HR-8352-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Derek Schmidt (R-KS)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law to let the FBI exchange criminal history records with state "peace officer standards and training" agencies—the bodies that certify, license, and can revoke certification for police officers. It defines which state agencies qualify and directs the Attorney General to update federal regulations within 180 days to implement the change.
Who benefits
State peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies, which would gain direct access to FBI criminal history data to vet officer candidates and investigate misconduct; state and local governments seeking to prevent officers decertified or with criminal records in one state from being hired elsewhere; and the public, who may benefit from more thorough vetting of law enforcement hires.
Who is hurt
Individuals with criminal records who are current or prospective law enforcement officers may face increased scrutiny or disqualification from hiring or licensing decisions. The FBI and state agencies would bear modest administrative and compliance costs to build data-sharing infrastructure, and there is some risk that expanded access to criminal history records could be misused or mishandled without adequate safeguards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that many states currently lack access to FBI criminal history records when certifying or decertifying police officers, allowing officers fired or decertified for misconduct in one state to get hired elsewhere without proper background checks. They contend this bill closes that information gap, citing ongoing efforts by states to build national decertification databases to prevent "wandering officers" from continuing law enforcement careers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding access to sensitive FBI criminal history records to additional state agencies raises privacy and data security concerns, particularly without specified safeguards in the bill's text limiting how the information may be used or retained. They contend that broadening record-sharing without corresponding oversight provisions could lead to inconsistent handling across states and potential misuse of sensitive personal information.
Constitutional context
This bill primarily implicates Congress's authority to regulate the FBI's recordkeeping and information-sharing functions under Article I, and does not raise a clear constitutional dispute; any privacy concerns would likely be analyzed under Fourth Amendment or due process principles governing government recordkeeping, though no landmark case directly governs this narrow administrative information-sharing provision.
Checks and balances
Congress expands the Attorney General's statutory authority to share FBI records with additional state entities, with the Attorney General retaining implementation discretion through regulations, and no new judicial or legislative check is created beyond existing oversight of DOJ rulemaking.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously authorized FBI record-sharing with specific classes of state and federal entities under 28 U.S.C. 534, and this bill follows that same incremental pattern of expanding the list of authorized recipients.