SB 178 amends Oregon’s criminal discovery statutes to allow a district attorney to require payment of a fee, reasonably calculated to reimburse costs, before providing discovery materials to a defendant or the defendant’s lawyer. The bill specifies that the fee may account for staff time spent reviewing, redacting, compiling, formatting, and preparing discovery, as well as the cost of physical media and related overhead expenses. It also clarifies that the existing discovery framework applies to criminal prosecutions in courts of record and retains the current rules governing what must be disclosed, including exculpatory, mitigating, and impeachment material.
The bill keeps in place the existing obligations to disclose witness information, defendant statements, expert reports, evidence the state intends to use, and certain DUII-related records. It also preserves special protections for personal identifiers of victims and witnesses, while allowing court-ordered disclosure in limited circumstances. For unrepresented defendants, the bill continues to require disclosure of most discovery materials, subject to the same privacy limits. SB 178 does not expand constitutional disclosure duties or law-enforcement personnel file disclosure requirements; instead, it adds a cost-recovery mechanism to the discovery process.
Impact
SB 178 would amend ORS 135.805 and 135.815, changing Oregon criminal discovery law by expressly authorizing district attorneys to charge pre-disclosure fees to recover discovery preparation costs. This would affect prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and defendants by potentially adding a financial step before access to discovery materials, while leaving the underlying scope of mandatory disclosure largely intact. The bill also updates statutory definitions and preserves existing protections for victim and witness personal identifiers and other disclosure limitations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, the overall sentiment appears procedural and prosecutorial in orientation rather than overtly partisan. The measure is framed as a cost-recovery tool for district attorneys, suggesting support from prosecutorial interests concerned with the expense of producing discovery. At the same time, because it imposes a new fee on access to discovery, it could draw concern from defense advocates and others focused on defendant access and fairness, though no direct opposition is documented in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether it is appropriate to require defendants or their counsel to pay before receiving discovery in criminal cases. Supporters would likely emphasize reimbursement for the administrative and material costs of producing discovery, especially in cases involving large volumes of electronic evidence. Opponents would likely argue that fees could burden defendants, delay access to evidence, or create inequities in the criminal process, particularly for indigent defendants. Another possible issue is how broadly district attorneys may calculate reimbursable costs and whether the fee could be used in a way that effectively limits timely discovery.