HB1457 creates and renames Missouri’s “Judicial Privacy Act” and expands existing judicial-security protections to cover a broader category of “court-related officers.” The bill applies privacy protections to current, former, and retired federal and Missouri judges, magistrates, commissioners, prosecutors, circuit attorneys, court clerks, court administrators, juvenile officers, and related court personnel. It requires government agencies and private persons, businesses, and associations to remove or refrain from publicly posting personal information about covered officers after receiving a valid written request, generally within five business days, and it allows covered officers to seek injunctive or declaratory relief, along with costs and attorney’s fees, if the information is not removed.
The bill also limits the online solicitation, sale, or trading of a covered officer’s personal information when done to facilitate tampering or to pose an imminent threat to the officer or immediate family. It establishes a separate process for shielding certain real-estate and deed records maintained electronically by county recorders of deeds, including procedures for written requests, document shielding, and later unshielding by court order or notarized affidavit. The bill preserves access for parties to the instrument and includes liability protections for recorders of deeds acting in good faith.
In addition to privacy provisions, HB1457 revises Missouri’s criminal statutes on tampering with a judicial officer and tampering with a judicial proceeding. It broadens the definition of protected officials, adds dissemination of personal information as a prohibited form of tampering with a judicial officer, and keeps the offense classified as a class D felony, with a class B felony if death or bodily injury results. The bill also maintains the existing no-parole, no-probation, and no-conditional-release provisions for convictions under these sections.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective and security-focused, with the legislation framed as a response to risks faced by judges and other court personnel. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate, but the structure of the bill suggests a strong emphasis on privacy, safety, and deterrence of harassment or intimidation.
The main point of contention likely centers on the balance between judicial security and public access to information. The bill restricts posting of personal information by government agencies and private entities, creates new obligations to remove data from websites and records, and expands criminal liability for conduct involving online dissemination. Potential concerns would come from transparency advocates, record custodians, internet platforms, and others who may view the measure as broad or administratively burdensome, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect court-related officers and their families from harassment, doxxing, and threats.
HB1457 repeals and reenacts sections 476.1300 through 476.1313, 575.095, and 575.260 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, replacing the prior judicial-privacy framework with a broader Judicial Privacy Act. It expands statutory protections from “judicial officers” to “court-related officers,” adds new duties for government agencies, private businesses, and associations to remove personal information after written request, and creates a deed-record shielding process for certain electronic records. It also amends criminal law by broadening tampering offenses and expressly treating dissemination of protected personal information as a form of tampering with a judicial officer.
The bill appears generally supportive of judicial and court personnel safety, with a clear policy preference for privacy and anti-harassment protections. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or support from legislators in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure is framed as a security bill rather than a controversial policy expansion, though its privacy restrictions suggest it could draw mixed reactions from transparency and records-access interests.
The likely contention is between protecting court-related officers from doxxing, harassment, and threats versus preserving public access to government-held information and online records. The bill imposes removal deadlines, limits republication of personal information, and expands criminal exposure for online dissemination, which may concern media, open-government advocates, internet intermediaries, and record custodians. Supporters would likely argue that the expanded protections are necessary because the bill covers not only judges but also prosecutors, clerks, juvenile officers, and retired officials whose families may also be at risk.