The Criminal History Access Act amends 28 U.S.C. §534 to permit authorized peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies to receive criminal history records and information from the FBI for official use. The bill also inserts a statutory definition of a POST agency and expands the statutory definition of “State” to list territories and possessions explicitly.
By creating an explicit federal dissemination pathway to POST agencies and forcing a regulatory update to 28 C.F.R. Part 20 within 180 days, the bill removes a legal ambiguity that has limited some state-level vetting and decertification activities.
Agencies that set hiring, certification, or decertification rules for officers will likely gain faster access to national criminal-history data — a practical change with consequences for officer credentialing, misconduct investigations, and interjurisdictional information sharing.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 28 U.S.C. §534 to list peace officer standards and training agencies among authorized recipients of FBI criminal-history records and adds statutory definitions that describe what a POST agency is and which territories count as States for dissemination purposes.
Who It Affects
State peace officer standards and training agencies (POST), state and local law enforcement employers that rely on those agencies for certification and decertification, the FBI and DOJ (which must update their regulations), and law enforcement officers whose records POST agencies may review.
Why It Matters
This creates a clear federal authorization for POST agencies to obtain FBI criminal-history information for official vetting and oversight functions, shifting practical access from a case-by-case regulatory posture to an express statutory recipient class and requiring DOJ to align regulations quickly.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes two tightly focused legal changes. First, it alters the recipient clause in 28 U.S.C. §534(a)(4) so that the FBI may exchange criminal-history records and information with ‘‘peace officer standards and training agencies’’ for official use.
That is a categorical addition: instead of relying solely on broader recipient categories (States, penal institutions, etc.), the statute now names POST agencies as a distinct, authorized class of recipients.
Second, the bill inserts definitions into §534(e). It defines a ‘‘peace officer standards and training agency’’ as a State agency that has statutory authority to set hiring, training, ethical conduct, and retention standards for the State’s law enforcement officers through certification, licensing, or a similar qualification process.
The bill also clarifies that ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. territories, and possessions — a practical move that avoids ambiguity for territorial POST bodies.Operationally, the statute leaves the mechanics of access and use to existing federal rules but forces action by the Attorney General: DOJ must amend 28 C.F.R. Part 20 within 180 days to reflect these statutory additions.
That means the federal regulation governing FBI criminal-history record dissemination will need to add POST agencies to the list of permissible recipients and define any procedural requirements (for example, requests, safeguards, and permitted uses) or conditions for sharing. The bill does not itself create procedural forms, fees, or operational standards; it creates the statutory authorization and delegates implementation to DOJ regulation.The practical effect will be to simplify and standardize access for POST agencies that already perform background checks, certification, decertification, or misconduct reviews.
Where previously agencies may have relied on state repositories, interagency agreements, or ad hoc regulatory permissions, the statutory change gives a clear federal basis for requests that cross state lines and for national checks tied to officer credentialing and oversight.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 28 U.S.C. §534(a)(4) to add ‘‘peace officer standards and training agencies’’ to the list of authorized recipients of FBI criminal-history records for official use.
It adds a statutory definition that limits a ‘‘peace officer standards and training agency’’ to a State agency with statutory authority to set hiring, training, ethical conduct, and retention standards through certification, licensing, or similar qualification processes.
The definition of ‘‘State’’ in the amended statute explicitly includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other territories or possessions.
The Attorney General must amend 28 C.F.R. Part 20 (the FBI criminal-history dissemination regulations) within 180 days to implement the statutory change and spell out any procedural or safeguard requirements.
The bill itself does not create new disclosure procedures, penalties, or privacy standards—those operational details are left to DOJ’s regulatory revision and to applicable state laws.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Criminal History Access Act'
The bill’s opening section supplies the short title used throughout the text and any implementing materials. This is a formal provision but signals the statute’s focus on access to criminal-history records by designated agencies.
Add POST agencies to authorized recipients
This amendment rewrites the clause listing federal recipients to include ‘‘peace officer standards and training agencies.’’ Practically, this converts a category that might have required regulatory parsing into an explicit statutory recipient class, giving POST agencies a clear federal authorization to request or receive FBI criminal-history information for official uses tied to their oversight and credentialing roles.
Define 'peace officer standards and training agency' and 'State'
The bill adds three numbered definitions to subsection (e). The POST definition ties access to an agency’s statutory authority over hiring, training, ethical conduct, and retention via certification or licensing, which narrows eligibility to agencies with explicit statutory roles. The ‘‘State’’ definition enumerates territories and possessions to eliminate ambiguity about whether non-state jurisdictions’ POST bodies can receive records.
Attorney General must update 28 C.F.R. Part 20 within 180 days
This clause imposes a firm 180-day timeline for DOJ to revise the FBI’s dissemination regulations to reflect the new statutory recipient class. That directs the agency to define practical elements—documented request processes, record-handling safeguards, limitations on use, and any requirements for memoranda of understanding—though the bill does not prescribe those specific regulatory contents.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- State peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies — the primary winners: they gain an explicit federal authorization to obtain FBI criminal-history records, which can streamline background checks, certification, decertification, and misconduct reviews.
- State and local law enforcement employers — they benefit indirectly because POST agencies with better national data access can make more informed hiring and decertification decisions, reducing the risk of hiring officers with problematic out-of‑state records.
- Victims and oversight bodies — prosecutors, civilian oversight panels, and internal affairs units may see improved access to complete criminal-history information when POST agencies act on certification or decertification matters.
- Territorial law-enforcement authorities — by listing territories in the definition of ‘‘State,’’ the bill ensures agencies in D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands can obtain the same federal records.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Justice and FBI — the agencies must revise 28 C.F.R. Part 20, establish procedural guardrails, update forms/systems, and handle increased request volume, absorbing administrative and implementation costs.
- POST agencies — while they gain access, they will face new operational responsibilities to secure, store, and use sensitive FBI data consistent with federal rules and likely MOUs, requiring technical, legal, and training investments.
- Individual officers — expanded access to national criminal-history data increases the likelihood that past convictions or records from other jurisdictions will affect certification, employment, or disciplinary outcomes.
- State and local HR/privacy officers — they must reconcile FBI-provided records with state sealing/expungement regimes and respond to data accuracy disputes and record-challenge processes, imposing additional administrative burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade-off is between improving oversight and accountability of law enforcement through broader national data access, and protecting privacy, procedural fairness, and state-specific confidentiality regimes; the bill grants access but delegates the hardest choices about limits, verification, and safeguards to regulation, where balancing those competing interests will be necessary and controversial.
The bill is narrow in statutory language but broad in operational consequence; it authorizes sharing but leaves the critical details to DOJ regulation and state law. That creates three implementation gaps.
First, the statute does not define ‘‘official use’’ in the POST context or set limits on redisclosure, retention periods, or records that are exempted (for example, sealed or expunged records). Without regulatory guardrails, POST agencies could receive records that state law treats as confidential, producing legal conflicts or unintended redisclosures.
Second, the definition ties access to ‘‘statutory authority’’ over certification, licensing, and retention, but states vary widely in how those powers are allocated and documented. Some states vest certification in boards, commissions, or multi-agency bodies; others leave much to local agencies.
DOJ’s regulations will need to address how to verify an entity’s statutory authority, whether sub-state bodies qualify, and what documentation suffices — questions the statute leaves unanswered. Third, the bill imposes a 180-day regulatory deadline but no funding or procedural guidance.
DOJ and POST agencies will face resource and technical demands (secure channels, training, audit logs) to process and protect sensitive data, and those costs are not allocated here.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.