WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3736

Law Enforcement Personal Privacy Protection and Judicial Personal Privacy Protection

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Weston Newton

Expands privacy protections for law enforcement officers and judges by restricting personal contact details on public government websites, with redaction and limited disclosures.

Scrivener's error corrected
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3736

Summary — H 3736

Title: Law Enforcement Personal Privacy Protection and Judicial Personal Privacy Protection
Status: Scrivener’s error corrected (1/29/2025); Introduced 1/15/2025; Referred to committees; Senate concurred; multiple procedural actions through 10/20/2025.

Note on source material: The bill text provided appears to contain two distinct legislative subjects merged in the docket — (A) a short Massachusetts provision titled “An Act relative to expired licenses” (Rep. Christopher Markey, H.3736) adding a new Section 10A to Chapter 90; and (B) a substantially longer South Carolina-style draft amending records/privacy statutes to protect law enforcement officers’ and judges’ personal contact information on publicly available government websites. This summary covers both components and highlights the apparent mismatch.

Purpose / Intent

  • Massachusetts component: To decriminalize/convert to civil fines the act of operating a motor vehicle on an expired driver’s license and to set graduated civil penalties based on how long the license has been expired.
  • South Carolina–style privacy component: To expand confidentiality protections for “personal contact information” of eligible law enforcement officers and judges in records that are placed on publicly available internet websites maintained by state or local government agencies; to require redaction/restriction procedures, create forms/processes, and allow limited disclosures to certain parties.

Key provisions

Massachusetts (Chapter 90 — new Section 10A)
- Operating a motor vehicle on an expired license is not a violation of existing Section 10.
- Instead it becomes a civil violation with fines:
- $50 if the license expiration is less than 90 days;
- $100 if the expiration is 90 days or greater.

South Carolina–style privacy amendments (multiple sections summarized)
- Definitions: “Personal contact information” expanded to include name, home address, personal cellular number, and property tax map number; defines “disclosed records” as records/images placed on publicly available government websites (excluding records sold by subscription).
- Mechanism: Eligible requesting parties (active/former law enforcement or corrections officers; analogous provisions for judges) may submit a designated form (to be developed by court administration and the Criminal Justice Academy) plus a notarized affidavit verifying employment to request restriction of personal contact information on public websites.
- Redaction/Retention: Restricted personal contact information must remain in the official record held by the agency but must not be included in public indexes or displayed on images on public websites.
- Exceptions/Allowed Disclosures:
- Disclosure under subpoena or court order, to other government agencies, or with written consent.
- Certain records are excluded from restriction (e.g., collision reports / uniform traffic tickets maintained by DMV, business filings / UCC filings, documents related to conveyance of property).
- Restricted information may be disclosed to title insurers/agents, and to attorneys in good standing (or persons appointed by such attorneys).
- Administrative duties: Agencies that redact/restrict must provide requestors a description of redacted information and statutory citation.
- Enforcement & Liability: Adds provisions for petitions to court for compliance and seeks to prevent liability for government employees or agents acting under the article.
- Implementation language in the draft references a July 1, 2024 effective date for certain sections (note potential drafting inconsistency).

Who is affected

  • Massachusetts drivers: individuals driving with expired licenses in MA would face civil fines instead of criminal penalties (tiered by length of expiration).
  • Law enforcement officers, corrections officers, and judges (in the SC-style portion): current and former officers/judges seeking privacy for personal contact information.
  • State and local government agencies: increased administrative responsibilities to accept requests, maintain restricted data in official records (but not on public websites), and implement designated forms/processes.
  • Third parties such as title insurers, title agents, attorneys: expressly permitted access to restricted data in some circumstances.
  • Public transparency/users of government-record websites: reduced availability of certain contact information online.

Procedural / Timeline notes

  • Massachusetts docket entries show: introduced/read first time 1/15/2025; referred to Judiciary and Transportation committees; scrivener’s error corrected 1/29/2025; referred to Transportation 2/27/2025; hearing scheduled 7/8/2025; committee reported favorably 9/15/2025; placed on Orders of the Day 10/20/2025 for second reading.
  • The SC-style text includes an internal effective-date line (Section effective July 1, 2024) that conflicts with the 2025 filing dates — indicating drafting or clerical inconsistencies in the supplied text.
  • Related bill: HD 3275 (replacement/related filing).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • MA: Shifts enforcement for expired licenses from a possible criminal violation to civil penalties with modest fines, potentially reducing criminal records for minor license lapses and adjusting enforcement incentives.
  • Privacy provisions: Would strengthen safety/privacy protections for law enforcement and judicial personnel by limiting online exposure of personal contact details, but may complicate public access to government records and add administrative burden and implementation costs to agencies. Exceptions for property records, DMV reports, and public filings may limit protection in contexts relevant to title searches and public transactions.
  • Drafting inconsistencies (jurisdictional mix, dates) should be resolved to determine final scope and governing law.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a clean separate summary for only the Massachusetts driver-license provision or only the privacy statute package; or
- Draft a redlined list of inconsistencies and specific questions for the bill sponsor/committee staff to clarify.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.