Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee examines court e‑filing and police risk screening after fatal domestic‑violence failures
Summary
Lawmakers heard bills to require court e‑filing for domestic‑violence petitions and to standardize police use of a validated lethality screening tool (LAP); sponsors said tech and reliable screening would reduce missed red flags like those in the Marisol Fuentes case, while court, DOJ, prosecutors and police raised implementation, discovery, privacy and fiscal issues.
Following testimony about statutory gaps, committee members considered two related proposals aimed at improving system‑level responses: mandatory electronic filing for domestic‑violence and stalking petitions, and broader, standardized use and transmission of police lethality screenings.
Representative Zoey Mannos described a bill to require electronic filing of new domestic‑violence and stalking petitions beginning in October 2026 so judges and bail commissioners across court divisions can see complete case histories and avoid missed red flags like those identified after the murder of Marisol Fuentes (Representative Zoey Mannos, SEG 6175–6260). Supporters said e‑filing would let survivors file from safe locations with advocates and would improve data sharing and clerk efficiency.
Stakeholders — including court administrators, DOJ, and advocates — welcomed improved case management but pressed for a clear hardship/exemption process to avoid unintentionally blocking self‑represented or safety‑compromised filers; the committee discussed having the court upload paper filings into the e‑system so victims retain filing choice without information loss.
Separately, the committee heard proposals to standardize police deployment of a validated lethality assessment tool (LAP) and to ensure completed screenings reach prosecutors. LAP is used by some departments to identify victims at high risk and connect them with crisis centers. Advocates and some police support statewide, consistent use; prosecutors and defense counsel noted discovery obligations, admissibility and privacy questions because LAP responses may be discoverable and are sometimes excluded from body‑worn video recordings by policy (various testimony SEG 6630–7160; Steven Endres, SEG 7040–7060).
Key concerns for both measures included: fiscal costs to update court case‑management systems, training and rollout timelines, data‑privacy safeguards, and making sure forms and processes do not create legal or discovery problems for prosecutors or unfairly prejudice defendants.
Next steps: Committee members asked judicial‑branch and DOJ staff for precise fiscal and technical estimates, recommended clarifying exemption language for filing, and signaled further work with court IT staff, prosecutors and law enforcement to craft implementation plans.
Sources: Testimony from Representative Zoey Mannos, DOJ, SANE program, police and prosecutors; LAP materials and discussion.
