Summary#
This bill lets State peace officer standards and training agencies (often called POST agencies) access criminal history records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It adds POST agencies to the list of government bodies that may receive these records and defines what a POST agency and “State” mean for that purpose. It also requires the Attorney General to update the FBI’s rules within 180 days to reflect the change.
- Main change: POST agencies are explicitly authorized to receive FBI criminal history records for official use.
- New definitions: The bill defines “peace officer standards and training agency” and expands the definition of “State” to include territories and possessions.
- Implementation: The Attorney General must amend the FBI’s regulatory rules to carry out the change within 180 days.
- What it does not do in the text: It does not set specific limits on how POST agencies must use, retain, or protect the records.
What it means for you#
- Peace officer standards and training agencies (POST): They may request and receive FBI criminal history records to use in certification, licensing, training, discipline, or decertification processes.
- Law enforcement agencies and employers: Police departments and other hiring bodies could rely on POST agencies’ access to federal records when deciding whether to hire, certify, or keep an officer.
- Current and prospective officers: Their federal criminal history may be reviewed by the POST agency that sets hiring and certification standards in their State or territory.
- State and territorial governments: Agencies that operate POST programs may need procedures and systems to request, receive, and handle federal criminal history records.
- Tribes and others: The bill keeps existing language that allows some sharing with Indian tribes and other government bodies, but the new authorization targets State POST agencies specifically.
- General public: The bill itself does not create new public rights to access records; it changes which government agencies can receive them.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text includes no cost estimate or fiscal note.
- This change could increase administrative costs for POST agencies (staff time, training, record systems) and for the FBI (to update procedures and manage additional disclosures), but the bill does not provide numbers.
- State or local budgets may need to cover any new technology, security, or staff needed to handle the records safely.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to give POST agencies access to federal criminal history so they can better screen, certify, train, and, if needed, decertify officers.
- Supporters may argue this could improve public safety and police accountability by ensuring certification decisions consider federal criminal records.
- Making the change explicit in federal law and updating FBI rules may remove legal uncertainty about whether POST agencies can receive these records.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill does not explain limits on use, retention, or further sharing of the records, raising privacy and data-protection questions.
- It is unclear which specific criminal history records (for example, arrests that did not lead to conviction) may be shared and how POST agencies should treat them.
- The bill may create administrative and technology costs for POST agencies and states without providing funding.
- There is no detail on oversight, auditing, or penalties for misuse of the records.
- The 180-day rulemaking deadline requires the Attorney General to change FBI rules quickly, but the bill does not specify what those rules must require beyond allowing the access.