Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee adopts amendment to give law enforcement broader access to protection order records; bill advanced
Summary
The committee amended a bill to expand access to domestic violence protection‑order records beyond sheriffs to other law enforcement officers to help officers responding to calls know whether an order exists, and then voted to advance the bill as amended.
The Senate Judiciary Committee amended and advanced Senate Bill 2289 on Jan. 29 to allow broader law enforcement access to protection order records used in domestic violence responses.
Committee members adopted an amendment that replaces the word “sheriff” with “law enforcement officers” in portions of the bill to enable responding officers to view whether a protection order is on file in their computer systems. Sponsors said the change would help officers responding to domestic calls who might otherwise not have immediate access to a protection order entered by a sheriff’s office.
Why it matters: Sponsors said the amendment is intended to give front‑line police officers the information they need to enforce protection orders and protect victims. Supporters argued that officers without easy access to a central record could miss critical information during a domestic call.
Details and concerns: Committee members discussed wording and grammar in the proposed amendment; one senator noted legislative counsel drafted the language. The committee also discussed whether other protections (for example, access controls) should be considered; no changes to those mechanisms were recorded in the hearing.
Vote: The committee voted to adopt the amendment and then moved the amended bill to a due‑pass recommendation. Senator Castaneda moved the amendment; the motion was seconded and carried. The committee then approved a due‑pass as amended by roll call; Chair Larson said she would carry the bill and indicated it did not need an appropriations referral.
