HB 117 establishes and funds priorities for Montana’s criminal justice data warehouse during the 2025-2026 interim. The bill directs the Board of Crime Control, in consultation with the Criminal Justice Oversight Council, to focus on building a unique identifier that can link records across state, local, judicial, tribal, and federal criminal justice systems while protecting personally identifiable information. It also directs the board to improve data governance, expand the data elements collected, acquire software tools for record matching and cataloging, identify local partners for broader participation, document data processes, maintain a vendor list, pursue federal funding, and identify other data sources that may help answer criminal justice research questions.
The bill amends Montana law governing the criminal justice data warehouse in 44-7-126, MCA, to reinforce the warehouse’s purpose as a secure, integrated database for analysis and decision-making. It requires contributing agencies and the court administrator to provide data on request, allows local, tribal, federal, and nongovernmental entities to submit data, and clarifies that contributors retain ownership of their data. It also adds or reinforces requirements for memoranda of understanding, confidentiality protections, collaboration with the oversight council, and direct access for legislative fiscal staff. The bill appropriates a total of $1,484,243 from the general fund: $480,000 for software applications, $504,243 for two staff positions supporting implementation, and $500,000 as a one-time grant to the judiciary, with unspent funds redirected back to warehouse work.
Overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive. The bill passed the House and Senate with broad bipartisan majorities, and committee votes were overwhelmingly favorable, including unanimous or near-unanimous action in several stages. The legislative history suggests general agreement that the data warehouse is a useful infrastructure project for improving criminal justice policy, research, and interagency coordination.
The main points of contention appear to have centered on spending levels, the scope of the project, and the handling of amendments rather than on the warehouse concept itself. The House initially rejected Senate amendments before ultimately adopting a free conference committee report, indicating some negotiation over the final form. The appropriations and the creation of ongoing staffing and software costs likely drove the limited opposition, but the final compromise received unanimous House support and strong Senate support.
HB 117 expands and operationalizes Montana’s criminal justice data warehouse framework by amending 44-7-126, MCA, and directing the Board of Crime Control to pursue specific interim priorities, reporting obligations, and data-integration tasks. It affects the Board of Crime Control, the Criminal Justice Oversight Council, the Department of Administration, the judiciary, contributing state and local agencies, and potentially tribal, federal, and nongovernmental data contributors. The bill also creates new general fund appropriations for software, staffing, and a judiciary grant, and it establishes expectations for confidentiality, data-sharing agreements, and future legislative reporting.
The bill was generally received positively and moved with strong bipartisan support. Committee and floor votes were largely favorable, with several unanimous committee actions and large majorities in both chambers. The final free conference committee report was adopted overwhelmingly, suggesting that lawmakers broadly agreed on the need to improve criminal justice data integration and warehouse capabilities.
The primary contention was not over the warehouse’s purpose, but over implementation details, funding, and amendments. The House’s initial refusal to concur with Senate amendments shows that some members had concerns about the revised version before a compromise was reached in free conference committee. The appropriations for software, staffing, and a judiciary grant likely raised budgetary or scope concerns for some legislators, as reflected in the smaller number of dissenting votes at certain stages, but those objections did not prevent final passage.