Judiciary Committee reviews package of criminal-justice and records bills; senators propose merging open-records measures

The Committee on Judiciary heard a reviser's briefing on multiple pending bills and discussed a Senate offer to place language from Senate Bill 70 into House Bill 21-34 to consolidate changes to the Kansas Open Records Act ahead of conference.

The update, delivered by Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office, covered several Senate and House measures now in play between chambers. The committee focused substantial discussion on how the chambers might reconcile competing approaches to sealing court records and proposed technical amendments to the state open-records statute.

Thompson said the chart of bills had been updated to include a number of measures the committee has reviewed previously and several new entries. He summarized changes to Senate Bill 54 as now limiting discovery and requiring reporting of third-party litigation-funding agreements to courts, and noted that the House removed a provision that would have required the Judicial Council to study such agreements: "This limits discovery and disclosure of third party litigation funding agreements, requires reporting of agreements to courts," Thompson said.

On Senate Bill 186, Thompson described additions the House placed into the Senate version. The House added content from House Bill 2401 to provide that prior convictions later determined unconstitutional shall not be used for criminal-history scoring except if that constitutional determination is later reversed. The House also added the contents of House Bill 2389 regarding bond conditions for defendants charged with certain offenses: if a magistrate finds prior convictions for listed offenses, bond would be set at a minimum of $750,000 (cash or surety), the defendant would face minimum conditions including no contact with victims or witnesses and placement in a house-arrest program, and further reduction of bond would require a preponderance-of-the-evidence finding that the defendant is not a public-safety or flight risk.

The committee discussed Senate Bill 204, a provision the reviser said would seal certain case and warrant information in criminal and juvenile offender cases. The House amendment removed subpoenas from the statutory definition of sealed material and instead added a separate sentence making subpoenas and returns of service "not be made available to the public." Chair Warren and staff explained that law enforcement and court technology concerns motivated the change. As Chair Warren summarized, returns of service contain personal information and law enforcement sought an approach that allowed agency access while limiting public exposure; staff said making the documents "not available to the public" accomplished a different computer-system behavior than technically "sealing" the records.

Thompson also summarized Senate Bill 237 (requiring courts to consider the value of retirement accounts when adjusting child-support obligations) and said the House had removed a section on material change in circumstances. He noted several other bills on the committee's chart, including Senate Bill 30 (fingerprinting/background checks), Senate Bill 84 (financial crimes involving gift cards), a child-related provision under the Protection from Abuse Act, and a bill on unlawful use of laser pointers. Several items remain pending action in one chamber or the other.

From the House side, staff added House Bill 2164 as amended in the Senate to carry the contents of Senate Bill 288. The amendment would create a new criminal prohibition barring certain registered offenders whose underlying crime involved a victim under age 18 from entering school property or attending school activities; penalties would escalate from a severity level 6 person felony on a first conviction to severity level 5 on a second and severity level 3 on a third or subsequent conviction. Committee staff noted the House did not concur on that change and that the measure awaited further Senate action.

A substantive negotiation consumed much of the committee's remaining time: merging HB 21-34 (open-records amendments) with the language from SB 70. Committee members indicated they prefer to reconcile the two bills rather than pursue HB 21-34 alone. Senator Titus proposed adopting the text of SB 70 as it left the Senate, plus the itemized receipt language the House added to HB 21-34; members present indicated conceptual agreement to pursue that path. Thompson explained the drafting approach: take the sections of SB 70 (except the portion already covered by HB 21-34's CORA provision) and add them to HB 21-34 so the House bill would carry the combined language into conference.

The committee did not take a formal vote on any bill during the session. Members agreed conceptually to attempt the merger and to continue discussions in a follow-up meeting; they arranged to meet upon the first recess of the second chamber the next day to continue negotiations.

Ending notes: Committee staff will circulate an updated version of the chart (version 4) after further chamber action; the committee scheduled a follow-up meeting upon the next recess to pursue the proposed bill merge and other outstanding items.