Texas House Bill HB688

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 1/18/11
• Refer: 2/21/11

Caption

Relating to restrictions on the disclosure of certain criminal history records and to the duty of law enforcement agencies regarding records associated with certain defendants; creating an offense.

Impact

If passed, HB688 would significantly alter the landscape of criminal record disclosure in Texas. It mandates that criminal justice agencies can only disclose records that are the subject of an nondisclosure order under carefully defined circumstances. This means that individuals who fulfill the requirements after completing community supervision could protect their criminal history from public scrutiny, which could greatly impact employment and housing opportunities for them. The bill aims to encourage reintegration into society for rehabilitated individuals while balancing the public’s right to access criminal records.

Summary

House Bill 688 (HB688) addresses the restrictions surrounding the disclosure of certain criminal history records and defines the obligations of law enforcement agencies regarding these records. The bill proposes amendments to existing laws, particularly focusing on individuals placed on community supervision or deferred adjudication. It allows those who successfully complete their supervision to petition the court for an order of nondisclosure of their criminal records, offering a pathway for rehabilitation and reintegration into society without the burden of past offenses being publicly available.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB688 appears to be supportive, reflecting a growing recognition of the importance of second chances for individuals who have made amends after their offenses. Proponents argue that this bill is essential for promoting fairness and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential risks involved in limiting access to criminal history, especially in cases where public safety might be at stake.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns from certain stakeholders about the implications of restricting access to criminal history records. Critics fear that the bill might shield dangerous offenders from public scrutiny and that the criteria for nondisclosure could be cumbersome, potentially leaving loopholes that undermine law enforcement's ability to ensure community safety. The debate centers on finding a balance between protecting the privacy rights of rehabilitated individuals and maintaining public safety through transparency.