SB 1379 creates a new section of Missouri law requiring criminal justice agencies to provide criminal justice data and records to “bona fide researchers” under specified conditions. The bill defines who qualifies as a bona fide researcher, generally requiring agreements limiting use of personally identifiable information to research and statistical purposes, institutional review board approval, and security controls for confidential data. It also defines criminal justice agency, criminal justice data, and record broadly.
The bill requires agencies to share data and records related to law enforcement stops, searches, seizures, warrants, arrests, citations, diversion programs, charges, dispositions, sentences, release conditions, probation, parole, correctional programs, and discipline or relocation of persons under correctional control. It also requires disclosure of records already subject to mandatory or discretionary public release, and allows agencies to share other responsive criminal justice data as well. The bill further directs the attorney general to issue implementation guidance by February 28, 2027, and permits agencies to charge reasonable, actual-cost fees for search, retrieval, and copying.
SB 1379 would add section 589.710 to Missouri statutes and create a new legal duty for criminal justice agencies to provide data to qualified researchers, while preserving existing chapter 610 confidentiality rules by stating that such disclosures are not public releases and do not waive future claims that records are closed. The bill would affect courts and local, county, and state criminal justice agencies that maintain arrest, correctional, and related records, and it would likely increase access to personally identifying and demographic data for research purposes under controlled conditions.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote history, or recorded opposition, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly from debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at improving research access to criminal justice information while imposing privacy and security safeguards, suggesting a policy-oriented, administrative approach rather than a highly partisan one.
The main points of potential contention are privacy, confidentiality, and administrative burden. Supporters would likely emphasize improved transparency, data-driven criminal justice research, and better policy evaluation, while opponents or cautious stakeholders may worry about releasing personally identifiable information, the adequacy of institutional review board protections, the scope of mandatory disclosure, and the cost and workload for agencies that must identify bona fide researchers and produce records. The bill’s preservation of chapter 610 closure claims and allowance for fees appear designed to address some of those concerns.