# Brady lists by state

Thirteen states have a statute or binding rule aimed at prosecutors’ lists of officers with credibility problems, or at how officer credibility information reaches prosecutors. For the other 38 jurisdictions we found no such law, or could not check. This page sets out each state’s rule with a link to the official text.

Source: https://uscli.org/guides/brady-lists-by-state

## Who this is for

Under [Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States](https://uscli.org/guides/brady-giglio), the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused, including evidence that impeaches a government witness. Officers testify often, so many prosecutors’ offices keep a record of officers with known impeachment information, such as sustained findings of untruthfulness. These records go by different names: Brady list, Giglio list, Laurie list, exculpatory evidence schedule, rule 15.1 database. Federal law requires disclosure but does not regulate the lists. Some states do.

This guide is for officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and agency counsel. For each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia it covers whether a statute or binding rule addresses these lists, whether the officer gets notice and a way to challenge placement, how the information connects to the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) body or decertification, and whether the list is public. It is general information, not legal advice.

## Where state law speaks

Thirteen jurisdictions have a statute or binding rule specific to impeachment lists or to disclosure of officer credibility information: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. New Jersey’s rule is an Attorney General directive, not a statute. Many of these laws do more than one thing, so a state can appear in more than one group below.

- **6 regulate the list and give the officer notice:** [Arizona](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/01119.htm) (A.R.S. 38-1119), [Colorado](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-16.pdf) (C.R.S. 16-2.5-502), [Florida](https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.536.html) (Fla. Stat. 112.536), [Iowa](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/80F.1.pdf) (Iowa Code 80F.1), [New Hampshire](https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/VII/105/105-13-d.htm) (RSA 105:13-d), and [New Jersey](https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2019-6.pdf) (AG Directive 2019-6).
- **6 give the officer a way to challenge placement:** Arizona, Florida, and Iowa allow a request for reconsideration, and Iowa adds a petition to the district court. Florida allows mandamus to enforce the procedures. Colorado’s model policy must include a removal process. New Hampshire placement is temporary until any grievance is exhausted, and officers already on the schedule in 2021 could sue in superior court. North Carolina allows a superior court hearing limited to whether a qualifying notice was received. New Jersey is not counted here: its directive allows review of a disclosure determination by the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General's office, not a challenge to being identified.
- **6 link the information to POST, decertification, or hiring checks:** Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. North Carolina’s Standards Division tells the district attorney when a reported officer moves to a new agency. Virginia decertifies officers terminated or resigning for conduct that is exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Washington requires hiring background checks to ask prosecutors whether the person is on an impeachment list.
- **7 address public-records status:** Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. Only New Hampshire makes the list itself a public record (once placement is final). North Carolina makes the reports non-public, and New Jersey’s directive treats the process as confidential. In California the answer comes from a court decision rather than a statute.
- **5 bar discipline based solely on being listed:** Arizona, [California](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=3305.5) (Gov. Code 3305.5), Florida (112.532(7)), Iowa, and [Washington](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.93.150) (RCW 10.93.150). All five say the agency may still act on the underlying conduct.

Five of the 13 put duties on agencies to send information to prosecutors. Colorado agencies send credibility disclosure notifications to the district attorney. Florida agencies forward sustained internal affairs complaints relevant to impeachment. Delaware agencies must tell the Department of Justice about certain open dishonesty investigations of an officer in the case, and the Department must disclose sustained dishonesty findings when a defendant asks. Maine requires every agency to adopt a policy on assisting prosecutors with Brady and Giglio. West Virginia requires agencies in its Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety to give prosecutors the names of employee witnesses with prior impeachment findings.

## Where it does not

For the other 38 jurisdictions, “none found” means none found in the official code as of October 2026. How we searched: where the legislature offers a whole-code keyword search (Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the D.C. Council’s published code), we searched the whole code. Elsewhere we read the official text of the chapters on officer standards, criminal procedure, and public records. Search terms included Brady, Giglio, exculpatory, impeachment, untruthful, dishonest, and credibility. In the chapter-based states, the rest of the code was not searched.

- **Searched, none found (26):** Alaska, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
- **No statute located, but the official code could not be fully searched (7):** Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi. Georgia has no free official code site, and the Hawaii and Illinois legislature sites blocked access.
- **Not checked (5):** Nebraska (the Legislature’s site was unreachable), New Mexico and Texas (the official code sites require scripts we could not run), Pennsylvania (the General Assembly’s site returned an error), and Tennessee (the official code is hosted on a third-party site and was not searched).

Some states with no list law have related provisions:

- [Kentucky](https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=54132): an officer’s intentional failure to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence is “professional nonfeasance”, and termination for it is a ground for revoking certification (KRS 15.391).
- [Massachusetts](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6E/Section8): the POST Commission’s database includes allegations of untruthfulness, and its executive director may give evidence to a district attorney for a criminal proceeding (G.L. c. 6E, s. 8).
- [New York](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/245.20): automatic discovery includes information known to police that tends to impeach a testifying prosecution witness (CPL 245.20(1)(k)).
- [Vermont](https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/20/151): the statewide officer code of conduct prohibits untruthfulness in investigations and before tribunals (20 V.S.A. 2371).
- [District of Columbia](https://github.com/DCCouncil/law-xml-codified/blob/publication/2021-10-18/us/dc/council/code/titles/5/sections/5-1116.xml): an officer disciplinary records database (D.C. Code 5-1116) was enacted in 2023 but is marked “Not Funded” and has not been implemented.

