Committee advances bill to require state agencies to provide criminal records for federal background checks

A Kentucky House committee voted to report House Bill 340 with a favorable recommendation after testimony that the measure would require state and local criminal justice agencies to provide criminal-history information to federal agencies conducting suitability or fitness assessments, proponents said.

Supporters told the committee the bill would add a new section to state law to define terms and require criminal-justice agencies to share records with federal agencies doing suitability checks, to conform KRS 610.340 (juvenile justice records) and to permit a $25 reimbursement fee authorized under federal law, the proponents said.

"This legislation will change and create a new section of CARES ... to define terms and require criminal justice agencies to provide criminal history records information to requesting agencies when they are conducting a basic suitability or fitness assessment," Representative Tony Hampton said while introducing House Bill 340. Hampton said the bill is intended to bring Kentucky into compliance with federal requirements.

Proponents, including retired law-enforcement leaders from the Kentucky Sheriffs Association, said Kentucky has a low compliance rate with the federal background-check requirements and risks losing eligibility for certain federal-covered programs. "Kentucky was the second worst state in the nation, being in compliance with this federal law," Jerry Wagner, executive director of the Kentucky Sheriffs Association, told the committee. Wagner said sheriffs and chiefs learned of the compliance gap after presentations by federal officials and committed to improving record-sharing practices.

The bill would implement a fee arrangement described by proponents as consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 9101, allowing agencies to request a $25 reimbursement for expenses tied to supplying criminal-history information, proponents said. The sponsors also said the bill would amend KRS 610.340 to conform juvenile-record retention and disclosure rules to the federal request process.

Committee members raised questions about sealed or expunged records and the sharing of juvenile records. "Is this going to include sealed or expunged records?" Representative Moore asked. A proponent replied that the federal law allows certain disclosures and that juvenile retention rules may limit availability: "Those documents wouldn't be available to us," a witness said when describing juvenile-code retention rules.

Representative Davis expressed concern about juvenile disclosures and asked when juvenile records would be disclosed to federal agencies. In response, witnesses and sponsors said the agency would only release records when individuals had signed waivers for background investigations for federal employment and that the checks are requested by federal-covered agencies for positions that may include access to classified or national-security information.

Witnesses described the typical process: individuals seeking federal employment sign waivers allowing state and local agencies to search case files and local records; agencies then respond to federal requests. Proponents said more consistent statutory authority would help sheriff offices, which they described as fee-based operations that rely on statutory authorization for some records services.

After discussion the committee recorded a motion and second to report the bill with a favorable recommendation. On roll call the bill was reported favorably; the chair announced, "The House Bill 340 passes with favorable expression." The committee did not adopt any amendments during the hearing.

Votes at a glance House Bill 340 — Reported with favorable recommendation (approved) — Motion made and seconded. Vote recorded as: Aye/Yes — Representatives Blanton, Bratcher, Freeland, Fugate, Gooch, Hart, Johnson, Lewis, Proctor, Sharp, Thomas and Chair McCool. "Pass" recorded (committee members who passed on the vote) — Representatives Maddox, Massaroni, Moore, Roberts and Stevenson. No "no" votes were recorded.

What happens next Committee sponsors said the favorable expression should allow the bill to proceed to the House for further consideration. No implementation timeline was specified during the hearing.