Committee tables victims’ rights complaint bill after questions about subpoenas, confidentiality

The Judiciary Committee opened work on LD 2163, an act to improve response to complaints by victims of crime and to enhance victims’ rights, but tabled the bill after members requested additional participants and clarifications.

Staff attorney Janet walked the committee through a sponsor‑proposed amendment that clarifies that complaints about the Department of Corrections and its facilities would follow DOC processes while other victim‑rights complaints would remain with the Office of the Attorney General; the amendment also adds confidentiality protections for records used in Office of the Attorney General investigations and lists which entities may access those records during an investigation.

Janet said the amendment also clarifies victims’ notice rights when records are subpoenaed and adds that a victim may be heard in a criminal proceeding addressing a subpoena. She and other members referenced court procedure Rule 17A and cross‑referenced Title 17‑A, section 2102 as the existing statutory framework for notice and rights.

Andrea Mancuso of the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence explained the court process: "The court process already calls for two court proceedings," she said, describing (1) a motion hearing to authorize a subpoena and (2) an in‑camera review or hearing to determine what records might be released. The amendment aims to ensure victims are notified of those hearings and afforded the opportunity to be heard.

Members raised concerns that the phrase "about or concerning the victim" is broader than a victim's own records and could sweep in records that are merely relevant to a case. Several lawmakers asked that the list of privileged/sensitive records (medical and mental‑health counseling and treatment records, educational records, and cell phone records) appear in both affected sections of the bill to limit scope and to mirror protections already discussed in court rules.

Senator Talbot Ross moved that the committee table LD 2163 until the prosecution's representative (Shaira Burns or a designee) could attend and answer questions about implementation; the show‑of‑hands tabling motion passed unanimously among those present. The committee will reschedule the work session once the requested participants are available.

What happens next: The bill was tabled for further review and to secure participation from prosecution representatives; committee staff indicated proposed clarifying language could be drafted to limit scope and to address CLAC's concern that the process should not be used to challenge charging or sentencing decisions.