## Every state

“None found” means we found nothing in the sources searched, as described above, not that nothing exists. “Not reviewed” means we did not research that question for the state. Each state name links to its page in the [Officer Ledger](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker).

State laws on prosecutors’ officer impeachment lists, by state

| State | Specific law | Notice and challenge | POST / decertification link | Public? | Sources |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Alabama](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/alabama) | None found; the official code could not be full-text searched. Ala. R. Crim. P. 16.1 preserves constitutional discovery of exculpatory material and is not officer-specific | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | [Ala. R. Crim. P. 16.1](https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/cr16_1.pdf) |
| [Alaska](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/alaska) | None found in AS 18.65.130 to 18.65.290, 39.25.080, or 40.25.110 to 40.25.125 | None found | None found in the Police Standards Council statutes. Council regulations (13 AAC 85) were not searched | No list-specific provision. State personnel records, including troopers’, are confidential except listed items; this does not cover municipal police | [AS 18.65.130 to .290](https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp?media=print&secStart=18.65.130&secEnd=18.65.290); [AS 39.25.080](https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp?media=print&secStart=39.25.080&secEnd=39.25.080) |
| [Arizona](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/arizona) | Yes. A.R.S. 38-1119 regulates any “rule 15.1 database” kept by the attorney general, a county attorney, or a city or town prosecutor. Each prosecuting agency that keeps one must adopt a policy that includes its placement criteria. An agency may not demote, suspend, terminate, or otherwise discipline an officer solely for being listed, but may act on the underlying facts. The enacting law and effective date are not shown on the official page | Written notice at least 10 days, or as soon as practicable, before a placement decision, with the right to request materials and give input. After placement, a second notice; the officer has 10 business days to request reconsideration, and the name is removed if the request is approved on its merits | Not reviewed | Not settled by statute. The permitted uses of the database include disclosures required by the public records law | [A.R.S. 38-1119](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/01119.htm) |
| [Arkansas](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/arkansas) | None found; the official code could not be full-text searched | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | No official source was read |
| [California](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/california) | Yes. Gov. Code 3305.5 (in effect since January 1, 2014): a public agency may not take punitive action against a public safety officer, or deny promotion on grounds other than merit, solely because the officer is on a Brady list. The agency may act on the underlying acts or omissions. Evidence of listing may not be used in an administrative appeal, except to set the penalty once the underlying act is proven. A “Brady list” is a prosecutorial agency’s record of peace officers whose personnel files are likely to contain evidence of dishonesty or bias. Personnel records otherwise go through the Pitchess statutes (Pen. Code 832.7; Evid. Code 1043 to 1046) | None in 3305.5; none found elsewhere | POST decertifies for “serious misconduct”, which includes dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, and publishes the names of officers suspended or revoked | The Supreme Court held in 2019 that an agency Brady list is confidential to the extent placements came from confidential personnel records; placements based on records that Pen. Code 832.7(b) makes public are not confidential. Section 832.7 has been amended since | [Gov. Code 3305.5](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=3305.5) (text read from the Legislative Counsel’s [bulk download](https://downloads.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/)); [POST decertification](https://post.ca.gov/Decertification-Process); [ALADS v. Superior Court (2019)](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S243855.PDF) |
| [Colorado](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/colorado) | Yes. C.R.S. 16-2.5-501 and -502 (SB 21-174, effective September 7, 2021): agencies and district attorneys must adopt policies consistent with a statewide model for “credibility disclosure notifications”. The model must require prompt notice to the district attorney of sustained findings of knowing untruthfulness or omission, bias, or evidence tampering; any felony charge; any dishonesty-related charge, conviction, or policy violation; and concurrent investigations of the officer’s role in a pending case that would require disclosure if sustained. District attorneys keep a record and notify the defense under Crim. P. 16 | The model must give the officer notice at least 7 calendar days before a notification is sent, if practicable, and a process to remove a notification. An officer may seek POST review of database status based on new evidence | POST must keep a searchable public database covering untruthfulness and the bases for credibility notifications, subject to available appropriations, and must revoke certification (C.R.S. 24-31-305(2.5)) after an agency finds, by clear and convincing evidence, knowing untruthfulness on or after August 2, 2019, once internal appeals are exhausted or waived and any requested hearing upholds the finding | The POST database is public by statute; district attorney policies must be published | [C.R.S. Title 16 (2024)](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-16.pdf); [C.R.S. 24-31-303 and 24-31-305(2.5) (2024)](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-24.pdf); [SB 19-166](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_166_signed.pdf) |
| [Connecticut](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/connecticut) | None found. Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-86c sets a general duty to disclose exculpatory information | None found for lists; POST certification actions require notice and a hearing | The POST Council may suspend, cancel, or revoke certification for falsifying reports, evidence tampering or fabrication, perjury, or false statement (7-294d(c)(2)). No duty to share findings with prosecutors found | Not reviewed | [Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-86c](https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_961.htm); [7-294d](https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_104.htm) |
