SB1858 would create two new acts in Illinois law: the Privacy of Criminal Justice Data Act and the Criminal Justice Information Sharing Act. Together, they require contractors or businesses that store, maintain, or purchase criminal justice data or criminal justice information for a state agency or local government to certify in their contracts, under penalty of perjury, that they will not share that information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or use it for civil immigration enforcement purposes.
The bill defines key terms such as “civil immigration enforcement,” “civil immigration warrant,” “contractor,” and “criminal justice data,” and it specifically includes certain federal immigration-related forms and NCIC Immigration Violator File entries within the definition of civil immigration warrant. It also excludes criminal warrants from that definition. The measure is aimed at limiting the flow of state and local criminal justice information to federal immigration authorities through third-party vendors and data handlers.
Impact
If enacted, SB1858 would impose new contract requirements on state and local government vendors that handle criminal justice data or criminal justice information. It would affect procurement and data-sharing practices by requiring express non-disclosure certifications related to ICE and civil immigration enforcement, and it would likely require agencies to revise standard contract language and compliance procedures. The bill would not directly change criminal penalties or substantive criminal law, but it would create a new legal framework governing the handling of sensitive justice records by contractors and businesses.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests the bill is framed as a privacy and civil-liberties measure intended to protect criminal justice data from immigration enforcement use. The sponsor’s framing indicates support for restricting data sharing with ICE, and the bill’s structure reflects a clear policy choice to limit cooperation through contracts. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented opposition or broader legislative sentiment in the supplied materials.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns whether state and local governments should prohibit contractors from sharing criminal justice information with ICE or for civil immigration enforcement purposes. Supporters would view the bill as protecting privacy and preventing immigration enforcement from accessing justice data through vendors, while critics may argue it could interfere with federal immigration enforcement, limit information-sharing, or create compliance burdens for agencies and contractors. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definitions, especially the inclusion of NCIC Immigration Violator File references and the use of a perjury-based certification requirement.