FACTS Act | Legislative Petition
Fair Assessment & Credible Truth in Sentencing Act 

— FACTS ACT —

 

Petition for Accurate, Transparent, and Correctable Presentence Information,

and Responsible Use of Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools in the Criminal Legal System

 

https://www.signtheFACTSact.org

 

 
 
 

Purpose of this Petition

This petition asks the Idaho Legislature and the Idaho Supreme Court to strengthen the laws and rules governing presentence investigation reports (PSIs) and actuarial or algorithmic risk and needs assessment tools used in the criminal legal system.

 

PSIs can influence not only the sentence imposed by a court, but also correctional classification, housing, treatment, programming, supervision, parole decisions, and subsequent cases for years afterward. Idaho law already recognizes that inaccurate, unfounded, unreliable, conjectural, or speculative information should not be used in these reports. Recent Idaho appellate decisions nevertheless show a recurring procedural weakness: even when errors are identified and corrections are accepted, the corrected information does not always reliably follow the person into the correctional system.

 

The proposed Fair Assessment & Credible Truth in Sentencing Act (FACTS Act) would establish clear standards for the preparation, review, correction, use, and distribution of PSIs and risk-assessment results. It would require qualified assessors, traceable sources for materially adverse information, meaningful advance review, written resolution of disputed facts, permanent correction of all affected records, validation and oversight of assessment instruments, and an accessible post-sentencing process for correcting factual errors.

 

These safeguards would not prevent courts from considering legitimate information, hearing from victims, or exercising sentencing discretion. They would help ensure that decisions affecting liberty and public safety are based on information that is accurate, transparent, appropriately evaluated, and subject to meaningful review. 

Action Requested

We the undersigned, respectfully request that:

1. The Idaho Legislature enact statutory safeguards governing the preparation and continuing use of PSIs and actuarial or algorithm-assisted risk assessment instruments.
2. The Idaho Supreme Court amend Idaho Criminal Rule (ICR) 32 to provide a clear, documented, accessible, and enforceable process for resolving disputed information and correcting PSIs before and after sentencing.
3. The Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) andIdaho Commission of Pardons and Parole adopt procedures ensuring that every judicially accepted correction is incorporated into the operative record used for classification, programming, supervision, and parole.
4. Idaho establish independent validation, auditing, training, and transparency requirements for risk-assessment instruments used in high-stakes criminal legal system decisions.
5. Congress consider parallel protections for federal presentence reports and encourage state compliance with minimum accuracy and transparency standards through constitutionally appropriate federal funding and/or reporting mechanisms.
 

Why Reform is Necessary

Idaho Criminal Rule 32 permits a sentencing court to consider hearsay and other information that might not be admissible at trial when the presentence investigator believes it is reliable. The rule prohibits conjecture and speculation and gives a defendant an opportunity to examine and rebut adverse information before sentencing. Idaho courts have also held that sentencing judges must reject and correct information demonstrated to be inaccurate, unfounded, or unreliable.

 

Those protections are important, but incomplete. A defendant may have only a short and highly stressful period before sentencing in which to identify every error, locate supporting records or evidence, confer with counsel, and present an effective objection. Information may be presented without sufficiently clear source attribution, and statements of fact, allegation, opinion, and actuarial inference may be blended together. After sentencing, remedies become substantially narrower and more technical, even though the PSI continues to affect correctional decisions and subsequent cases. There is no simple, comprehensive procedure through which an incarcerated person can ensure that a material correction is reflected in every copy and downstream record.

The problem is not merely theoretical. In State v. Greer, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred when it apparently failed to incorporate corrections it had accepted. The Court explained that IDOC relies upon a PSI for numerous decisions during incarceration and parole. In State v. Dills and State v. Alvarez, limited remands were required to ensure that accepted corrections were properly reflected in the PSI and transmitted to IDOC. These cases demonstrate that accuracy at the sentencing hearing is not enough; an effective correction must also be recorded, distributed, and used consistently.

 

A Personal Case Study

My name is Thomas Warren, IDOC #139462. I am a father of three and grandfather of one. I have been incarcerated since July 17, 2022, and received a unified sentence of 25 years—five fixed, 20 indeterminate—following convictions in which I maintain my innocence and continue to challenge through legal proceedings (Ada County, Case No. CV01-25-07481; further appeals pending).