| [Delaware](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/delaware) | Yes, without a named list. 11 Del. C. 9210 (84 Del. Laws c. 148, approved August 7, 2023): at a defendant’s request, the Department of Justice must disclose records of sustained findings of perjury, witness tampering, intentional false statements or reports, or destruction, falsification, or concealment of evidence by an officer who took part in the case. Agencies must tell the Department about certain open, unsubstantiated dishonesty allegations in the same case | No notice requirement found. Officers have access to their investigatory files after an investigation | Any sustained finding must be reported to the POST Commission. Narratives of sustained dishonesty findings go to the Criminal Justice Council, which posts them online | Investigation records are confidential except as chapter 92 allows; narratives of sustained dishonesty findings are posted publicly | [11 Del. C. ch. 92](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c092/index.html); [84 Del. Laws c. 148](https://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga152/chp148.shtml) |
| [District of Columbia](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/district-of-columbia) | None found (whole-code search). An officer disciplinary records database (5-1116) is marked “Not Funded” and has not been implemented | None found. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, which prosecutes most adult cases, follows federal policy (the Justice Manual) | MPD applicants with prior service must have the earlier agency’s misconduct and discipline records reviewed (5-107.04(a)(12)). No sharing with prosecutors found | None in force. An advisory group on public disclosure of disciplinary records (5-1117) is also unfunded | [D.C. Code 5-1116](https://github.com/DCCouncil/law-xml-codified/blob/publication/2021-10-18/us/dc/council/code/titles/5/sections/5-1116.xml); [5-107.04](https://github.com/DCCouncil/law-xml-codified/blob/publication/2021-10-18/us/dc/council/code/titles/5/sections/5-107.04.xml) (D.C. Council codified XML) |
| [Florida](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/florida) | Yes. Fla. Stat. 112.536 (effective July 1, 2023): prosecutors need not keep a “Brady identification system”, but employing agencies must forward each officer’s sustained, finalized internal affairs complaints relevant to impeachment to the circuit’s prosecuting agency and tell the officer. A prosecutor who keeps a system must adopt written policies. An officer may not be disciplined solely for being listed (112.532(7)(b)) | Written notice before or when an officer is added, unless a pending case requires immediate disclosure or notice would jeopardize an investigation; no notice is needed when the listing rests on a conviction or a sustained, finalized internal affairs complaint usable for impeachment. The officer may request reconsideration and must be told of removal. An officer may seek mandamus to enforce the procedures, but the court may not review the merits; other administrative or judicial remedies are not precluded | The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission may discipline officers who fail to maintain good moral character (943.1395(7)). No duty to share with prosecutors found | No list-specific exemption found; 112.536 does not address public access. Officer complaints are confidential only while the investigation is active (112.533) | [Fla. Stat. 112.536](https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.536.html); [112.531](https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.531.html); [112.533](https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.533.html); [Ch. 2023-230](https://laws.flrules.org/2023/230); [943.1395](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/943.1395) |
| [Georgia](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/georgia) | None found; there is no free official code site to search | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | No official source was read |
| [Hawaii](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/hawaii) | None found; the Legislature’s site blocked access, so the code could not be searched | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | No official source was read |
| [Idaho](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/idaho) | None found in Idaho Code chs. 19-51, 19-13, or 74-1 | None found | The POST council must decertify for a felony conviction and may decertify for a misdemeanor, falsification to obtain certification, or a code of ethics violation. No sharing with prosecutors found | No list-specific provision. Personnel records are exempt except listed items such as employment history and pay (74-106(1)) | [Idaho Code ch. 19-51](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title19/T19CH51/); [74-106](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title74/T74CH1/SECT74-106); [I.C.R. 16](https://isc.idaho.gov/icr16) |
| [Illinois](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/illinois) | Not verified. The General Assembly’s statute site blocked access, so the Illinois Compiled Statutes, including the Training and Standards Board provisions in 50 ILCS 705, were not read | Not verified | Not verified | Not verified | No official source was read |
| [Indiana](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/indiana) | None found; the official code could not be full-text searched. Criminal Rule 2.5 (effective January 1, 2024) requires the State to furnish prior convictions “or other evidence that may be used to impeach” its witnesses, including officers it calls | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | [Ind. Crim. Rule 2.5](https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/criminal/rule2-5/current.htm) |
| [Iowa](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/iowa) | Yes. Iowa Code 80F.1 defines a “Brady-Giglio list” and requires any prosecuting agency that keeps one to adopt a policy covering criteria, notice, input, and reconsideration. An officer may not be discharged or disciplined solely because a prosecutor found or disclosed exculpatory evidence about the officer | Written notice before placement with the right to request the evidence and give input; notice of the decision; 10 business days to request reconsideration. The officer may petition the district court, which reviews the evidence in camera and may order removal | No academy role found in 80F.1; not further researched | The prosecutor must keep the officer’s personnel file and related records confidential (80F.1(24)(f)). The statute does not classify the list itself | [Iowa Code 80F.1](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/80F.1.pdf); [2023 Acts ch. 149](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/acts/2023/CH0149.pdf); [2024 Acts ch. 1121](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/acts/2024/CH1121.pdf) |
| [Kansas](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/kansas) | None found in K.S.A. art. 74-56 or 22-32 | None found for lists. A terminated officer may file a written response, kept in the registry file | The Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training keeps a central registry of terminations and complaints. Recipients include hiring agencies and enforcement agencies; prosecutors are not named | Registry records are confidential except a limited record and summary data | [K.S.A. 74-5611a](https://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch74/074_056_0011a.html); [K.S.A. ch. 74](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/ksa_ch74.html) |
