Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Reports Witnesses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves limiting witness names in initial police reports to protect witnesses; discovery remains available
Summary
The House committee on April 29 voted to report House Bill 38 favorably as amended. The measure removes a statutory requirement to include witnesses’ names in initial public incident reports while preserving discovery obligations for criminal defense and investigative uses.
The House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs voted April 29 to report House Bill 38 favorably as amended. Representative Bacala sponsored the bill, which strikes a requirement that initial law‑enforcement incident reports include witness names that are otherwise available to the public immediately after the incident.
The sponsor and testifying law‑enforcement officers told the committee the change is aimed at protecting witnesses who fear retaliation and therefore may be reluctant to come forward. Sergeant Mark Cummings of the Baton Rouge Police Department told members he has seen witnesses decline to cooperate when they expect their names will be published in an initial public report. Committee supporters pointed to similar practices in neighboring states and emphasized that the change would not prevent disclosure of witness identities to defense attorneys through discovery or during later stages of criminal proceedings.
Committee staff noted the bill does not prohibit law enforcement from recording witness names in investigative files; it removes a statutory requirement that those names be included on the initial public incident report. Representative Bacala also sought and the committee adopted a technical amendment to add the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to the list of agencies that prepare initial reports subject to the statute, ensuring agencies with law‑enforcement authority are covered.
Opponents, including the Louisiana Press Association, urged caution and said public access to initial reports has value; media witnesses said mandatory redaction may reduce transparency in some cases. Committee discussion emphasized that defendants’ rights to confront accusers and access discovery are unaffected by the change.
Representative Newell moved to report the bill favorably as amended and the committee adopted the measure without recorded objection. The bill will be advanced to the next stage of consideration.
