AN ACT relating to privacy for attorneys involved in criminal actions.
Summary
HB 442 would expand Kentucky’s existing privacy protections for certain public officials and attorneys involved in criminal matters by restricting government agencies from publicly disclosing specified personally identifiable information when a covered person makes a written request. The bill covers judicial officers and their immediate family members, Commonwealth’s attorneys and assistants, county attorneys and assistants, attorneys employed by the Department of Public Advocacy, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western Kentucky Federal Community Defender, Inc., and attorneys appointed to Criminal Justice Act panels representing indigent clients.
The bill defines protected information broadly to include dates of birth, home and cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, residence addresses, biometric/health/medical and insurance information, children’s identities and school/daycare locations, Social Security numbers, and the employer name of an immediate family member. Once a request is received, the agency must remove the information from publicly available content within 72 hours and may not later repost or release it. The bill also allows a parent or guardian to make the request for a minor covered person and permits a covered person to seek injunctive or declaratory relief in court to enforce the law.
Impact
HB 442 would amend KRS 61.7991 to add criminal justice attorneys and certain federally affiliated defense attorneys to the list of protected covered persons, while also clarifying the scope of protected personally identifiable information and the process for removal from public records or online postings. It would impose a 72-hour takedown requirement on government agencies after a written request and create a private right of action for enforcement, but it would not affect required financial disclosures under the chapter.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had strong support in the House, passing a veto override vote 89-4, which indicates broad bipartisan agreement or at least limited opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the discussion record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margin suggests the measure was generally viewed favorably as a privacy and safety protection for judges and attorneys involved in criminal cases.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between personal privacy and public access to government information. Supporters are likely to favor shielding judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and indigent defense attorneys from doxxing, harassment, or retaliation, especially given the inclusion of family members and children’s school information. Opponents, if any, may be concerned about limits on transparency, the breadth of the covered-person definition, and the obligation for agencies to remove information quickly from publicly available content.