| [Kentucky](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/kentucky) | None found for lists in KRS ch. 15 or 61.870 to 61.884. Related: an officer’s intentional failure to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence is professional nonfeasance (KRS 15.391) | None found for lists. An agency reporting a resignation or retirement during an investigation must notify the officer; revocation requires an administrative hearing | The Kentucky Law Enforcement Council revokes certification. Agencies must report terminations for malfeasance or nonfeasance within 15 days. No sharing with prosecutors found | No list-specific provision. The Open Records Act exempts clearly unwarranted invasions of personal privacy | [KRS 15.391](https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=54132); [KRS ch. 61](https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=37294) |
| [Louisiana](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/louisiana) | None found (full-text search for Brady and Giglio). C.Cr.P. art. 723(B) requires the State to provide evidence constitutionally required under Brady, and art. 717 covers State witnesses’ records and inducements | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | [C.Cr.P. art. 723](https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=112730); [art. 717](https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=112724) |
| [Maine](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/maine) | Yes. 25 M.R.S. 2803-B(1)(P): by January 1, 2026, every agency must adopt a written policy on assisting prosecutors with their Brady and Giglio obligations, meeting minimum standards set by the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy. Which 2025 public law enacted it is not confirmed | None found | Agency heads must report to the Academy within 30 days any conduct that could lead to suspension or revocation, and must adopt a policy on mandatory disclosures to the Academy | Board complaint and investigation materials are confidential; hearing decisions and the Board’s written decisions are public | [25 M.R.S. 2803-B](https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/25/title25sec2803-B.html); [2806-A](https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/25/title25sec2806-A.html); [2807](https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/25/title25sec2807.html) |
| [Maryland](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/maryland) | None found in the Public Safety or General Provisions Articles | None found | The Police Training and Standards Commission must revoke certification for perjury or another misdemeanor relating to truthfulness, or prior firing or resignation while under investigation for serious misconduct. No sharing with prosecutors found | Misconduct investigation records are not personnel records; a custodian may deny inspection under the investigatory-records exception | [Public Safety 3-212](https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/Statute_Web/gps/gps.pdf); [General Provisions 4-311, 4-351](https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/Statute_Web/ggp/ggp.pdf) |
| [Massachusetts](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/massachusetts) | None found (official search of the General Laws and Session Laws) | None found for lists. POST must notify an officer within 30 days of opening a preliminary inquiry | The POST Commission keeps a database of complaints, allegations of untruthfulness, and discipline. Its executive director may give preliminary-inquiry evidence to the Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney, or a district attorney for a criminal proceeding | Decertification, suspension, and retraining orders are public; preliminary-inquiry records are confidential | [G.L. c. 6E, s. 8](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6E/Section8); [s. 13](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6E/Section13); [Mass. R. Crim. P. 14](https://www.mass.gov/rules-of-criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-rule-14-pretrial-discovery-from-the-prosecution) |
| [Michigan](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/michigan) | None found (whole-code full-text search) | None found for lists. A separating officer may review the agency’s separation record and ask for corrections | Indirect: agencies keep separation records, and a re-hired officer’s waiver goes to MCOLES. No sharing with prosecutors found | No list-specific provision. FOIA lets a law enforcement agency withhold its personnel records unless the public interest outweighs nondisclosure | [MCL 28.563](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-28-563); [MCL 15.243](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-15-243) |
| [Minnesota](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/minnesota) | None found | None found | Chiefs must report misconduct investigation data to the POST Board and report officers who leave after conduct that triggers an investigation. No sharing with prosecutors found | Final dispositions of discipline are public data; a prosecutor’s list itself is not classified by statute | [Minn. Stat. 626.8457](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626.8457); [13.43](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/13.43) |
| [Mississippi](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/mississippi) | None found; the official code could not be full-text searched | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | No official source was read |
| [Missouri](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/missouri) | None found (whole-code full-text search). Supreme Court Rule 25.03 requires disclosure, without a request, of anything required by Brady and Giglio | None found | POST may disclose its closed records to law enforcement agencies after a final determination of cause to discipline; prosecutors are not named | Licensee name, status, and employing agency are open; other POST records are confidential | [RSMo 590.180](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=590.180); [Rule 25.03](https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/ad3adae2b2c6821486256ca6005213e8?OpenDocument) |
| [Montana](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/montana) | None found in MCA 44-4-401 to 44-4-408; other titles not full-text searched | None found | The POST Council certifies, suspends, and revokes, with contested case hearings. No list duty found | None found | [MCA 44-4-403](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0440/chapter_0040/part_0040/section_0030/0440-0040-0040-0030.html); [46-15-322](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0460/chapter_0150/part_0030/section_0220/0460-0150-0030-0220.html) |
| [Nebraska](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/nebraska) | Not checked; the Legislature’s site was unreachable | Not checked | Not checked | Not checked | No official source was read |
| [Nevada](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/nevada) | None found in NRS chs. 171, 174, 178, 179A, 239, 241, 289, and 480, or NAC 289 | None found | POST regulations bar appointment of anyone terminated, or who resigned in lieu of termination, for substantiated dishonesty. No sharing with prosecutors found | None found in NRS ch. 239 | [NRS ch. 289](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-289.html); [NAC ch. 289](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-289.html); [NRS ch. 174](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-174.html) |
