Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sealed Records Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee reviews amendment to S12 tightening access to sealed criminal records
Summary
Committee reviewed draft 5.3 of a committee amendment to S12 that adds definitions, clarifies how law enforcement and defense attorneys may petition for access to sealed criminal records, and ties misuse to a civil penalty referenced in section 76‑11.
The Judiciary Committee reviewed draft 5.3 of a committee amendment to S12 on Feb. 28, focusing on who may access sealed criminal records and the process for doing so, Michelle Chavez, Office of Legislative Counsel, said.
Chavez told the committee the draft adds a definition for “criminal justice purposes,” clarifies exceptions that allow law enforcement and defense attorneys to seek access to sealed records, and links unauthorized access to the penalty referenced in section 76‑11.
The amendment places a new, explicit definition for criminal justice purposes at the start of the chapter, Chavez said, noting the term “is currently in law” but is “buried” and that putting it in the chapter will make references clearer. She described changes to the exceptions that permit access to sealed records by criminal justice agencies, the attorney general, and defense attorneys.
Under the amendment, a criminal justice agency or the attorney general may “apply to access a sealed criminal’s review record by filing a petition supported by a written affidavit with the court,” Chavez said. The court “shall grant access to the record upon finding that a reasonable suspicion exists that a sealed record contains information that will aid in criminal justice purposes,” and the court may grant the petition ex parte or hold a hearing at its discretion, she added.
Chavez said the same petition-and-affidavit procedure would apply to defense attorneys seeking access if the sealed record “may be of assistance to the attorney representing the defendant,” with the court likewise able to act ex parte or otherwise. Chavez also described revisions in subdivision 3 that add a definition of “law enforcement officer,” aligned with the use of the term in Title 20.
The amendment adds language specifying that a violation of the access restrictions “shall be subject to the penalty that was provided in section 76 11,” Chavez said. She later summarized the penalty as “a civil penalty of not more than a thousand dollars,” and confirmed that “a complaint can be filed.”
When asked about stakeholder support, Chavez said she did not want to overstate views but believed state’s attorneys find the language acceptable, adding that some had preferred a statewide policy instead. A committee member noted that Senator Sears had suggested a similar approach during prior work on the bill.
Committee discussion paused pending the arrival of Senator Sarah Maddox, the chair noted; no formal vote or final action on the amendment was recorded in the transcript.
The draft under review was identified as committee amendment draft 5.3 to S12; the transcript records several line and page references for the changes discussed.
