To amend sections 109.57, 109.573, 109.60, 2953.32, and 5122.311 of the Revised Code and to amend Section 221.40 of H.B. 96 of the 136th General Assembly, as subsequently amended, to align and modernize fingerprinting and disposition reporting, and to allow disclosure of information related to actions to determine paternity.
HB689 would update Ohio’s criminal-record reporting and fingerprinting statutes to require more electronic submission of arrest, case, and disposition information to the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCI). It revises procedures in sections 109.57 and 109.60 so sheriffs, police chiefs, courts, and clerks use forms and reporting methods prescribed by the superintendent, with an emphasis on electronic transmission, standardized reporting, and clearer handling of cases involving felonies, certain repeat misdemeanors, juvenile delinquency matters, and arrests where fingerprints were not previously taken. The bill also directs BCI to maintain and publish an accurate list of reportable offenses and provide training on fingerprint and disposition reporting.
The bill also amends Ohio’s record-sealing and expungement law in section 2953.32 to align fingerprinting requirements with sealing/expungement procedures. If a person was not fingerprinted when required, the court must obtain fingerprints before sealing or expunging the record and forward them with the order to BCI. The bill preserves BCI’s ability to retain expunged records for limited law-enforcement employment screening purposes, while requiring other entities to destroy expunged records. In addition, it updates section 5122.311 to keep the attorney general’s mental-illness/incompetency notice system in place, and it revises an appropriations section to transfer administration of the Ohio Courts Technology Initiative from the Supreme Court to the Attorney General.
Overall, the bill’s legal impact is administrative and procedural rather than substantive: it modernizes how criminal history and disposition data are collected, transmitted, and maintained, and it tightens the linkage between fingerprinting and later record-sealing actions. It affects BCI, courts, clerks, law enforcement agencies, and entities that rely on criminal-record checks, including schools, child-care providers, health-care and long-term-care employers, and other licensing or employment-screening users of BCI records. It also preserves confidentiality rules for the data collected and continues existing exceptions for certain juvenile and sensitive records.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented floor-level sentiment. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a technical modernization and data-sharing improvement bill, which typically draws support from justice-system administrators seeking cleaner records and more efficient reporting. The available context does not show any formal opposition or amendment debate.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be privacy and record-retention concerns, especially around expanded electronic sharing, the handling of juvenile records, and BCI’s retention of expunged records for law-enforcement employment screening. Another possible issue is the transfer of the Ohio Courts Technology Initiative from the Supreme Court to the Attorney General, which changes administrative control over court technology grants and records. No specific opponents or supporters are identified in the provided record.
HB689 would amend Ohio’s criminal identification, fingerprinting, disposition-reporting, expungement, and mental-health notice statutes, primarily by requiring standardized electronic reporting to BCI and by tying record-sealing/expungement procedures to fingerprint collection when required. It would also shift administration of the Ohio Courts Technology Initiative from the Supreme Court to the Attorney General, affecting court technology funding and grant management. The bill would directly affect law enforcement agencies, courts, clerks, BCI, and employers or licensing entities that use criminal-history checks.
The bill appears to have a generally administrative, modernization-oriented purpose, with its caption and text emphasizing alignment, standardization, and improved data exchange. No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the materials. Based on the bill’s structure, it likely would be viewed favorably by justice-system administrators and agencies that rely on accurate criminal-history reporting, while privacy-sensitive stakeholders may scrutinize the data-sharing and retention provisions.
Likely areas of contention include the expansion of electronic criminal-record sharing, the treatment of juvenile records, and the requirement that BCI retain expunged records for limited law-enforcement employment purposes. The transfer of the Ohio Courts Technology Initiative from the Supreme Court to the Attorney General could also raise institutional or administrative concerns about control over court technology resources. No specific individuals, groups, or committee members are identified as holding these concerns in the provided materials.