Bill
HB 6121
Establishes a Confidentiality Act to protect the identity of complainants in officer misconduct reports, with limited allowed disclosures and a civil penalty for violations.
Status & procedural history
- Sponsor: Rep. Donavan McKinney. Introduced in the House (first reading 11/14/2024).
- Committee: Criminal Justice. Reported with recommendation with substitute (H‑1) 12/10/2024 and referred to second reading. (Legislative docket also shows a referral to a joint committee on 1/22/2025.)
- Current classification: Bill (reported substitute H‑1).
Purpose
- Establishes the "Reporting of Law Enforcement Officer Misconduct Privacy Act" to protect the privacy of individuals who file complaints about law enforcement officer misconduct by prohibiting disclosure of their personally identifying information when they request confidentiality.
Key definitions
- “Misconduct”: performance of a law enforcement officer’s duty that is unauthorized, unlawful, negligent, reckless, or injurious.
- “Person”: includes law enforcement agencies, Department of State Police, Attorney General’s office, individuals who know the complainant’s identity, attorneys receiving complaints, and other bodies or individuals authorized to receive/investigate complaints.
Main provisions
- Confidentiality rule: If a complainant requests confidentiality, a person shall not knowingly disclose information in a misconduct complaint that personally identifies that complainant.
- Permitted disclosures (exceptions): disclosure is allowed in one or more of the following circumstances:
- By the complainant themselves.
- With the complainant’s written permission.
- Pursuant to a court order.
- To a defendant, defense attorney, or prosecutor if criminal charges are filed.
- To an arbitration panel or administrative judge if subpoenaed in arbitration/administrative hearings.
- To a person designated by a law enforcement agency to receive and investigate complaints.
- To a law enforcement officer when necessary for an internal investigation.
- Sanctions: A person who violates the act is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a civil fine of up to $500.
Fiscal impact
- Indeterminate state and local fiscal impact. Fines (if assessed) would generate revenue; under existing law some fine proceeds are allocated (e.g., $10 to the state Justice System Fund and remainder historically used to support public/county law libraries). Effects on court workloads and local administrative costs are uncertain.
Who would be affected
- Individuals who file misconduct complaints (gain an option for privacy).
- Law enforcement agencies and investigators (must comply with confidentiality requests but have specified exceptions).
- Attorneys, courts, arbitration panels, and prosecutors/defense in criminal matters (retain access under exceptions).
- Media and third parties (would be restricted from disclosure absent an exception).
Timing
- The bill summary indicates an effective date of 90 days after enactment (as reported in the initial analysis). The substitute (H‑1) is the version reported with recommendation.
Notes / considerations
- The bill creates a confidentiality option rather than an absolute seal: authorized disclosures are preserved for prosecutions, internal investigations, subpoenas, and with consent.
- Potential tradeoffs include increased protection for complainants against retaliation versus potential implications for public transparency and open‑records responses; these impacts are not quantified in the bill text.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
