act (part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986), emphasizing consent attempts to limit overreach.
• Expands definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2510 to explicitly cover location data from modern devices, closing gaps for wireless technologies not fully addressed in older laws.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Enables faster emergency responses for law enforcement and PSAPs, potentially saving lives in situations like abductions, medical crises, or accidents. Agencies must maintain detailed records, increasing administrative burdens but improving accountability.
• On Citizens: Improves safety for individuals in distress by allowing quicker location-based aid, but raises privacy concerns as personal device data could be shared without full consent in exigent circumstances. Only applies to emergencies, not routine surveillance.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as it focuses on domestic U.S. communications; however, it could influence how U.S. providers handle data for international users or devices roaming abroad.
• On Telecom Providers: Mandates immediate compliance, requiring technical readiness to share data quickly, which may involve system upgrades but aligns with existing 911 location obligations.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Law Enforcement and PSAPs: Primary beneficiaries, gaining tools for rapid response.
• Telecommunications Providers (e.g., Verizon, AT&T): Must implement processes for verifying requests and disclosing data, facing potential liability for non-compliance.
• Citizens and Families: Device owners benefit from enhanced emergency aid but may experience privacy intrusions; next of kin could be involved in consent decisions.
• Privacy Advocates and Civil Liberties Groups: Likely to monitor for potential misuse, as it involves sharing sensitive location data.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal/Constitutional: Strengthens public safety under the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches) by requiring "reasonable suspicion" of emergencies and consent efforts, treating location data as non-content information. It avoids warrantless access in non-emergencies, but could face challenges if consent processes are deemed insufficient. Builds on precedents like the Supreme Court's Carpenter v. United States (2018), which requires warrants for historical cell-site location data but allows exceptions for imminent harm.
• Political: Introduced by bipartisan sponsors (though primarily Republicans), it reflects a consensus on balancing privacy with safety post-high-profile cases. Could set a model for future tech-privacy laws, potentially influencing debates on digital rights without broad surveillance expansions. No major partisan divide evident in the text.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]

Cosponsors (3)

Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3], Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4], Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

Recent Actions

• 2026-03-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2026-03-02: Introduced in House
• 2026-03-02: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Kelsey Smith Act — issued 2026-03-02 — PDF (7 pages)