Crime Records and Information Sharing State Legislation in 2004

By Blake Harrison, Senior Policy Specialist, Criminal Justice

State legislatures in 2004 addressed criminal background check policies and the systems that support those, expanded registration requirements for certain convicted offenders, and joined compacts to facilitate interstate sharing of crime information.

Colorado lawmakers addressed background checks with a law that allows those with a criminal record to petition the court to have records sealed if the person was not charged, the case was dismissed or the person was acquitted. An act in Oklahoma authorizes a motion for expungement if the defendant is acquitted, the conviction is reversed, factual innocence is established by DNA evidence or if no charges were filed. Maryland now requires the court to notify defendants of the ability to expunge their records if the charges were dropped or dismissed or if the defendant was acquitted. Washington created a joint task force to study the state's criminal background check policy to determine if any changes are necessary and if the correct violations are being reported.

In Florida, an enactment requires that name change petitions include fingerprints for background purposes and that updates be made to certain law enforcement and motor vehicle reports.

Several states enacted interstate compacts that support information sharing. Ohio enacted the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, bringing to 21 the number of participating states. The compact establishes formal procedures and governance structures for the use and sharing of criminal information for noncriminal justice purposes. Two states--Mississippi and Virginia--adopted the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, bringing to 49 the number of participating states. The compact establishes procedures for information exchange to track offenders under correctional supervision. Ten states enacted the Interstate Compact for Juveniles in 2004, bringing to 21 the number of participating states. The compact provides for information exchange, procedures and services when adjudicated, charged or runway juveniles move across state lines. It will go into effect when 35 states become a party to it.

Several states authorized fees to support funding justice information-sharing initiatives. Tennessee authorizes their Bureau of Investigation to use proceeds of expungement fees for computer system support and maintenance and authorizes the bureau to sell intrastate criminal history information to the private sector and noncriminal justice agencies for $29 per name. Utah adds a security surcharge to justice court convictions to fund security and technology in juvenile justice courts. Public safety communications systems also were addressed in states. An enactment in Mississippi permits additional surcharges for traffic violations to fund wireless radio communications programs and to fund the automation of citations issued by Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol officers. Actions in New York permit specified county governments to establish a wireless surcharge of $.30 per month for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and administration of public safety communication networks.

Registering Offenders

A broad policy in Oklahoma creates a violent offender registry, requiring that certain violent offenders register with the Department of Corrections or a local law enforcement agency. The records to be maintained on these individuals will include fingerprints, DNA, photographs and other information. Under new Illinois law, the office of the state fire marshal is required to post certain arsonist information on its Web site.

Many other new state laws in 2004 address sex offender registration. An enactment in California will put it among states that post to the Internet information on registered sex offenders, including home address. Certain sex offenders will be allowed to apply to be excluded from the listing, with the burden on the offender to demonstrate why he or she should not be listed. California lawmakers also took action to address registration of transients and those who have been convicted in another state and move to California. Another act requires any state or local government agency with residency information to provide the Department of Justice with the address of any person who is in violation of his or her duty to register.

Links to legislation referred to in this report may be accessed via state legislative web sites at http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm. Bill citations, by topic, appear below.

Crime Records, Registration

California A 488, A 2827, A 1937 and A 493; Colorado HB 1376; Illinois HB 4426; Maryland HB 624; Mississippi HB 439; New York SB 7731; Oklahoma HB 1853 and HB 2271; Tennessee HB 2277 and SB 3280; Utah SB 196; Washington HB 2556.

Interstate Compact on Adult Supervision

Mississippi HB 495; Virginia SB 448.

Interstate Compact for Juveniles

Alabama S 58; Colorado HB 1304; Florida S 274; Idaho HB 518; Kansas S 183; Montana S 139; New Jersey A 839; Oklahoma SB 1552; Pennsylvania SB 319; South Dakota HB 1102; Wyoming SF 5.

National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact

Ohio S 53.

This report highlights selected state legislation. Blake Harrison handles crime information and information systems issues for NCSL's Criminal Justice Program in the Denver office. For more information, contact him at (303) 364-7700; or cj-info@ncsl.org. To receive regular criminal justice information updates from NCSL, go to the Criminal Justice menu page and sign up for NCSL e-news.

Posted May 4, 2005