Turquoise Alert is rapidly becoming one of the most important legal and public safety mechanisms in the United States. Enacted through Emily’s Law in May 2025 and first implemented in July of the same year, the system was designed to close a troubling gap in emergency notifications—specifically for missing persons under the age of 65 who do not meet Amber Alert criteria.
Turquoise Alert: Definition and Legal Foundation
The term Turquoise Alert refers to a notification system authorized by state law that activates when a person under 65 goes missing under suspicious or unexplained circumstances and is considered endangered. This framework was signed into law by Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs under the official title “Emily’s Law,” honoring Emily Pike, a 14-year-old San Carlos Apache girl whose tragic death highlighted critical gaps in missing persons protocols.
Under Emily’s Law, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in Arizona is authorized to issue statewide notifications if:
- The missing person is under 65.
- Law enforcement has exhausted all local resources.
- There is clear evidence that the person is endangered.
- Sufficient descriptive information is available.
The creation of this alert system fills a legal vacuum, particularly for individuals who do not fall under the criteria for Amber Alerts (typically reserved for abducted children) or Silver Alerts (focused on senior citizens with cognitive impairments).
The First Case: Violet Coultas
The very first Turquoise Alert was issued in July 2025 for 6-year-old Violet Coultas, a white female last seen at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Authorities believed she was with her non-custodial mother, Sarah Coultas, who allegedly fled Hawaii in violation of a family court order. The system was activated after Arizona DPS, in coordination with the Hawaii Police Department and the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General’s Office, determined that Violet met the Turquoise Alert criteria.
This case illustrates several key legal themes:
- Parental abduction: Sarah Coultas did not have custody, thus turning the act into an illegal removal.
- Interstate legal collaboration: Arizona and Hawaii law enforcement agencies had to cooperate under a multistate jurisdictional framework.
- Due process and privacy: Issuing a statewide alert involves releasing identifiable personal data—raising constitutional considerations around privacy versus public interest.
Turquoise Alert vs. Amber and Silver Alerts
While Turquoise Alert may seem similar to existing systems, its legal and procedural basis is distinct. Amber Alerts require confirmation of an abduction; Silver Alerts focus on seniors with known cognitive impairments. Turquoise Alerts, by contrast, center on suspicious disappearance—a legally murky area that demands case-by-case interpretation.
From a legal perspective, Turquoise Alerts function under a broader discretion granted to state agencies. This discretion can be empowering but also poses risks of inconsistency and misuse.
Civil Liberties and Legal Boundaries
One of the central legal concerns with Turquoise Alerts is the balance between public safety and individual rights. The alert system gives law enforcement power to broadcast personal information to the public, including names, photos, vehicle details, and alleged actions.
Organizations such as the ACLU have voiced concern over potential overreach. For instance:
- What standards of evidence are required to determine “endangered” status?
- Can the alerts be weaponized in custody disputes?
- Are there legal recourses for those falsely identified?
To address these questions, Arizona lawmakers built in several oversight mechanisms, including review protocols and a narrowly tailored definition of eligible cases.
Implications for Law Enforcement and Legal Practice
The rollout of Turquoise Alerts has reshaped how law enforcement agencies operate. It requires:
- Immediate coordination with federal agencies and out-of-state jurisdictions.
- Quick evidence gathering to meet alert criteria.
- Robust recordkeeping in case of later litigation or FOIA requests.
From a legal practitioner’s standpoint, the system opens up new areas of advocacy:
- Family law: Lawyers must now counsel clients on how custody violations might trigger public alerts.
- Criminal defense: Accused abductors could face both criminal and civil liability.
- Privacy law: Attorneys may challenge or defend the release of personal data under the alert.
Legal Gaps and Future Challenges
Although Turquoise Alert has filled a notable void, several legal challenges persist:
- Standardization: Only Arizona has implemented the alert; its portability across states remains unclear.
- Overuse and desensitization: Frequent alerts risk losing public urgency.
- Legal clarity: Courts may need to define what constitutes “suspicious” disappearance.
Moreover, without federal legislation mirroring Emily’s Law, the efficacy of Turquoise Alerts may be uneven nationwide. LawVisionary.com urges policymakers to push for uniform adoption to avoid legal ambiguities and strengthen protections for endangered individuals.
The Role of Technology in Turquoise Alerts
Digital integration plays a key legal role in Turquoise Alert dissemination. Alerts go out via:
- Highway signage
- SMS and push notifications
- Social media and news platforms
From a legal lens, this raises questions about data accuracy, liability for false alerts, and consent. Could media outlets or tech platforms be held liable for incorrect data? What responsibilities do they have in timely retraction or updates?
Another underexplored legal aspect is the public’s role in interpreting and responding to Turquoise Alerts. Legal experts stress the importance of:
- Educating citizens on what the alerts mean
- Outlining do’s and don’ts for public involvement (e.g., not taking investigative actions themselves)
- Understanding how and when to report sightings
Improper public action could potentially hinder investigations or even result in civil liability.
Conclusion
The Turquoise Alert system represents a powerful tool in addressing previously ignored categories of missing persons. However, it operates at the intersection of multiple legal domains—family law, criminal law, privacy rights, and federalism.
At LawVisionary.com, we recognize the system’s promise while urging thoughtful legal scrutiny. As more states consider similar legislation, it will be essential to craft consistent policies that protect endangered individuals while respecting civil liberties.
FAQs
What is a Turquoise Alert?
A statewide notification system for missing endangered persons under 65, implemented under Emily’s Law.
How is it different from an Amber Alert?
Amber Alerts are for confirmed abductions of minors. Turquoise Alerts cover broader cases like unexplained or suspicious disappearances.
What legal criteria must be met?
The individual must be under 65, endangered, and sufficient evidence and descriptions must be available.
Can it be issued across state lines?
Currently, it depends on interstate cooperation. No federal mandate exists yet.
Can the system be abused?
Yes, especially in contentious custody disputes. Legal safeguards are being developed to minimize misuse.
Where can I learn more?
Visit LawVisionary.com for legal analyses and updates.