| [New Hampshire](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/new-hampshire) | Yes. RSA 105:13-d (effective September 24, 2021): the Department of Justice may keep an Exculpatory Evidence Schedule listing current or former officers whose personnel information contains potentially exculpatory evidence. RSA 105:13-b requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence in a testifying officer’s personnel file, with in camera review when uncertain | The officer’s agency must tell the Department how the officer was notified and given a chance to contest; the Department then gives written notice. Placement is temporary and nonpublic until any grievance is exhausted. Officers already listed in 2021 had 180 days (90 if added on or after April 30, 2018) to sue in superior court | Kept by the Department of Justice, not the POST council | Yes, once placement is final: a public record under RSA 91-A, with monthly updates posted online | [RSA 105:13-d](https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/VII/105/105-13-d.htm); [105:13-b](https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/VII/105/105-13-b.htm) |
| [New Jersey](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/new-jersey) | Yes, by Attorney General directive. Directive 2019-6 (effective March 1, 2020) requires each county prosecutor’s office to adopt a Brady/Giglio policy. It says a do-not-call list should be avoided, but a system to identify employees with potential Giglio issues is permissible. The syllabus of the state Supreme Court’s 2021 decision on two later directives says Attorney General directives on law enforcement administration have the force of law | The policy must provide for notifying the employee or the agency before disclosure, and for notice and copies after. No formal appeal, but after disclosure the employee may seek review of the determination from the County Prosecutor or a designee, or from the Office of the Attorney General | Since the 2022 licensing law, chiefs must report sustained findings of untruthfulness or lack of candor, false reports, and mishandled evidence to the Police Training Commission within 2 business days. No duty to send them to prosecutors found | The directive treats the process as confidential. Separate directives require public release of names of officers with major discipline | [AG Directive 2019-6](https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2019-6.pdf); [P.L. 2022, c. 65](https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2022/PL22/65_.PDF) |
| [New Mexico](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/new-mexico) | Not checked; the official code site requires scripts we could not run | Not checked | Not checked | Not checked | [State v. Wisniewski (1985)](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/385538/index.do) (case law only) |
| [New York](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/new-york) | None found. Automatic discovery covers information known to police that tends to impeach a testifying prosecution witness, and police-held material is deemed in the prosecution’s possession (CPL 245.20(1)(k), (2)) | None found | Not reviewed | Disciplinary records are subject to FOIL since the 2020 repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a. No law on prosecutors’ lists found | [CPL 245.20](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/245.20); [Public Officers Law 86](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/86) |
| [North Carolina](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/north-carolina) | Yes. G.S. 17C-16 and 17E-16 (effective October 1, 2021): an officer who receives written notice that the officer may not be called to testify because of bias, interest, or lack of credibility must report it to the Standards Division within 30 days. Judges and prosecutors who give such notice must also report it, and an agency head who receives the officer’s report must report it to the Division | The duty starts only with a written notice or an on-the-record notice in a written order. The officer may ask for a superior court hearing limited to whether such a notice was received, not matters of law or admissibility. A rescission must be reported | When the officer’s certification transfers, the Division notifies the new agency head and the district attorney for that district | No. The reports and notifications are not public records | [G.S. ch. 17C](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_17C.html); [S.L. 2021-138](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2021-2022/SL2021-138.html) |
| [North Dakota](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/north-dakota) | None found in N.D.C.C. chs. 12-63 and 44-04; title 29 was not searched | None found | The POST board may act on false material statements to the board or to obtain a license. No sharing with prosecutors found | No list-specific provision. Personnel records are open unless an exemption applies | [N.D.C.C. ch. 12-63](https://www.ndlegis.gov/cencode/t12c63.pdf); [ch. 44-04](https://www.ndlegis.gov/cencode/t44c04.pdf) |
| [Ohio](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/ohio) | None found (whole-code search). R.C. 2743.48 treats a Brady violation as a qualifying error for wrongful imprisonment claims | None found | Not reviewed | Not reviewed | [R.C. 2743.48](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2743.48); [Crim.R. 16](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf) |
| [Oklahoma](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/oklahoma) | None found in Titles 22 and 70 | None found for lists | CLEET may revoke for falsification or willful misrepresentation in records of evidence or testimony under oath. Agencies report terminations and resignations under investigation within 30 days. No sharing with prosecutors found | Termination reports to CLEET are confidential personnel records | [Title 70](https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os70.rtf); [Title 22](https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os22.rtf) |
| [Oregon](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/oregon) | None found in ORS chs. 131, 133, 135, 181A, 192, 236, and 243 | None found | DPSST keeps a public online database of certification suspensions, revocations, and discipline involving economic sanctions. No sharing with prosecutors found | The DPSST database is public; publication waits until appeal rights are exhausted | [ORS ch. 181A](https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors181A.html); [ch. 135](https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors135.html) |
| [Pennsylvania](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/pennsylvania) | Not checked; the General Assembly’s site returned an error | Not checked | MPOETC keeps the Act 57 background check and separations database. Whether prosecutors may use it was not confirmed | Not checked | [MPOETC, Act 57](https://www.pa.gov/agencies/mpoetc/agencies-and-training-providers/act-57); [Pa.R.Crim.P. 573](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/234/chapter5/s573.html) |
