House Judiciary panel advances bill to block name-search access to closed nonconviction court records

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Clamine advanced discussion of House Bill 1166, saying the bill would prevent remote name searches of closed criminal cases that did not lead to conviction and that the committee had amended the bill to remove a retroactive application provision.

The bill’s sponsor, Chairman Clamine, told the committee that the core change is in section 2 and that a proposed retroactive sealing requirement in section 3 was removed after testimony that it would force courts to search records going back “100 years or more.” He said the panel instead adopted language preventing remote name searches of closed cases with no conviction: “a record of a closed criminal case, if there was no conviction, may not be remotely accessed by a name search.”

Why it matters: supporters said the change restores language that was removed from the Supreme Court’s administrative rule and would protect people who were charged but not convicted from having their names discovered through online name queries. Opponents argued the deletion of an explicit retroactive sealing requirement would leave earlier public disclosures in place.

Committee members pressed staff and sponsors on scope and timing. Representative Olson asked whether the Supreme Court had a stated reason for removing the sentence from its administrative rule; Chairman Clamine said the committee’s review of the rule showed no explanation. Representative Van Winkle asked for clarification about how the new language would operate for historical records; Clamine said the effect would be to restore the rule’s prior state so name searches would return nothing for sealed, nonconviction records.

The committee also adjusted an implementation timeline in the amendment: the window for completing the required action was extended from 61 to 90 days after a triggering event. Chairman Clamine said the bill remains an emergency measure and thus would take effect upon signature and delivery to the Secretary of State rather than waiting until the normal August 1 effective date.

Committee action: Representative Twite moved the amendment (identified in the transcript as the amendment offered to HB1166) and Representative Carls seconded. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote recorded in the transcript as 11 yes, 0 no, and 2 absent not voting. Representative Van Winkle later moved, and Representative Carls seconded, that the committee give HB1166 a "do pass as amended" recommendation; the transcript records final committee passage as 11 yes, 0 no, and 3 absent not voting.

Supporters said restoring the name-search protection was the bill’s purpose; Representative Vetter and others cautioned that removing a retroactive sealing clause would not remedy prior public disclosures. "It's kind of the point of the bill was, hey. Let's get rid of these...because all they were is accused," Representative Vetter said during debate; Chairman Clamine responded that the bill returns the rule "back to the way it was before they deleted this language."

What the bill does not do: the committee deleted the explicit retroactive sealing clause after testimony about burden on court staff; the record shows the committee relied instead on the restored name-search prohibition to achieve similar practical effect. The transcript contains no language committing courts to an active retroactive re-sealing process beyond the limits of the adopted amendment.

The committee advanced the bill to the next stage and identified a bill carrier to carry it through the House.

Ending: With the committee's vote complete, members moved on to other business. The bill will proceed with the committee’s recommendation to the full House under the normal legislative process.