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.