Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Rep. Chandler/Sen. Trujillo
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/22/25
SHORT TITLE Law Enforcement Records Changes
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 283
ANALYST Sanchez
REVENUE*
(dollars in thousands)
Type FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
DPS
No Fiscal
Impact
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Recurring General Fund
Local
Governm
ents
No Fiscal
Impact
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Indeterminat
e but minimal
gain
Recurring
Local General
Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate revenue decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
DPS and Local
Governments
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Office of the Attorney General (NMAG) Department of Public Safety (DPS) Municipal League (ML) Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Council of Governments (COGs) Agency Declined to Respond
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
House Bill 283 – Page 2
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 283
House Bill 283 (HB283) would make several substantive changes to the Inspection of Public
Records Act (IPRA). It proposes amendments to Section 14-2-1.3, NMSA 1978, to prohibit the
use of law enforcement records for soliciting victims or their relatives. It requires requesters of
such records to certify that they will not use the records for solicitation purposes. Additionally,
the bill amends Section 14-2-6, NMSA 1978, to define "commercial purpose" as any use of
public records that generates profit through sale, resale, or solicitation but exempts certain media
and legal uses.
The bill further amends Section 14-2-8 NMSA 1978 to mandate that a written request for public
records must include certification regarding whether the record will be used for a commercial
purpose. If the requester intends to use the record for such purposes, a public body may impose a
fee of up to $30 per hour for time spent preparing the record beyond the first hour. Public bodies
must provide an estimate of the cost before proceeding with the request, and requesters must
confirm their willingness to pay the fee in advance.
HB283 also amends Section 14-2-11, NMSA 1978, to require that before filing an enforcement
action under IPRA, a requester must first notify the public body of the alleged violation and
allow 15 calendar days for the issue to be resolved. The bill also establishes a two-year statute of
limitations for bringing enforcement actions against public bodies under IPRA.
The bill also creates an Inspection of Public Records Task Force, composed of representatives
from the Attorney General’s Office, Legislative Council Service, local government associations,
public schools, higher education institutions, media organizations, and record custodians from
different levels of government. The task force is tasked with reviewing and recommending
further improvements to the administration of IPRA.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB283 introduces a commercial-use fee structure for public records requests, establishes new
administrative requirements for public bodies, and creates a temporary task force to study IPRA.
The bill allows public bodies to charge a fee of up to $30 per hour for processing records
requests beyond the first hour when the requested records are intended for a commercial purpose.
This provision may generate additional revenue for public agencies, offsetting costs associated
with fulfilling large or complex records requests. However, the fiscal impact is indeterminate, as
agencies do not currently track the proportion of requests made for commercial purposes, making
it unclear how much revenue may be generated.
The bill also creates an Inspection of Public Records Task Force, to be chaired by the Attorney
General, which will study and make recommendations regarding enforcement mechanisms,
administrative processes, and the use of ombuds services. No appropriation is provided for this
task force, and the extent of administrative costs for convening meetings, conducting research,
and preparing reports is unclear.
House Bill 283 – Page 3
The bill’s procedural changes may also have financial implications for public bodies. The
requirement that requesters provide written certification regarding the intended use of records
may lead to additional administrative steps in processing requests. Additionally, the requirement
that requesters provide public bodies with written notice of an alleged violation before initiating
legal action could impact litigation-related costs. By allowing public bodies 15 days to respond
and another 15 days to remedy a violation before enforcement actions proceed, the bill may
result in fewer immediate legal disputes and associated costs. However, the extent to which this
provision will reduce litigation expenses or delay enforcement actions is uncertain.
Local governments, particularly law enforcement agencies, report an increase in requests for
body-worn camera footage and other law enforcement records, which can be time-intensive to
process. The ability to charge a fee for commercial-use requests may provide cost recovery for
agencies handling such requests. However, it is unclear whether the introduction of this fee will
significantly alter the volume of requests submitted by commercial entities, such as data brokers.
Overall, the bill's fiscal impact will depend on the number of commercial-use requests received,
the extent to which fees offset administrative costs, and whether procedural changes reduce
litigation expenses.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
HB283 makes several substantive changes to IPRA, particularly regarding the certification
requirements for public records requests, the enforcement process for alleged violations, and the
regulation of commercial-use requests. The bill requires that requesters affirmatively certify the
intended use of records, which may introduce procedural changes in how public bodies process
and review requests. While this requirement may help clarify the purpose of records requests, it
could also affect the timeliness of responses if additional verification is needed before a request
is considered complete.
