We've been asked to put together a legislative proposal that would provide for the use of paperless arrest warrants and indictments. In the future, this could be expanded to include offense reports, etc.

There are six articles in the CCP that address telegraphing arrest warrants. Arts. 15.08-.13. (So we've got the 19th century well covered.)

It looks like some nice langauge can be lifted from CCP art. 45.012(a) or CCP art. 2.26. The California Penal Code allows for warrant applications to be made by phone or e-mail and issued by e-mail. Cal. Penal Code sec. 817.

Among the challenges that must be addressed: How would you amend an E-indictment? -- I guess by creating a new amended indictment.

Anyway, we don't have a lot of time to put something together (need to have something by Monday, Feb. 24) and I wondered if anyone had some good ideas about what should be in a statute that would head us toward paperless case files.

Please e-mail me or call = 817 884-1642 w/ any ideas, suggestions or resources. Thanks for your help.

Why do we need this law?

Here's a link to what Rep. King filed today.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=78&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=02945&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

The idea is to experiment with e-filing (indictments, informations & arrest warrants) to gain some experience with paperless filings. It's all completely voluntary.

The hope is that someday massive amounts of paper can be saved, huge warehouses of records can be sold off and resources can be put to better use than lugging around police reports.

Much of the language in the bill is taken from California statutes that have been on the books for more than 10 years.

If you have any ideas on how to improve the bill we would be happy to pass them on to Rep. King. Thanks.

And did you notice the nice little addition to the bill at the end that forces us to prove the electronic offense report has not been altered, putting the burden of proof on the prosecutor merely because a defense attorney makes the accusation? This is nonsense.

Um, I think the earlier post indicated that using this process was voluntary.

Also, the "nice little addition" seems limited to those situations when an offense report would actually be admitted in evidence.

And, practically, wouldn't "disproving the allegation" involve having someone simply testify that the report was unaltered?

Am I missing something that's so bad about this bill?

Even if an office chose to use this procedure, wouldn't it be highly unusual to introduce a part of an offense report?

What's so unusual about proving the document hasn't been materially altered? What should the burden be to get one of these things admitted?