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 Maestas
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/27/25
SHORT TITLE Pretrial Release Notifications & Data
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 309
ANALYST Sanchez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC
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
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) Law Offices of the Public Defender (LOPD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 309
Senate Bill 309 (SB309) enacts a new section of Chapter 31, NMSA 1978, establishing that
records documenting violations of pretrial conditions of release are public records, except when
they contain precise geographical coordinates or other sensitive location data. The bill also
provides that law enforcement officers may access defendants' GPS data on pretrial release upon
request. Additionally, SB309 specifies that, with certain exceptions, information regarding the
conditions of pretrial release shall be publicly available. If enacted, SB309 would expand public
access to records related to pretrial supervision and modify the availability of location data for
law enforcement purposes.
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.
Senate Bill 309 – Page 2
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
SB309 may result in increased costs for state agencies responsible for pretrial services, court
administration, and law enforcement data management. The bill requires personnel to notify
courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and victims immediately upon a defendant’s violation of
pretrial conditions. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has indicated that expanded
public access to pretrial supervision records and additional reporting requirements may
necessitate increased personnel, training, and procedural revisions to ensure compliance.
Additionally, SB309 modifies law enforcement access to GPS data by removing existing
statutory requirements for reasonable suspicion and time limitations on data requests. This may
increase demand for data processing and access management, potentially requiring additional
administrative oversight. While the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has reported no
anticipated fiscal impact, the AOC and other entities involved in pretrial services may experience
increased workload and associated costs. The bill does not include an appropriation, so any costs
incurred by affected agencies would need to be absorbed within existing budgets or addressed
through future legislative appropriations.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
SB309 expands public access to pretrial release and supervision records, but the scope of records
subject to disclosure is not clearly defined. The bill provides that the records “that show or
support a violation of conditions of release” are public but does not specify whether this applies
only to judicial determinations of violations or also to preliminary assessments made by pretrial
services personnel.
The bill also removes the existing requirement that law enforcement demonstrate reasonable
suspicion before obtaining GPS data on defendants on pretrial release, instead allowing access
upon request. Current law limits the use of GPS data to specific circumstances, including
ongoing investigations of certain offenses. By broadening access, SB309 may have implications
for defendant privacy and law enforcement procedures. Existing state and federal case law
recognizes privacy interests in location data, and the bill’s changes to GPS access may interact
with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Additionally, SB309 requires pretrial services personnel to notify victims when a defendant
violates conditions of release. The bill does not define “victim” for this purpose, and it is unclear
whether this requirement applies broadly to all cases or only to offenses covered by the Victims
of Crime Act. The feasibility of immediate notification may also depend on the availability of
accurate victim contact information and the capacity of pretrial services personnel to provide
timely updates.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
SB309 introduces new reporting and public disclosure requirements that may affect the
efficiency of pretrial services and court administration. Increased demand for record production
and notifications could impact the timeliness of pretrial monitoring functions, particularly if
additional personnel or resources are not allocated to manage the expanded responsibilities. The
requirement for immediate notification of violations may also require adjustments to existing Senate Bill 309 – Page 3
case management systems to ensure accurate and timely communication among pretrial services,
courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and victims.
Additionally, changes to law enforcement access to GPS data could affect investigative
procedures by eliminating the current requirement for reasonable suspicion. Removing the
reasonable suspicion requirement for GPS data access may increase the number of law
enforcement requests, affecting agency data management workloads. The long-term impact on
pretrial supervision and law enforcement will depend on implementation and whether agencies
expand administrative capacity to comply with the bill’s requirements.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SB309 may require state agencies to update internal policies and procedures to align with new
disclosure and notification requirements. Pretrial services offices may need to implement new
protocols for tracking and documenting violations of pretrial conditions in a manner that
facilitates public access while ensuring compliance with privacy protections. This could
necessitate revisions to data management systems, staff training, and potential modifications to
record retention policies. The requirement for immediate victim notification introduces an
additional administrative function for pretrial services personnel, who may need to establish
mechanisms for verifying and maintaining up-to-date victim contact information. Courts and law
enforcement agencies responsible for handling GPS data requests may also need to adjust
workflows to accommodate an increased volume of records requests. Coordination among
agencies will be necessary to ensure compliance with the bill’s provisions without disrupting
existing pretrial supervision and case management processes.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
SB309 provides that pretrial release and supervision records are public unless they contain
certain protected information, but it does not specify whether agencies must redact sensitive data
before releasing records or if such records are entirely exempt from disclosure. The absence of
clear guidance may affect how pretrial services personnel interpret and implement the public
records provisions, potentially requiring further administrative or judicial clarification.
The bill also expands law enforcement access to GPS data for defendants on pretrial release but
does not address whether defense counsel or other parties may obtain similar access for legal
proceedings. Current law limits public disclosure of GPS data to instances where it has been
introduced as evidence at trial. While the bill expands GPS data access for law enforcement, it
does not specify whether defense counsel may obtain similar access, which may have
implications for evidentiary procedures and due process rights.
Additionally, SB309 requires immediate notification of pretrial violations but does not establish
a process for verifying the occurrence of a violation before notifications are sent. If notifications
are based on preliminary assessments rather than judicial determinations, there may be
implications for accuracy and procedural fairness. Agencies responsible for implementation may
need to determine how to balance timely reporting with the need to ensure reliability in violation
determinations.
SS/hj/SL2