Skip to content

Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session

AB 240

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

the disclosure of electronic juvenile court records to law enforcement agencies and providing a penalty.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Under current law, the director of state courts has established an automated

information system, known as the Consolidated Court Automation Programs

(CCAP), that contains information about cases filed in the circuit courts in this state,

including cases filed in the courts assigned to exercise jurisdiction under the

Juvenile Justice Code (juvenile courts). Records of the juvenile court, however, are

confidential and may not be opened to inspection, nor may their contents be

disclosed, except under certain statutory exceptions or by an order of the juvenile

court. Currently, those exceptions include an exception that requires a juvenile court

to disclose its records on the request of a law enforcement agency to review those

records for the purpose of investigating alleged criminal gang activity.

This bill permits the juvenile court to transfer to a law enforcement agency the

electronic records of the juvenile court, permits the director of state courts to use

CCAP to facilitate that transfer of those electronic records, and requires the director

of state courts to determine what types of information from those electronic records

may be transferred to a law enforcement agency. In addition, the bill requires a law

enforcement agency to keep any information from those records transferred to the

agency confidential and permits a law enforcement agency to use or allow access to

that information only for the purpose of investigating alleged criminal or delinquent

activity. Also, the bill requires an individual who is allowed access to any information

from those electronic records to keep the information confidential and to use and

further disclose the information only for the purpose of investigating alleged

criminal or delinquent activity. Finally, the bill provides for a forfeiture of not more

than $5,000 for any person who intentionally discloses information in violation of the

bill.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Bernier (R) , Brooks (R) , Jacque (R) , Kaufert (R) , Kestell (R) , Knodl (R) , Petersen (R) , Strachota (R) , Stroebel (R) , Vos (R) , Ziegelbauer (I)

5 cosponsors

Ballweg (R) , Darling (R) , Lazich (R) , Olsen (R) , Wanggaard (R)

Full history

  1. Aug 30, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Vos, Bernier, Brooks, Jacque, Kaufert, Kestell, Knodl, Petersen, Strachota, Stroebel and Ziegelbauer;Cosponsored by Senators Darling, Lazich, Olsen and Wanggaard

  2. Aug 30, 2011 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics

  3. Sep 15, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Sep 16, 2011 · Assembly

    Representative Ballweg added as a coauthor

  5. Feb 28, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Vos and Richards

  6. Mar 1, 2012 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  7. Mar 2, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1