Senate Judiciary advances S109 with changes on electronic court access, advisory council repeal and limited expungement

Senate Judiciary met March 13 and advanced S109, a miscellaneous judiciary bill, after committee discussion and minor revisions covering electronic case records access for attorneys, the proposed repeal of the Coordinated Justice Reform Advisory Council, a narrowed expungement proposal tied to repeal of switchblade language, and the creation of an attorney general–convened working group on firearms-surrender procedures.

The committee heard staff explain an amendment to the bill’s provisions on dissemination of electronic case records that would allow attorneys in good standing to obtain remote access through the court’s public portal rather than requiring them to use courthouse kiosks. Terry, a judiciary staff member, summarized the technical feasibility and procedural context: "He said it would be very usable to implement this from a technical perspective." The committee also asked about fees and implementation; staff said the fee structure is not fully settled and that any charge would need to be justified as covering actual cost.

The change addresses a long-standing distinction in public access: under current practice, the court denies remote public access to criminal, family and probate dockets while civil dockets are accessible. The amendment would preserve existing confidentiality rules for sealed or statutorily protected records but create an avenue for licensed attorneys to log onto the public portal from their offices to view allowed case documents rather than only viewing paper files or using courthouse kiosks.

Committee members discussed related technical and policy points, including how historical practice relied on physical redacted "red files" at courthouse counters to keep confidential materials from public review and how electronic case management alters that process. Staff said the "gatekeeper" function exists within the portal to control access and that implementation would be feasible.

The bill also packages a number of other judiciary changes: - A proposal to remove switchblade knives from a possession offense while preserving the prohibition on zip guns. Committee members discussed whether automatic expungement of prior convictions should follow repeal; staff reported a limited number of potentially affected convictions. One staff estimate said records from Feb. 2017 through 2024 showed "there were 8 cases. Yeah. Or I should say there's there's actually 12, but 4 of them involve the same case," and that courts could likely identify which convictions related to switchblades. Committee counsel recommended narrowing any expungement language so that only convictions tied to the repealed switchblade portion would be eligible. - A drafting clarification to allow waivers of expedition to be received by reliable electronic means, aligning service and related processes with contemporary electronic practice. - A timing change reducing one statutory interval to 90 days with an option for a 30-day extension (bringing the possible maximum to 120 days) for covered proceedings, per the amended draft. - Creation of a firearms-surrender-order compliance working group, convened by the attorney general, to develop a uniform state procedure for processing court-ordered surrenders across relief-from-abuse orders, emergency risk-protection orders and similar authorities. The provision would not change substantive surrender law but would seek consistent procedures across statutes.

Separately, the committee addressed a statutory council created under Act 40 of 2023, the Coordinated Justice Reform Advisory Council. Monica Weber, executive director of the Crime Research Group and the council’s vice chair, said the council gave repeated recommendations to the Department of Corrections and that appropriations changes had removed the council’s discretionary funding. Weber said, "We did make recommendations to the department of corrections, multiple times for how to do that, and they were, you know, took them and followed through with making those investments." She explained the council originally had about $900,000 to work with; after appropriations changes roughly $490,000 remained but House appropriations had reallocated that amount into the department’s base funding, leaving no funds for the council to allocate. The bill would repeal the council and change its sunset/review dates accordingly; the committee discussed whether repeal was appropriate given the council’s lack of remaining discretionary funds.

After discussion the committee held a vote on the bill as amended. The roll call in the transcript records five affirmative votes with no negatives or abstentions; the committee recorded the vote as 5-0-0. The transcript lists several senators voting "yes" during the roll call. The transcript does not record a formal recorded mover or seconder for the motion to advance the bill in the committee minutes.

The committee left the bill on the agenda for a follow-up vote and signaled willingness to accept last-minute technical drafting adjustments before final action.