Summary#
This bill lets the FBI give state criminal history record information (CHRI) to state licensing authorities when an interstate compact requires a background check for a professional license or multistate privilege. It also says the licensing authority must use the CHRI only to decide the license or privilege and not share the CHRI with the compact commission, other states, or the public. The bill allows a licensing authority to tell the compact commission that a check was completed and whether it was satisfactory (a yes/no result).
- Main change: FBI may furnish CHRI to a state licensing authority, through a state law enforcement agency or state identification bureau, when an interstate compact requires such a check.
- Limits on use: CHRI must be used only to act on the license or privilege and cannot be shared further, except for a binary statement that the check was completed and whether it was satisfactory.
- Definitions added: The bill defines terms such as Commission (interstate compact commission), CHRI, license, privilege, State, state identification bureau, and state licensing authority.
- Policy goal: The bill appears aimed at supporting interstate licensing compacts while restricting wider sharing of detailed criminal-history records.
What it means for you#
- Applicants for multistate or compact licenses: The FBI’s criminal-history records may be used as part of the background check for your application when your profession is covered by an interstate compact. You may be informed only of the outcome (satisfactory or not) rather than the full criminal record that the licensing board reviewed.
- State licensing authorities: You can receive FBI CHRI through your state law enforcement agency or state identification bureau when an interstate compact requires a check. You must use that information only to act on the license or privilege. You may not share the CHRI with the compact commission, other states, or the public. You may, however, tell the compact commission whether the check was completed and whether it was satisfactory.
- Interstate compact commissions: You may be told only that a check was done and whether it was satisfactory. You may not receive the underlying CHRI from a state licensing authority under this bill.
- State law enforcement and state identification bureaus: These entities will likely act as the conduit for FBI CHRI to licensing authorities under agreements required by the bill.
- General public and other states: The bill bars public disclosure of CHRI provided under these compact background checks and bars sharing that CHRI with other state entities or licensing authorities.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill does not include a fiscal note or budget estimate in the material provided.
- Possible implementation costs (not estimated in the bill) could include costs to the FBI and states to negotiate and manage agreements, set up or modify data-sharing processes, train staff, and enforce the use and non‑sharing rules.
- There may be administrative costs for licensing boards to handle the binary reporting to compact commissions rather than sharing records.
Proponents' View#
A possible argument for the bill is:
- The bill appears intended to let interstate licensing compacts use FBI criminal-history data when they require background checks. This could help compacts verify applicants’ records across states.
- It could be seen as protecting privacy by limiting the further sharing of full CHRI beyond the licensing authority.
- Allowing a simple, binary notification to the compact commission (check completed; satisfactory or not) could streamline administration while keeping detailed records within the licensing state.
Opponents' View#
One can raise these concerns or questions about the bill based on its text:
- The bill does not explain how compliance will be enforced or what penalties apply if a licensing authority improperly shares CHRI.
- It is unclear how compact commissions will handle cases where they need details to resolve disputes or to make licensing decisions across states, since they are limited to a binary result.
- The definition excludes some identification information (for example, fingerprint records) “if such information does not indicate involvement with the criminal justice system,” which may be unclear in practice.
- The bill does not provide cost estimates. States and the FBI may face administrative and technical costs to set up the required agreements and data flows.
- It is not specified how the rule interacts with existing state laws or existing compact language that already governs background checks, which could create implementation uncertainty.