| [Rhode Island](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/rhode-island) | None found in R.I. Gen. Laws chs. 42-28.6, 42-28.2, and 38-2 | None found; the chapter’s hearing rights cover department discipline | None found for sharing with prosecutors | No list-specific provision. Personnel records are non-public where disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy | [ch. 42-28.6](https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE42/42-28.6/INDEX.htm); [38-2-2](https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE38/38-2/38-2-2.htm) |
| [South Carolina](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/south-carolina) | None found in S.C. Code chs. 23-23, 30-4, and 17-25. Rule 5, SCRCrimP, has no Brady or impeachment provision | None found for lists | Agency heads must report misconduct, including willful false statements to a court or law enforcement, to the Criminal Justice Academy within 15 days of final agency action. Excessive-force findings reported to the Academy may be disclosed to law enforcement or prosecution agencies (S.C. Code 23-23-150(L)); no other sharing with solicitors found | Excessive-force findings reported to the Academy are not public and may go only to law enforcement or prosecution agencies | [S.C. Code ch. 23-23](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c023.php); [Rule 5, SCRCrimP](https://www.sccourts.org/resources/judicial-community/court-rules/criminal/rule-5/) |
| [South Dakota](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/south-dakota) | None found in SDCL chs. 1-27, 7-12, 9-29, 23-3, 23-5, 23A-13, and 23A-22 | None found | None found | No list-specific provision. Personnel information other than salaries and routine directory information is exempt | [SDCL ch. 23-3](https://sdlegislature.gov/api/Statutes/23-3.html?all=true); [ch. 1-27](https://sdlegislature.gov/api/Statutes/1-27.html?all=true) |
| [Tennessee](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/tennessee) | Not checked; the official code is hosted on a third-party site and was not searched | Not checked | Not checked | Not checked | No official source was read |
| [Texas](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/texas) | Not checked; the statutes site requires scripts we could not run, so Occupations Code ch. 1701 was not searched. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(h) sets a general disclosure duty | Not checked | Not checked | Not checked | [SB 1611 (2013)](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01611F.htm) |
| [Utah](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/utah) | None found in Utah Code Title 53, ch. 6; other titles not searched | None found for lists | The POST Council may act where a court or agency finds an officer knowingly engaged in dishonesty or deception, or failed to answer truthfully after a Garrity warning. Agency heads must report substantiated findings. No sharing with prosecutors found | Not reviewed | [Utah Code 53-6](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53/Chapter6/C53-6_1800010118000101.pdf) |
| [Vermont](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/vermont) | None found in 20 V.S.A. ch. 151, 1 V.S.A. ch. 5, and 13 V.S.A. ch. 221. Related: the statewide code of conduct prohibits untruthfulness (20 V.S.A. 2371) | None found for lists. An officer charged with unprofessional conduct may inspect the investigation file | Council complaint information may go to a law enforcement agency that agrees to keep it confidential, or under a court order; prosecutors are not named | The Council keeps a public complaint register, naming officers only where charges, stipulations, or discipline resulted | [20 V.S.A. ch. 151](https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/20/151) |
| [Virginia](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/virginia) | Yes, through decertification. Va. Code 15.2-1707(B)(vi) and (vii): the agency head must notify the Criminal Justice Services Board within 48 hours after an internal investigation ends in termination or resignation for an act that compromises the officer’s credibility, integrity, or honesty, or that constitutes exculpatory or impeachment evidence in a criminal case. It applies to misconduct after the 2020 act took effect | For decertification: notice within 10 days, a request for review within 30 days, then appeal and judicial review (15.2-1708). 2026 amendments to 15.2-1708 were not reviewed | On notice from the agency head or a Commonwealth’s attorney, the Board must immediately decertify | Decertification records are not disclosed under the Virginia FOIA | [Va. Code 15.2-1707](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter17/section15.2-1707/); [15.2-1708](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter17/section15.2-1708/) |
| [Washington](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/washington) | Yes. RCW 10.93.150 (2018 c 265, effective June 7, 2018, the default date for that session’s acts): an agency may not take disciplinary or other adverse action against an officer solely because the officer is on a prosecutor’s list of recurring witnesses with known potential impeachment information | None found | Hiring background checks must ask local prosecutors whether the person is on a potential impeachment disclosure list (RCW 43.101.095). The Criminal Justice Training Commission keeps a public database of decertification and separation reasons | No law on prosecutors’ lists found. The Commission’s database is public; background investigation files are confidential | [RCW 10.93.150](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.93.150); [43.101.095](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.101.095); [43.101.400](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.101.400) |
| [West Virginia](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/west-virginia) | Yes, for state agencies only. W. Va. Code 15A-1-7: when a Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety agency learns that a current or former employee will be a prosecution witness, and knows of a prior finding of dishonesty, moral turpitude, bias, prejudice, or other impeachment conduct, it must give the name to the prosecuting attorney or U.S. Attorney. It does not cover county or municipal police | No notice to the employee required | The decertification subcommittee acts under its own rules. No sharing with prosecutors found | Not reviewed | [W. Va. Code 15A-1-7](https://code.wvlegislature.gov/15A-1-7/); [30-29-5](https://code.wvlegislature.gov/30-29-5/) |
| [Wisconsin](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/wisconsin) | None found (whole-code search of the statutes) | None found | Since 2021, every agency must keep an employment file for each officer (Wis. Stat. 175.65). No sharing with prosecutors found | No list-specific provision found | [Wis. Stat. 175.65](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/65); [971.23](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/971/23) |
| [Wyoming](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker/wyoming) | None found in Titles 6, 7, 9, 16, and 18 | None found | The POST Commission may demand complaint-related parts of a personnel file for a certification investigation and may not disclose them unless the law requires. No sharing with prosecutors found | No list-specific provision. Custodians must deny inspection of personnel files, with exceptions | [Title 9](https://wyoleg.gov/statutes/compress/title09.pdf); [Title 16](https://wyoleg.gov/statutes/compress/title16.pdf) |

