Law enforcement: fingerprinting; sunset on fees for fingerprinting and criminal record check; eliminate. Amends sec. 3 of 1935 PA 120 (MCL 28.273).
If enacted, this bill would institutionalize the current fee structure for fingerprinting and criminal record checks within Michigan law, benefiting the state police by generating a predictable revenue stream until 2027. It ensures that the operational costs related to the processing of fingerprints and conducting criminal background checks can be recouped by the police department. This also indirectly impacts employment practices, as organizations that require these checks may have additional expenses to incorporate in their hiring processes, potentially affecting their recruitment strategies.
House Bill 5000 amends the existing law on fingerprinting and criminal record checks in the state of Michigan. Specifically, it allows the Michigan Department of State Police to continue charging fees related to fingerprint processing and criminal record checks until October 1, 2027. The bill stipulates that the fee for fingerprinting cannot exceed $30, while a name-based criminal record check may cost up to $10. Notably, these fees cannot be charged if they are already covered under other laws or if the requester is a government or nonprofit entity conducting employment-related checks.
The sentiment surrounding HB 5000 appears neutral to slightly positive, as the proposed fees are a continuation of practices currently in place, providing clarity and stability for both the state police and those needing to submit to background checks. Stakeholders agree that while maintaining fees can be a burden for some, the provision of background checks is crucial for ensuring public safety and trust in the employment process, especially in sensitive positions.
There may be contention regarding the fees imposed by HB 5000, especially from those who believe the costs could deter individuals from pursuing job opportunities requiring background checks. While the bill aims to standardize and formalize practice, there could be criticism regarding the equity of these fees, particularly for low-income residents or organizations that may struggle to cover the costs associated with processing checks. The debate may hinge on balancing public safety with financial accessibility.