 

Since my final sentencing hearing in July 2023, I have studied how PSIs and algorithmic risk-assessment tools are used not only in Idaho, but in other states, and throughout the world. Through the University of Idaho’s Prison Education Initiative, I am currently in my junior year (2026-27) of college earning a prelaw degree in criminology. I’ve maintained a 4.0 GPA, and accepted an invitation from my criminology professor, Dr. Omi Hodwitz, to co-author a chapter for her upcoming book, The Origins of Punishment.

 

My concerns arise from contradictions, unsupported assertions, and disputed descriptions in the algorithmic risk assessment information used to determine my sentence. For example, an assessment characterized the statement, “Enjoys spending free time with his family”, as evidence that I am “...often bored and/or involved in criminal activities”, and associated my free time with alcohol-related driving risks without identifying a DUI conviction, interview statement, police report, or other supporting record. It also reached a negative conclusion concerning financial management while recording information indicating that I pay my bills on time, and expected to meet my financial obligations. Other concerns include the incorporation of dismissed and pending charges into the assessment, which augmented my criminal history in both appearance and consequence, and is contrary to the implicit nature of ICR 32(e)(2).

I also challenged an extremely prejudicial and unsupported allegation concerning my conduct toward my wife. At an earlier sentencing proceeding, the court ordered this disputed material removed. At a later proceeding, the prosecution raised the same substantial information again, despite the court ordered revision. The cumulative result of these errors was an inflated risk-assessment score, and a lengthy discussion by the sentencing court as to why the elevated score and risk factors justified a 25 year sentence. The relevant proceedings can be found in Ada County Case Nos. CR01-22-21909 and CR01-23-0854.

 

What makes my case unique is the ability to demonstrate the effect a PSI report and algorithmic risk assessment tools can have by illustrating a critical disparity between two sentences. In the earlier proceeding (CR01-22-21909), the judge did not reference my PSI report for the purpose of sentencing, and I received a “rider”—a six-month to one-year programming course, after which I would have been released on probation. This is also known as a “retained jurisdiction,” and incorporates an underlying prison sentence heavy enough to serve as incentive to complete the programs and probation. In the later proceeding (CR01-23-0854), my PSI report and algorithmic risk assessment results were the primary consideration, and I was sentenced to a unified 25 years. No changes occurred in the six months between hearings while I was held in Ada County Jail.

 

This petition does not ask lawmakers to decide my pending legal claims, or to substitute their judgment for that of a court. My experience is presented as a case study of a broader procedural question: When disputed personal information can affect decades of incarceration and correctional decision-making, what safeguards ensure that the information is sourced, accurate, reviewable, and permanently corrected when an error is established?

 

Constitutional and Legal Foundation

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that materially false or constitutionally invalid information cannot properly form the basis of a sentence. In Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948), the Court held that sentencing based on materially untrue assumptions can violate due process. In United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972), the Court upheld resentencing where the sentencing judge had considered prior convictions later found constitutionally invalid.

The Ninth Circuit likewise recognized in United States v Weston, 448 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1971) that serious, damaging sentencing information requires sufficient indicia of reliability. These decisions do not mean that every disagreement in a PSI requires resentencing. They establish the more careful principle that liberty should not be determined through material misinformation lacking adequate reliability.

 

Courts have also recognized that actuarial risk scores require safeguards tailored to their limitations. In State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), the Wisconsin Supreme Court permitted limited consideration of a COMPAS assessment but required written cautions and held that the score could not determine whether a person was incarcerated, the severity of the sentence, or serve as the determinative factor in assessing safe community supervision. The court emphasized that such scores are based on group data, may rely on proprietary methods, require population-specific validation, and must be continually monitored. Although Loomis is not binding in Idaho, it offers a practical judicial model for the safeguards proposed here.

 

Idaho decisions further clarify the duties surrounding PSI corrections:

● State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950, 231 P.3d 1047 (Ct. App. 2010): Information found unreliable should be removed rather than merely disregarded at sentencing because it may prejudice later correctional decisions
● State v. Mauro, 121 Idaho 178, 824 P.2d 109 (1991): The Idaho Supreme Court held that a sentencing court should not have considered a report where neither the report nor the PSI explained why the investigator regarded the information as reliable.
● State v. Golden, 167 Idaho 509, 473 P.3d 377 (Ct. App. 2020): A court must reject inaccurate, unfounded, or unreliable PSI information and correct the report when the defendant makes the required showing
● State v. Greer, 171 Idaho 555, 524 P.3d 386 (2023): A court must implement corrections it has accepted so that future decisions are based on accurate information.
● State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 843, 526 P.3d 1013 (2023): The Idaho Supreme Court addressed objections involving unrelated investigative material, disputed statements, and the proper redlining of accepted corrections.
● State v. Dills, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 52330 (2024): A limited remand was required to ensure that accepted corrections were reflected in or attached to the PSI and distributed to IDOC.
● State v. Alvarez, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 50675 (2025): The Court again required a limited remand to ensure that accepted corrections appeared in the PSI and reached IDOC.
 