## Changes since 2023

Enacted changes that touch these rules, in order of effective date. Where a date is computed from a default rule rather than stated in the law, we say so.

- **District of Columbia, April 21, 2023:** D.C. Law 24-345 created an officer disciplinary records database ([5-1116](https://github.com/DCCouncil/law-xml-codified/blob/publication/2021-10-18/us/dc/council/code/titles/5/sections/5-1116.xml)) and an advisory group on public disclosure of disciplinary records (5-1117). Both depend on appropriations, and as of the May 2026 code publication neither had been implemented.
- **Iowa, June 1, 2023:** [2023 Iowa Acts ch. 149 (H.F. 631)](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/acts/2023/CH0149.pdf) took effect on enactment. It removed the July 1, 2023 sunset of the Brady-Giglio list procedures and added the confidentiality rule now at 80F.1(24)(f).
- **Florida, July 1, 2023:** [Ch. 2023-230 (CS/HB 95)](https://laws.flrules.org/2023/230) defined “Brady identification system” (112.531), barred discipline solely for being listed (112.532(7)), and created 112.536.
- **Delaware, August 7, 2023:** [84 Del. Laws c. 148](https://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga152/chp148.shtml) added 11 Del. C. 9210 (disclosure of sustained dishonesty findings and public narratives) and 9211 (annual reporting from 2024 and 25-year record retention).
- **Indiana, January 1, 2024:** [Criminal Rule 2.5](https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/criminal/rule2-5/current.htm) took effect, setting automatic State disclosure duties, including impeachment evidence about State witnesses.
- **Iowa, July 1, 2024:** [2024 Iowa Acts ch. 1121 (H.F. 2592)](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/acts/2024/CH1121.pdf), approved May 1, 2024, added the right to petition the district court (80F.1(25)) and a preponderance standard for chapter 80F claims (80F.3). The date comes from Iowa’s default rule (Iowa Code 3.7(1)); the act states none.
- **Virginia, July 1, 2024:** [2024 Va. Acts c. 494 (SB 88)](https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+CHAP0494), approved April 4, 2024, split 15.2-1707(B)(vi) into clauses (vi) and (vii) and also amended 15.2-1708. The date is the default for regular-session acts (Va. Const. art. IV, sec. 13), not stated in the act.
- **Vermont, January 1, 2025:** 2023 Act No. 124 (Adj. Sess.), sec. 2, added [20 V.S.A. 2371](https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/20/151), a statewide officer code of conduct that prohibits untruthfulness in criminal, internal affairs, and Council investigations and before tribunals. 2025 Act No. 18, sec. 29, amended it effective May 13, 2025.
- **Maine, January 1, 2026:** the deadline for every agency to adopt a Brady and Giglio policy under [25 M.R.S. 2803-B(1)(P)](https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/25/title25sec2803-B.html). The 2025 public law that enacted it, and that law’s effective date, are not confirmed.
- **Washington, April 30, 2026:** [Laws 2026, ch. 258](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5974-S2.SL.pdf), sec. 13, extended the impeachment-list inquiry in RCW 43.101.095 from an “applicant” to any “person” considered for appointment as sheriff, police chief, or marshal or seeking officer employment. RCW 43.101.095 was also amended by Laws 2026, ch. 103, sec. 5. RCW 10.93.150 has not changed since 2018.

California’s Gov. Code 3305.5 has not been amended since it took effect on January 1, 2014 (Stats. 2013, ch. 779), according to the Legislative Counsel’s data as of October 2026. New Hampshire’s RSA 105:13-d shows no amendment since 2021.

## Court decisions

Case law was not reviewed for many states in this edition. The decisions below are the ones we read; a state with none listed may still have relevant decisions. Each is labeled by type: officer records (disclosure of officer misconduct or personnel information) or general Brady. Where the court’s own copy could not be read, the link goes to the copy we read on CourtListener or the Caselaw Access Project.

**Officer records**

- **California:** [Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 28](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S243855.PDF). A sheriff’s department does not violate Penal Code 832.7(a) by telling prosecutors that an officer who is a potential witness may have exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file. The department’s list is confidential to the extent officers were placed on it because of information from confidential records.
- **California:** [People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S221296.PDF). Prosecutors, like defendants, must use the Pitchess procedures to obtain confidential personnel records. The prosecution meets its Brady duty by telling the defense what it knows about what the records might contain, such as a police department’s alert; the defense can then bring its own Pitchess motion.
- **Colorado (civil case):** [Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163 (1980)](https://static.case.law/colo/199/cases/0163-01.json). In a civil rights suit, police personnel files and internal affairs reports are discoverable subject to a privacy balancing test after in camera review. It is not a criminal disclosure decision.
- **Connecticut:** [State v. Januszewski, 182 Conn. 142 (1980)](https://static.case.law/conn/182/cases/0142-01.json). A defendant’s confrontation right can override the confidentiality of an officer’s personnel file. On a specific request, the trial court should generally inspect the file in camera and disclose only clearly material information.
- **Montana:** [State v. Howard, 2021 MT 230](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2021/09/14/state_v._j._howard.pdf). The court affirmed denial of in camera review of an arresting officer’s file for prior excessive-force incidents because the defendant did not show a substantial need under MCA 46-15-322(5). It held that his Brady and Giglio argument was not preserved and did not decide it.
- **New Hampshire:** [N.H. Center for Public Interest Journalism v. N.H. Department of Justice (2020)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2020/10/30/new_hampshire_center_for_public_interest_journalism__a._v._new_hampshire.pdf). The Exculpatory Evidence Schedule is not made confidential by RSA 105:13-b and is not exempt as an internal personnel practice. The Department did not challenge the trial court’s finding that it is not a personnel file, and the privacy question was remanded.
- **New Hampshire:** [Doe v. N.H. Attorney General, 2024 N.H. 50](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/09/05/doe_v._n.h._attorney_gen..pdf). Admissibility considerations, such as the age of the conduct and its materiality to an officer’s general credibility, should factor into whether information warrants placement on the schedule.
- **New Jersey:** [State v. Higgs (2023)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2023/03/30/state_v._andre_higgs.pdf). A defendant seeking internal affairs records must move for in camera review and identify the specific category of information sought and its relevance; a general claim of searching for credibility information is insufficient.
- **New Jersey:** [In re Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive Nos. 2020-5 and 2020-6 (2021)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2021/06/07/in_re_attorney_general_law_enforcement_directive_nos._2020-05_and_2020-06.pdf). The court upheld the Attorney General’s authority to require public release of the names of officers who receive major discipline. The Attorney General argued that disciplinary records are already disclosed in criminal cases under Brady and Giglio.
- **New York:** [Matter of NYCLU v. City of Rochester, 43 N.Y.3d 543 (2025)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/html/2025/02/20/matter_of_new_york_civ._liberties_union_v._city_of_rochester_1.html). FOIL’s privacy exemption “does not provide a basis for agencies to categorically withhold” disciplinary records of unsubstantiated complaints against officers; agencies must justify each withholding.
- **New York:** [People v. Garrett, 23 N.Y.3d 878 (2014)](https://static.case.law/ny3d/23/cases/0878-01.json). Civil-suit allegations that a police witness committed misconduct in an unrelated case were favorable impeachment evidence, but there was no Brady violation because the defendant did not prove suppression or prejudice. This and the next case predate the 2020 discovery law.
- **New York:** [People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543 (1979)](https://static.case.law/ny-2d/48/cases/0543-01.json). A defendant may not subpoena police witnesses’ personnel records without a factual showing of relevant material; requests aimed only at general credibility are left to the trial court.
- **Oklahoma:** [Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22](https://storage.courtlistener.com/html/2019/09/26/harris_v._state.html). An investigating agent’s prior personnel issues were not material because the State’s case did not rest on the agent’s credibility.
- **Washington:** [State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822 (1993)](https://static.case.law/wash-2d/120/cases/0822-01.json). Ordering the prosecution to produce officers’ personnel files without a factual showing of materiality was an abuse of discretion, and files held by the police department were not in the prosecutor’s possession or control under CrR 4.7.

