CRIMINAL/RECORDS: Provides relative to the confidentiality of criminal history records
Summary
HB 622 amends Louisiana law governing the confidentiality and handling of criminal history records obtained in the employment context. The bill reinforces that criminal history records or information about an employee may not be released or disclosed except by court order or with the written consent of the person being investigated. It also keeps the existing rule that such records must be destroyed one year after the person’s employment ends, while clarifying a limited process for sharing records with a prospective employer when the applicant gives written consent.
The bill adds an express requirement that employers covered by the statute obtain criminal history and security checks under other applicable Louisiana provisions, and it states that the section is intended to align with state and federal rules governing criminal history record information. It specifically references federal requirements such as 28 CFR Part 20 and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services security policy, and it makes clear that the law does not authorize redisclosure of FBI criminal history information. State criminal history information must continue to be maintained and disseminated under state law.
Impact
HB 622 primarily affects employers, applicants, and agencies that handle criminal history record information in Louisiana. It strengthens confidentiality rules, clarifies when records may be shared, and ties employer practices more explicitly to existing state background-check statutes and federal criminal justice information standards. The bill does not broadly expand access to criminal records; instead, it narrows and formalizes handling requirements and reinforces destruction and nondisclosure obligations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received unanimous support in both chambers. It passed the House 95-0, the Senate 36-0, and the House again 94-0 on concurrence, indicating strong bipartisan agreement. The lack of committee transcript material suggests there was little recorded debate or opposition, and the final enactment as Act 659 reflects a generally favorable view of the bill’s privacy and compliance goals.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The main policy issues embedded in the bill are the balance between protecting criminal history privacy and allowing limited employer-to-employer sharing with written consent, as well as ensuring compliance with federal FBI/CJIS rules. Any potential concern would likely come from employers or background-check users needing clarity on record retention, disclosure limits, and the new express duty to obtain checks under applicable law, but no organized opposition is reflected in the votes or transcripts.