The bill also establishes a new enforcement structure by requiring written notice to a public body
before legal action may be pursued for an alleged violation of IPRA. This procedural step could
influence how disputes over records requests are handled and may change the way public bodies
approach compliance efforts. However, it is unclear how this change will impact access to
records or the resolution of disputes over time.
Additionally, HB283 modifies the definition of "commercial purpose" within IPRA, explicitly
excluding news organizations, legal proceedings, and certain informational uses. This distinction
may have implications for how records are requested and used by various entities, particularly in
sectors that rely on public data for analysis, reporting, or research. The bill does not introduce
specific penalties for requesters who misrepresent the intended use of records, leaving
enforcement of the certification requirement to the administrative process established within
public agencies.
Finally, the bill establishes a temporary task force to study potential improvements to IPRA’s
administration, enforcement, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The composition and
responsibilities of this task force suggest an effort to balance the needs of public agencies and
records requesters while evaluating alternative enforcement approaches. The extent to which the
task force’s recommendations will influence future legislative or administrative changes remains
to be determined.
House Bill 283 – Page 4
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
HB283 introduces procedural changes to IPRA that could affect the efficiency and workload of
public agencies responsible for processing records requests. The requirement that requesters
certify the intended use of records and acknowledge potential commercial-use fees may lead to
changes in how agencies track and manage requests, particularly for entities that process a high
volume of records. Public bodies may need to update their request intake processes, train staff on
the new certification requirements, and develop tracking mechanisms to differentiate between
commercial and non-commercial requests.
The bill’s enforcement provisions, including the requirement for written notice before litigation,
may also impact agency performance by altering response timelines and legal workflows. Public
agencies may need to establish new internal procedures for handling notice of alleged violations,
ensuring compliance within the prescribed response period. The effectiveness of these measures
in reducing disputes or improving compliance with IPRA requirements will likely depend on the
consistency of implementation across different agencies.
Additionally, agencies with high volumes of public records requests, such as law enforcement
entities managing body-worn camera footage and investigative reports, may experience shifts in
workload distribution. If the commercial-use fee structure results in fewer large-scale requests
from commercial entities, agencies may be able to reallocate resources to other operational
priorities. However, if new administrative requirements increase processing times, agencies may
need to adjust workflows accordingly. The long-term impact of these procedural changes on
response efficiency and public access to records remains to be seen.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
HB283 introduces new administrative requirements for public bodies processing records
requests, including the need to verify certifications regarding the intended use of records and to
calculate and communicate potential commercial-use fees. Agencies may need to update existing
forms, databases, and online portals to incorporate certification fields and fee estimates. This
could require modifications to case management or records tracking systems to ensure
compliance with the bill’s provisions.
Public bodies will also need to establish internal procedures for handling the new statutory notice
requirement for alleged IPRA violations. This may involve designating staff to monitor and
respond to formal notices within the prescribed timeframe, tracking resolution efforts, and
maintaining records of compliance. Ensuring consistency across agencies in implementing this
process could require guidance or training for records custodians and legal staff.
Additionally, the bill’s creation of an Inspection of Public Records Task Force will require
coordination among multiple state and local agencies. The task force’s review of enforcement
mechanisms and administrative procedures may result in further recommendations that could
lead to additional administrative changes in the future. The extent of these potential
administrative impacts will depend on how agencies adapt their workflows to comply with the
bill’s new requirements.
House Bill 283 – Page 5
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
Analysis from the Office of the Attorney General noted the bill specifies certain deadlines are
measured in "calendar days," which may introduce unnecessary confusion. The Uniform Statute
and Rule Construction Act (Section 12-2A-7, NMSA 1978) already establishes standard methods
for computing time periods, including how days are counted in statutory deadlines. The inclusion
of "calendar days" in the bill may create ambiguity about whether a different counting method is
intended, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations or implementation across agencies.
Additionally, the bill does not specify enforcement mechanisms for instances in which a
requester misrepresents the intended use of a record in their certification. While the bill requires
requesters to confirm whether they will use records for a commercial purpose, it does not outline
any penalties or remedies if records are later found to have been used in a way that contradicts
the original certification.
There is also some ambiguity regarding whether the requirement to provide written notice before
filing an enforcement action applies only to individual requesters or also to enforcement actions
initiated by the Attorney General or district attorneys. Clarifying this distinction may help
prevent delays or unintended procedural barriers in cases where government entities seek to
enforce IPRA compliance.
SS/SL2/hj