This bill would authorize peace officer standards and training agencies (PSTAs) to access criminal history records and to exchange such records with authorized officials at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. It also defines who counts as a PSTA and broadens the definition of “State” to include the District of Columbia and various U.S. territories.
Within 180 days of enactment, the Attorney General would amend CFR Part 20 to implement the act. The goal is to align credentialing and retention decisions with more complete history data across jurisdictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 28 U.S.C. 534 to authorize exchange of criminal history records with PSTAs, state sentencing commissions, tribes, cities, and penal institutions for official use by authorized officials of multiple levels of government.
Who It Affects
PSTAs and state-level credentialing bodies, state sentencing commissions, tribal policing entities, municipal training programs, penal institutions, and federal agencies involved in enforcement and sentencing.
Why It Matters
It creates a unified data-sharing framework intended to improve hiring, training, and retention decisions for law enforcement officers by leveraging cross-jurisdictional information.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The legislation uses a straightforward mechanism: it expands who can access and share criminal history information and it standardizes definitions so that state training agencies, along with other entities, can participate in data exchanges. Specifically, it broadens the pool of entities that can receive and use criminal history data beyond traditional federal agencies to include state PSTAs, state sentencing bodies, tribes, cities, and penal institutions.
The act also clarifies what a PSTA is and what constitutes a ‘State,’ ensuring that the classification applies to DC and various territories. To operationalize these changes, the bill requires the Attorney General to adjust the regulations (CFR Part 20) within a 180-day window after enactment.
Taken together, these provisions are designed to enable more informed credentialing and accountability across jurisdictions by consolidating access to relevant history records for authorized officials.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expands the list of recipients who may access criminal history data to include PSTAs, state sentencing commissions, tribes, cities, and penal institutions.
It defines a ‘peace officer standards and training agency’ as a state-level body responsible for hiring, training, ethical conduct, and retention through certification or licensing.
It broadens the concept of ‘State’ to include DC, Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, American Samoa, CNMI, and other territories.
A regulatory implementation requirement mandates the Attorney General to amend CFR Part 20 within 180 days to reflect the new framework.
It explicitly includes the United States Sentencing Commission and other specified officials in the information exchange under official-use terms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the Peace Officer Standards and Training Agency Information Access Clarification Act. It establishes the formal naming convention that will guide implementation and reference in related regulations and enforcement.
FBI Sharing and Definitions
Section 2(a) amends 28 U.S.C. 534 to allow exchange of criminal history records with officials of the Federal Government (including the U.S. Sentencing Commission), States, state sentencing commissions, PSTAs, tribes, cities, and penal and other institutions for official use. Section 2(b) provides definitions: a) PSTAs are state-level agencies that set standards for hiring, training, ethical conduct, and retention of officers through licensing or certification; and b) ‘State’ includes DC, Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, American Samoa, CNMI, and any other U.S. territory or possession. These changes collectively broaden who can access and use criminal history information and who is authorized to use it.
Regulatory Implementation
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Attorney General must amend Part 20 of title 28, CFR to carry out the provisions of this act. This creates a concrete regulatory deadline to operationalize the expanded data-sharing framework and ensures consistency in how records are shared and used across jurisdictions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- PSTAs in every state, DC, and territories will gain access to criminal history data to inform credentialing and retention decisions for officers they oversee.
- State sentencing commissions and other state-level policy bodies gain data access that can improve policy evaluation and oversight tied to enforcement.
- Tribal law enforcement and tribal training programs benefit from formal access pathways to relevant history information for standards and accountability.
- Cities and penal institutions gain relevant data access to align training and staffing decisions with history-based risk/credentialing considerations.
- Federal agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Sentencing Commission, benefit from a broader, standardized data-sharing framework that supports interagency coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- PSTAs and state agencies will incur costs to integrate access controls, data governance, and IT systems needed for cross-jurisdictional data exchange.
- State and local agencies may face ongoing compliance and administrative costs to manage data transfers and ensure accuracy.
- Privacy and civil liberties considerations may require additional safeguards, audits, and oversight mechanisms potentially adding compliance costs.
- Regulatory agencies will bear costs associated with updating CFR Part 20 and clarifying implementation guidance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the functional need for cross-jurisdictional access to criminal history information to improve policing credentialing with the imperative to protect individual privacy and prevent data misuse across a mosaic of states, territories, tribes, and localities.
The act creates a broad, cross-jurisdictional data-sharing framework that can improve credentialing and accountability, but it also raises concerns about privacy, data security, and the potential for misapplication across diverse jurisdictions. Effective implementation will depend on robust governance around who can access data, how data is used, and how errors are corrected.
The 180-day CFR update deadline is ambitious given the need to harmonize multiple state and territorial systems, ensure data minimization where appropriate, and establish audit and oversight provisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.