Together, these decisions recognize both the importance of accurate information and the practical consequences of leaving erroneous material in an operative PSI. The Proposed FACTS Act would convert those principles into a consistent and accessible process.

 

Federal law supplies a working legislative model. Under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b)(4) the Attorney General is required to review, statistically validate, and publicly release the federal risk and needs assessment system annually, evaluate unwarranted disparities, and update the system when appropriate. A 2026 U.S. Government Accountability Office review also examined validation, monitoring, data accuracy, reassessment timeliness, and staff competency requirements. Idaho need not copy the federal system, but these provisions demonstrate that periodic validation, public reporting, monitoring, and demonstrated staff competency are administratively feasible safeguards rather than merely aspirational goals.

 

Proposed Safeguards

1. Qualified and Accountable Assessors
Anyone administering or interpreting an actuarial or algorithm-assisted risk assessment should complete standardized initial training, demonstrate competency, receive continuing education, and remain subject to documented quality review. Training should address the instrument’s appropriate uses, limitations, scoring requirements, cultural and linguistic considerations, ethical concerns, and the distinction between professional judgment and validated scoring.

2. Traceable and Verifiable Sources
Every materially adverse factual assertion in a PSI should identify its source, date, and verification status. If the source cannot be disclosed for a legally sufficient reason, the court should receive enough information to evaluate reliability, and the defendant should receive an appropriate summary consistent with safety and confidentiality requirements. Additionally, language should be made clear and concise to explicitly reject the use of dismissed and pending charges in an assessment of criminal history.

3. Clear Separation of Information Types
A PSI should clearly distinguish among

● Verified facts
● Disputed allegations
● Law-enforcement accounts
● Victim & Defendant statements
● Professional opinions
● Actuarial or algorithm-assisted outputs
● Conclusions drawn by the investigator
4. Meaningful Advance Review
The complete PSI should ordinarily be disclosed to the parties no fewer than 14 days before sentencing, subject to carefully defined confidentiality exceptions. A defendant should not be deemed to have waived a challenge merely because counsel did not discover or prove an error during an unreasonably short review period. Courts should grant reasonable continuances when additional time is necessary to investigate material disputed information.

5. Written Resolutions of Disputes
The court should rule on every specific, material written objection and state whether the challenged information is:

● Accepted as sufficiently reliable
● Corrected
● Stricken as inaccurate, unfounded, or unreliable
● Retained but expressly disregarded
● Unresolved and excluded from consideration
6. A Corrected Master Record
When a court accepts a correction, the clerk should create or certify a corrected master PSI. The original language should be removed or conspicuously marked as invalid, and the correction order should remain permanently attached. The clerk should confirm distribution to IDOC, the Commission of Pardons and Parole, and every other authorized recipient. Defendants should be allowed to maintain a copy for their records, review, and redress. Superseded versions should not remain operational without a correction notice.

7. A Defined Post-Sentencing Correction Process
An incarcerated or supervised person should be able to petition for correction of an objectively inaccurate, materially misleading, or demonstrably unreliable statement discovered after sentencing. Safeguards can preserve the finality of lawful sentences:

● If the error affects classification, programming, treatment, supervision, or parole, the corrected record should be distributed to the relevant agencies.
● Resentencing should require a judicial finding that the information was materially false or unreliable and that the sentencing court actually relied upon it in a manner that may have affected the sentence.
● Repetitive claims already fully adjudicated may be denied unless supported by newly discovered evidence or another legally sufficient basis.
8. Validation and Oversight of Assessment Instruments
Any risk or needs assessment instrument used in sentencing should be independently evaluated at reasonable intervals (e.g., 1-3 years). The responsible agency should document:

● The instrument and version used
● The population on which it was developed and validated
● Evidence of accuracy and reliability in the population where it is being applied
● Known error rates and limitations
● Testing for materially disparate or biased outcomes
● Any override or manual adjustment and the reason for it
● Whether the score is being used only for a purpose supported by its validation
 

The report should explain that a statistical score estimates risk within a group and does not determine what a particular individual will do. Every PSI containing a risk score should also include a standardized, written judicial advisory explaining the instrument’s intended use, prohibited uses, validation population, known limitations, and the version administered. Consistent with the safeguard recognized in State v. Loomis, a risk score should not determine whether a person is incarcerated, the severity or length of a sentence, or operate as the determinative factor in any sentencing decision. The court should identify on the record the independent case-specific factors supporting a sentence.