**General Brady**

- **New Mexico:** [State v. Wisniewski, 1985-NMSC-079](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/385538/index.do). The Brady duty applies to every member of the prosecution team, including police, and a court may use contempt against officers for discovery violations.
- **North Dakota:** [State v. Williams, 2025 ND 46](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/02/27/state_v._williams_2025_nd_46.pdf). No Brady violation where the defense could have obtained the information by interviewing a known witness.
- **Ohio:** [State v. McNeal, 2022-Ohio-2703](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-2703.pdf). Brady covers evidence known only to police investigators, and Crim.R. 33(B) does not require a defendant to discover evidence the State suppressed. The defendant had obtained a police laboratory report through a public-records request after trial.
- **Texas:** [Watkins v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2021/03/03/watkins_ralph_dewayne.pdf). “Material” in the Michael Morton Act means relevant, a broader standard than Brady materiality.
- **Washington:** [In re Personal Restraint of Mulamba (2022)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/994030.pdf). Jail records bearing on a civilian witness’s credibility fell under Brady on the facts, but were not material.

Two Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decisions were identified but not read: In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, SJC-12869 (2020), and Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden District, SJC-13386 (2024). We do not state their holdings.

## Keep up with changes

These laws change. [Get an email when your state’s rules change](https://uscli.org/ledger-watch), or see each state’s certification and decertification rules in the [Officer Ledger](https://uscli.org/officer-certification-tracker). For the federal rule behind all of this, see [Brady and Giglio](https://uscli.org/guides/brady-giglio).

This page is general information, not legal advice. USCLI is not a government agency. Disclosure duties also come from the federal and state constitutions, court rules, and prosecutor and agency policies, which this page does not cover in full. Laws change. Confirm what applies in a specific case with the prosecutor’s office or a qualified attorney.

## Frequently asked questions

### Which states have a law on Brady or Giglio lists?

We found 13: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey (by Attorney General directive), North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. They do different things. Some regulate the list itself, some require agencies to send information to prosecutors, and some tie the information to decertification. In 26 other jurisdictions we searched the official code and found none; 7 could not be fully searched and 5 were not checked.

### Can an officer be disciplined just for being on a Brady list?

Not in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, or Washington. Each bars discipline or adverse action based solely on the listing. All five say the agency may still act on the underlying conduct. No similar bar was found in the other states.

### Does an officer get notice before being placed on a list?

In Arizona and Iowa the prosecutor must give written notice before placement, and in Florida before or at the time of placement (with exceptions); in all three the officer may ask for reconsideration. Colorado requires 7 days’ notice before an agency sends a credibility notification, if practicable. In New Hampshire the officer gets written notice and the listing stays nonpublic until any grievance is exhausted. New Jersey’s Attorney General directive requires notice before disclosure. No notice requirement was found in the other states.

### Are Brady lists public records?

New Hampshire’s Exculpatory Evidence Schedule is a public record once placement is final. North Carolina makes the reports it receives non-public. New Jersey’s directive treats the process as confidential. In California, the Supreme Court held in 2019 that an agency list is confidential to the extent placements came from confidential personnel records. Most states have no statute on the question.

### How do Brady lists connect to POST or decertification?

In North Carolina officers must report a written notice that they may not be called to testify, and the Standards Division tells the district attorney if the officer moves to a new agency. Virginia decertifies officers terminated or resigning for conduct that is exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Colorado’s POST board keeps a public database that includes untruthfulness, and Washington requires hiring agencies to ask prosecutors whether the person is on an impeachment list.