Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill adds state peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies to the list of entities authorized to receive criminal history record information under 28 U.S.C. 534. It defines POST agencies, requires the Attorney General to update 28 C.F.R. part 20 regulations, and sets a 180-day deadline for that regulatory amendment.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights safeguards and transparency requirements.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill narrowly amends federal law to add peace officer standards and training agencies to the list of authorized recipients of criminal history records and directs the Attorney General to update implementing regulations within 180 days.
The bill adds state peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies to the list of entities authorized to receive criminal history record information under 28 U.S.C. 534.
It defines POST agencies, requires the Attorney General to update 28 C.F.R. part 20 regulations, and sets a 180-day deadline for that regulatory amendment.
Narrow, administrative law‑enforcement access change historically easier to enact; privacy/legal challenges are the main risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill narrowly amends federal law to add peace officer standards and training agencies to the list of authorized recipients of criminal history records and directs the Attorney General to update implementing regulations within 180 days.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights safeguards and transparency requirements.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights safeguards and transparency requirements.
Seen as a modest, pro-oversight measure enabling POST agencies to vet and certify officers using federal criminal history records.
Likely welcomed for potential to improve accountability, but raises privacy and fairness concerns without explicit safeguards.
A targeted, administrative change that helps agencies responsible for police certification access federal criminal history records.
Viewed as practical but needing clear implementation rules and minimal federal-state friction.
Generally favorable as it strengthens vetting of law enforcement personnel and supports state-level standards.
Some caution about creating another regulatory access pathway and potential limits on rehabilitation opportunities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrative law‑enforcement access change historically easier to enact; privacy/legal challenges are the main risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights safeguards and transparency requirements.
Narrow, administrative law‑enforcement access change historically easier to enact; privacy/legal challenges are the main risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill narrowly amends federal law to add peace officer standards and training agencies to the list of authorized recipients of criminal history records and directs the Atto…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.