9. Auditing and Public Accountability
An appropriate independent body should conduct periodic, de-identified audits of PSI accuracy, correction practices, assessor qualifications, instrument performance, and the transmission of corrected reports. Aggregate findings should be publicly reported without disclosing confidential case information.

 

Why These Reforms Promote Public Safety

Accurate information serves everyone involved in the legal system. Judges need reliable records to impose appropriate sentences. Victims, defendants, and communities deserve decisions grounded in fact. Correctional agencies need accurate information to assign programming, treatment, security classifications, and release conditions. Prosecutors and defense counsel benefit from procedures that resolve disputes clearly and preserve an accurate record.

 

When unreliable information remains in a PSI, it can distort decisions, misallocate resources, undermine rehabilitation, and weaken public trust and confidence. When information is accurate, and corrections are properly documented and distributed, government agencies can make better-informed decisions about both individual needs and community safety.

 

A Familiar Principle of Accuracy

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.S Ch. 41) does not govern criminal sentencing, and this petition does not claim that it does. It does, however, demonstrate a familiar legislative principle: when consequential decisions depend on compiled personal information, the person affected should have a meaningful opportunity to inspect and correct material inaccuracies.

 

Federal law requires consumer-reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures promoting maximum possible accuracy and provides a process for disputing inaccurate information. A person’s liberty deserves safeguards at least as serious as those protecting consequential financial decisions.

 

Conclusion and Petition

A PSI report should inform a court, not mislead it. A risk-assessment instrument should assist professional judgment, not replace it. A correction accepted by a judge should follow the individual everywhere the original information is used. A material error discovered after sentencing should not remain permanently embedded in government records merely because it was not fully resolved during a short pre-sentencing window. Ensuring accurate information and accountability measures will instill and renew public faith in the integrity of the criminal legal system.

 

We therefore respectfully call upon the Idaho Legislature, Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Department of Corrections, Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole, and Congress to adopt the safeguards in this petition and establish a formal process for accurate, transparent, reviewable, and correctable presentence information, and oversight ensuring compliance.

 

We support the Fair Assessment & Credible Truth in Sentencing Act and ask Idaho’s public officials to immediately begin the legislative and rulemaking process necessary to put these protections into effect.

 

Petition Sponsor

 

Signed _________________________________​Date 9/15/2026

 

Thomas Warren, IDOC #139462​

ISCC H2-56B

PO Box 70010

Boise, ID 83707

signtheFACTSact@gmail.com​

Direct messaging available through GettingOut app

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities and Supporting Materials

1. Idaho Criminal Rule 32, Presentence Investigations and Reports: https://isc.idaho.gov/rules-procedure/icr#rule-32
2. Idaho Rules of Evidence 101(e)(e), rules generally inapplicable at sentencing: https://isc.idaho.gov/rules-procedure/ire
3. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/736/
4. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/443/
5. United States v. Weston, 448 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1971).
6. State v. Loomis, 2016 WI 68, 371 Wis. 2d 235, 881 N.W.2d 749: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2016/2015ap000157-cr.html
7. State v. Mauro, 121 Idaho 178, 824 P.2d 109 (1991).
8. State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950, 231 P.2d 1047 (Ct. App. 2010).
9. State v. Golden, 167 Idaho 509, 473 P.2d 377 (Ct. App. 2020).
10. State v. Greer, 171 Idaho 555, 524 P.2d 286 (2023): https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/supreme-court-criminal/2023/49840.html
11. State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 843, 526 P.2d 1013 (2023): https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/supreme-court-criminal/2023/49958.html
12. State v. Dills, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 52330 (2024): https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/supreme-court-criminal/2024/52330.html
13. State v. Alvarez, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 50675 (2025): https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/supreme-court-criminal/2025/50675.html
14. 18 U.S.C. § 3631, annual review and validation of the federal risk and needs assessment system:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section3631
15. U.S Government Accountability Office, Federal Prisons: Improvements needed to the System Used to Assess and Mitigate Incarcerated People’s Recidivism Risk, GAO-26-107268 (2026): https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-26-107268/index.html
16. 15 U.S.C §§ 1681a, 1681e, and 1681i, cited only as a policy analogy concerning accuracy and dispute procedures