Logan's Law
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
Logan's Law aims to enhance public safety by creating a centralized, searchable database of violent criminal offenders and incentivizing states to improve data sharing among law enforcement agencies.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a national, publicly accessible database of individuals with 'qualifying convictions' for violent crimes, to be managed by the Attorney General. It mandates states receiving Byrne JAG grants to submit relevant data and imposes penalties, including withholding grant funds, for non-compliance. Additionally, it requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress with recommendations for improving inter-state and state-federal criminal record sharing.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill significantly increases transparency and public safety by making information about violent offenders readily available to the public, empowering communities to protect themselves. They emphasize that it incentivizes states to share crucial criminal justice data, thereby closing dangerous information gaps that currently allow repeat offenders to evade accountability and receive inappropriately light sentences.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about privacy rights for individuals with past convictions, the potential for misuse of sensitive personal data, and the accuracy and completeness of records in a publicly accessible database. They could also contend that the bill places an unfunded mandate on states or that the definition of 'violent crime' could be overly broad, leading to unintended negative consequences for individuals seeking rehabilitation and reintegration.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed review by interested parties.
Section 102(a)
Establishment of Publicly Accessible Violent Criminal Offender Database
This section mandates the Attorney General to establish a publicly accessible database, named the 'Violent Criminal Offender Database,' within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This database will contain records of individuals with 'qualifying convictions' for violent crimes, making this information available to the general public.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for public safety, allowing individuals and communities to be aware of violent offenders in their areas, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions for their protection.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that making such a database publicly accessible raises significant privacy concerns for individuals who have served their time, potentially hindering their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right-to-know and safety against individual privacy rights and the potential for stigmatization.
Section 102(b)
Detailed Requirements for the Database
This section outlines specific requirements for the database, including that it must be free, include both Federal and State records, utilize FBI records, and be searchable by numerous criteria such as name, address, date of birth, sex, race, nationality, citizenship status, type of conviction, probation status, jurisdiction, sentencing details (fine, imprisonment, plea/trial, judge, prosecutor), and other categories deemed appropriate by the Attorney General. It also requires public awareness campaigns.
Section 101(3)
Definition of 'Qualifying Conviction'
This section defines a 'qualifying conviction' as any conviction for an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 180 days, where the offense involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property, or by its nature, involved a substantial risk of such force. It explicitly excludes convictions that have been expunged, vacated, set aside, or pardoned.
Section 103
Mandated State Data Submission and Grant Penalties
This section requires states receiving Byrne JAG grant program funds to submit all necessary data on qualifying convictions to the Attorney General on an ongoing basis. Failure to comply will result in the Attorney General withholding Byrne JAG grant funds from the non-compliant state, with discretion to redirect those funds directly to local governments within that state.
Section 201
Attorney General Report on Inter-State Data Sharing
This section requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress within 180 days. The report must describe current processes for sharing criminal records between states and with the federal government, identify burdens that prevent effective sharing, and provide recommendations for improving data sharing to protect the public and prevent repeat offenders from receiving light sentences due to incomplete records.
The definition of 'qualifying conviction' includes offenses that, 'by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.'
Section 101(3)(A)(ii)(II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but the specific wording can have broad implications.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broadens the scope to capture crimes that inherently carry a risk of violence, even if physical force wasn't directly used or threatened in every instance, ensuring comprehensive coverage of potentially dangerous offenders.
Case against: Critics might argue this language is vague and could lead to the inclusion of individuals convicted of offenses not typically considered 'violent' by the public, potentially overpopulating the database and diluting its focus.
Estimated impact: This clause significantly expands the types of convictions that could be included in the database beyond direct acts of violence, potentially affecting a larger number of individuals.
The database is searchable by 'nationality' and 'citizenship status'.
Section 102(b)(4)(F) and (G)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail within a list, but the inclusion of these specific categories can be politically sensitive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that nationality and citizenship status are relevant demographic identifiers that can assist in identifying individuals, especially in cases involving international criminal activity or when distinguishing between individuals with similar names.
Case against: Critics would argue that including nationality and citizenship status as searchable criteria in a public database could lead to discrimination, profiling, and xenophobia, particularly if the data is misused or misinterpreted by the public.
Estimated impact: This allows for demographic-based searches, which could have significant implications for how the database is used and perceived, potentially affecting individuals based on their national origin or legal status.
The Attorney General, at their discretion, may distribute Byrne JAG grant funds directly to units of local government in a state that is non-compliant with data submission requirements, bypassing the state government.
Section 103(b)(2)
Why it matters:This grants significant discretionary power to the Attorney General and could be seen as a mechanism to circumvent state authority, which might be less prominent than the direct penalty.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that vital federal funding still reaches local law enforcement agencies, even if their state government is non-compliant, preventing local communities from being penalized for state-level decisions.
Case against: Critics might argue this provision undermines state sovereignty and could create a direct federal-local relationship that bypasses state authority, potentially leading to political tensions and administrative complexities.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly alter the flow of Byrne JAG funds, potentially empowering local governments at the expense of non-compliant state administrations, and ensuring continued funding for local crime-fighting efforts.