Pennsylvania House Bill HB413

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Refer: 1/29/25

Caption

In preliminary provisions, adopting the Uniform Electronic Recordation of Custodial Interrogations Act; requiring recordings of interrogations; and imposing functions on the Attorney General.

Impact

The introduction of HB 413 could significantly impact law enforcement procedures and practices in Pennsylvania. By requiring electronic recordings of interrogations, the bill seeks to enhance accountability for law enforcement officers, possibly leading to fewer disputes regarding the conduct of interrogations. It also provides a framework for the handling and preserving of electronic recordings, which could streamline access to evidence in court proceedings, thus potentially influencing the judicial process in cases involving custodial statements.

Summary

House Bill 413, known as the Uniform Electronic Recordation of Custodial Interrogations Act, mandates that custodial interrogations related to crimes of violence be recorded electronically in their entirety. The bill aims to improve the accuracy and reliability of interrogations by ensuring that they are documented, reducing potential claims of coercion or malpractice during the questioning process. The legislation outlines explicit provisions for recording while also noting exceptions where recording may not occur, such as in exigent circumstances or when an individual refuses to be recorded.

Sentiment

Sentiment around HB 413 appears to be largely supportive among advocates for criminal justice reform and civil rights, who argue that such transparency in interrogations can protect suspects from coercive practices by law enforcement. However, there may exist concerns from some law enforcement agencies regarding the implementation of such requirements, especially related to costs and the logistical challenges of ensuring compliance with recording mandates.

Contention

A primary point of contention associated with HB 413 revolves around the exceptions to the electronic recording requirement. Critics may argue that these exceptions could lead to inconsistencies in recording practices, potentially undermining the bill's intent. Moreover, the necessity for law enforcement to justify non-compliance with the recording requirements could be a source of friction, especially in high-stress situations where the capturing of evidence may not be straightforward.