BILL ANALYSIS



H.B. 1966
By: Moffat
4-11-95
Committee Report (Unamended)



BACKGROUND

     Municipal courts, especially larger city operations,
experience recordkeeping problems such as a large volume of paper
records, limited space to store documents, an ongoing need to
account for and produce an official record, a need for quick access
and retrieval, and the need for a stable storage medium. 
Electronic technology is available that could address these
recordkeeping problems for municipal court systems in the form of
optical imaging technology.  This electronic technology allows for
storage and retrieval of images of original legal documents by the
use of computer disk space or compact disk.  This technology can
effectively eliminate the need to retrieve the original hard copy
document in order to produce an official record.  Legal acceptance
of optical imaging technology as a storage medium has been
addressed at the federal level and other states have adopted its
use.  At the federal level, the law currently allows for the
admission of printouts or screen images as evidence in federal
courts, and at least 28 states have adopted the Uniform Rules of
Evidence.  These rules state that any printout or output that is
legible by sight and can be shown to accurately reproduce the
o6riginal document is admissible as evidence.


PURPOSE

     This bill amends Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which relates to Corporation Courts or Municipal Courts to allow
for the use of electronic technology or optical imaging.  The
legislation would allow for a printed copy of an optical image of
the original record as well as other court documents produced by
optical imaging to be deemed an accurate copy of the original
record.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

     It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not
expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency, or institution.


SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

     SECTION 1 amends Article 45.02 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by adding a subsection (b) to allow for the creation of
a court seal on all papers issued by a court through the use of
optical imaging, optical disk or other electronic technique so long
as no additions,  changes, or deletions can occur to an original
document created through these electronic means.

     SECTION 2 amends Chapter 45, Code of Criminal Procedure, by
adding a new Article 45.021 which would allow for all papers issued
by a justice court or municipal court to be created by electronic
means.  Records created electronically are deemed as original
records.  Documents that are required by law to be written and
instruments, papers, or notices that are required by law to be
recorded or filed can be produced or recorded by electronic means. 
A printed copy of an optical image of the original record shall be
considered an accurate copy of the original record.

     SECTION 3.     Effective date.

     SECTION 4.     Emergency clause.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

     Pursuant to a public notice posted March 8, 1995, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a public hearing on March 14,
1995, to consider House Bill 1966.  The following witnesses
testified for H.B. 1966:
      Bonnie Sudderth, chief judge, representing the City of Fort
Worth;
      Ron Zimmerman, executive with the City of Austin,
representing the Office of Clerk of the Court;
      A. Bryan Kearney, director of information systems,
representing the City of Fort Worth; and,
      Michael L. O'Neal, representing the City of Dallas.
There were no other witnesses.  Without objection, the Chair moved
to leave H.B. 1966 pending before the committee.
     Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 7, 1995, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a formal meeting on April 10,
1995.  H.B. 1966 was pending before the committee.  The Chair laid
out H.B. 1966 and recognized Rep. Goodman to explain the bill. 
Rep. Goodman moved to report House Bill 1966 favorably back to the
full House, without amendment, with the recommendation that it do
pass, be printed and sent to the Committee on Calendars.  The
motion failed by the following record vote:  4 ayes, 2 nays, 1 PNV
and 2 absent.
     Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 6, 1995, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a public hearing on April 11,
1995.  The Chair, Rep. Hartnett, recognized Rep. Goodman for a
motion.  Rep. Goodman moved to report H.B. 1966 favorably back to
the full House.  Rep. Goodman withdrew his motion while committee
counsel verified procedure through the House Parliamentarian. 
Following subsequent business, counsel stated that, after speaking
with Sharon Carter of the Legislative Council, he was advised that
a motion to reconsider the vote by which a bill (H.B. 1966) fails
passage from committee is unnecessary and that a motion to report
a bill that has previously failed to be reported from committee by
a record vote is in order at any time.  The Chair recognized Rep.
Goodman for a motion.  Rep. Goodman moved that H.B. 1966 be
reported favorably back to the full House, without amendment, with
the recommendation that it do pass, be printed and sent to the
Calendars Committee.  The motion prevailed by the following record
vote:  5 ayes, 2 nays, 0 PNV and 2 absent.