WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3181

Sexual extortion database

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Don Chapman and 2 co-sponsors

SLED must build and run a statewide sexual extortion database with mandatory reporting by SC law enforcement to share investigations and outcomes across agencies; data FOIA-exempt.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3181

Summary — H 3181: Sexual Extortion Database (adds S.C. Code §16-15-450)

Note on source material: The text provided to summarize contains material from two different measures (a Massachusetts first-time homebuyer tax deduction bill and a South Carolina bill creating a sexual extortion database). This summary focuses on the sexual extortion database language, which appears as an addition to the South Carolina Code (Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16).

Main purpose

Require the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to develop and manage a statewide sexual extortion investigation and outcome database to facilitate information exchange among federal, state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies.

Key provisions

  • Creates a new statutory section (proposed §16-15-450) directing SLED to develop and manage a statewide sexual extortion investigation and outcome database.
  • Mandatory reporting: All state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies must provide any information they acquire relating to sexual extortion to SLED for inclusion in the database.
  • Discretion for federal/out-of-state data: SLED may decide whether to include sexual extortion information received from federal agencies or other states.
  • Rulemaking authority: SLED is authorized under the Administrative Procedures Act to:
    • Promulgate emergency regulations to make collection criteria effective until permanent regulations are adopted and affirmatively approved by the General Assembly.
    • Promulgate permanent regulations consistent with initial criteria; those permanent regulations are to be affirmatively approved by the General Assembly and may be amended later.
    • Promulgate regulations concerning punishment for intentional misuse of the database.
  • FOIA exemption: Information in the database is explicitly exempt from disclosure under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act.
  • Effective date: The act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Who would be affected

  • SLED: primary agency responsible for building, managing, and regulating the database.
  • All South Carolina state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies: required to furnish sexual extortion–related information.
  • Federal and out-of-state law enforcement: their information may be included at SLED’s discretion.
  • Victims, suspects, and the general public: privacy and transparency implications due to mandatory data collection and FOIA exemption.
  • Courts, prosecutors, and investigators: potential access to consolidated investigatory and outcome data that could support investigations and prosecutions.

Procedural/timeline aspects

  • SLED may issue emergency regulations immediately to operationalize collection criteria, pending permanent regulations.
  • Permanent regulations must be promulgated and affirmatively approved by the General Assembly.
  • The statute becomes effective upon the Governor’s signature.

Potential impacts and notable open questions

  • Benefits: could improve interagency coordination, case tracking, investigative continuity, and outcome monitoring for sexual extortion matters.
  • Concerns: the FOIA exemption limits public transparency; the bill lacks explicit provisions shown in the text for:
    • A statutory definition of “sexual extortion” (scope may remain unclear).
    • Data categories, retention periods, access controls, audit/oversight mechanisms, and safeguards for victims’ privacy.
    • Funding or staffing resources for SLED to develop and maintain the database.
    • Specific penalties or procedures for misuse beyond authority to promulgate such regulations.
  • Implementation: effectiveness will depend on the content of SLED’s emergency and permanent regulations and any General Assembly review/approval.

If you want, I can draft a short list of specific technical, privacy, and oversight provisions commonly recommended for centralized law-enforcement databases (e.g., definition of covered offenses, access logs, retention schedules, independent auditing, victim notification).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.