HB 2643
In CommitteeHouse
Officers/Brady & Giglio list
Concerning the due process requirements and the procedures of a peace officer being placed on Brady and Giglio lists.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill protects peace officers from being disciplined solely because they appear on a prosecutor’s list of witnesses with potential credibility issues (known as Brady/Giglio lists), while preserving the right to discipline for the underlying conduct. It also gives officers the right to challenge their inclusion in court and clarifies that prosecutors must still disclose such information to defense counsel as required by law.
- Law enforcement agencies cannot discipline or take adverse personnel action against an officer solely because their name appears on a prosecutor’s Brady/Giglio list.
- Agencies may still discipline officers for the underlying conduct that led to list placement — but only if the discipline follows the agency’s existing rules and collective bargaining agreements.
- Peace officers gain a new right to go to superior court to challenge their inclusion on a Brady/Giglio list, including requesting a closed hearing and confidential review of evidence.
- Courts must review prosecutor decisions using a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard, unless a higher standard is required by law.
- The bill does not change prosecutors’ existing legal duty to share Brady/Giglio information (e.g., credibility issues) with defense attorneys in criminal cases.
Who is affected
- Law enforcement officers — Peace officers who are or may be placed on Brady/Giglio lists gain new legal protections and due process rights, including the ability to challenge their inclusion in court.
- Prosecuting attorneys and county prosecutors — Prosecuting attorneys and their offices must follow new procedural requirements when placing officers on lists of witnesses with potential credibility issues, and may face judicial review of their decisions.
- State and superior courts — Courts (especially superior courts) gain new authority to review and potentially overturn decisions by prosecutors to place officers on Brady/Giglio lists.
- Criminal defendants — Defendants and criminal defendants benefit from clearer rules ensuring prosecutors uphold their constitutional duty to disclose impeachment information, while officers’ due process rights are protected.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill protects officers from punitive discipline based solely on inclusion on a Brady/Giglio list—without requiring re-prosecution of the underlying conduct—which safeguards against arbitrary or retaliatory actions by agencies and supports due process rights for officers.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)The bill grants officers a new statutory right to challenge list placement in court—including with confidential review and closed hearings—enhancing procedural fairness and protecting against erroneous or politically motivated list placements.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)The explicit reaffirmation that prosecutors must still disclose Brady/Giglio information to defense counsel ensures that constitutional obligations to criminal defendants remain intact, supporting fair trial rights.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)By clarifying that discipline must follow existing agency rules and collective bargaining agreements, the bill reduces legal uncertainty for law enforcement agencies and unions, supporting stable labor relations.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for judicial review provides a balanced, non-overly burdensome threshold for courts to assess list placements—neither overly deferential to prosecutors nor requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill may reduce accountability for law enforcement officers by preventing discipline solely based on inclusion on a Brady/Giglio list—even if the underlying credibility issues stem from serious misconduct—potentially undermining public trust in policing and the integrity of criminal investigations.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(1)The creation of a new judicial review pathway for officers to challenge list placement adds procedural complexity and may delay or dilute the effectiveness of Brady/Giglio disclosures in criminal cases, potentially harming defendants’ constitutional rights to a fair trial.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Superior courts will face new administrative burdens from in-camera reviews and sealed hearings, which—while modest in fiscal impact—could strain court resources and delay other civil and criminal matters.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)By limiting discipline to only the *underlying conduct*—and not the *fact of list placement*—the bill may incentivize agencies to avoid documenting or acting on credibility concerns unless they rise to a high threshold of provable misconduct, weakening transparency and due process for the public.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)The closed, in-camera review process—while protecting officer privacy—may reduce public oversight of prosecutorial decisions, potentially limiting transparency around how Brady/Giglio lists are maintained and whether they reflect systemic credibility issues.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Officers on or at risk of being placed on Brady/Giglio lists gain stronger due process protections and a new avenue to contest inclusion, reducing risk of arbitrary or politically motivated removal from duty or reputation damage without due cause.
Prosecutors face new procedural hurdles and potential judicial reversals of list placements, which may increase time and legal risk in managing disclosure obligations—but the bill preserves their core constitutional duty to disclose.
Courts gain new jurisdiction over Brady/Giglio list disputes, increasing workload but also reinforcing judicial oversight of executive branch decisions—potentially improving checks on prosecutorial discretion.
Defendants retain constitutional disclosure rights, but may face delays or reduced transparency if judicial review of list placements becomes protracted or sealed—potentially weakening their ability to prepare for trial.
The public may benefit from increased procedural fairness for officers, but could lose trust if perceived that officers are shielded from accountability for credibility issues—even when misconduct is substantiated.