>> [GAVEL]
>> CHAIR: THE
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY POLICY AND
FINANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER AND WE WILL BEGIN
WITH ROLLCALL. >> STAFF: JOHNSON-LOHMER HERE
>> CONSIDINE HERE; NEWBERGER;
[INAUDIBLE] PINTO UGLEM
HERE; WARD; ZERWAS HERE.
>> CHAIR: THANK YOU.
I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 13.
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE MINUTES? >> REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: I
MOVE APPROVAL THE MINUTES.
>> CHAIR:
THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED; NAY. THE
MOTION PREVAILS.
>>
[GAVEL]>> CHAIR: OKAY WE WILL START WITH HOUSE
FILE2800. WELCOME REPRESENTATIVE BAR
R. WELCOME. REPRESENTATIVE TREVOR I MOVE HOUSE FILE 2800
BE REFERRED TO THE
GENERAL REGISTER AGAIN WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE AND PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR BILL. >> REPRESENTATIVE BARR: THANK YOU; MDM. CHAIR I ALSO WANT
TO MENTION THIS MY FIRST TIME UP IN YOUR COMMITTEE AND I DID BRING TREATS BUT ASKED THE PAIGE
TO PASS THEM OUT AFTER BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL THAT THIS IS A
SERIOUS TOPIC AND MAYBE ALL OF YOUR TOPICS ARE SERIOUS
BUT GIVEN THE NATURE
OF THIS I WANT TO LET YOU
KNOW THAT. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU SO MUCH >> REPRESENTATIVE BARR: THANK
YOU FOR HEARING THE BILL TODAY HOUSE FILE 2800.
THIS BILL SERVES
TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF WHAT CAN BE DEFINED AS
A CRIME IS RELATES TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT AND SPECIFICALLY ITS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE
NONCONSENSUAL INTENTIONAL TOUCHING OF A
CLOTHING COVERING THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF
THE BUTTOCKS. I THINK MOST
OF US
HAVE NOT BEEN IMMUNE TO WHAT'S GOING
ON NATIONALLY.. QUITE FRANKLY I'VE
BEEN HORRIFIED
ABOUT SOME OF THE STORIES THAT COME OUT OVER THE
PAST YEAR
AND THEN OF COURSE MORE RECENTLY WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES OCCURRING HERE AT THE STATE LEVEL AND I KNOW
FOR MYSELF I WAS
VERY SAD AND ANGRY
TO HEAR OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE GOING ON. A
S A RESULT OF THAT I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
WAS LEGAL AND ILLEGAL UNDER THE LAW.
WHEN I TOOK A LOOK AT THIS
PARTICULAR STATUTE I WAS SURPRISED
TO FIND WHAT WAS EXCLUDED FROM
THIS LAW AND WE CAN ALL
MAKE OUR OWN OPINION AND JUDGMENT AS TO WHY THAT MAY HAPPEN BU
T I FELT STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO CLOSE
THIS ONE POLE IN
THE WALL AND THAT IS THE INTENT OF
THE BILL AND
WITH THAT MME. CHAIR I'M HAPPY TO STAND
FOR QUESTIONS. >> CHAIR:
THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE BARR GET
ANY TESTIFIERS
>> REPRESENTATIVE BARR: YES. WE DO HAVE A TEST OF OUR ON BEHALF OF THE LAW. BE JERRY
>> CHAIR: WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
>> TESTIFIER: THANK YOU;
MDM. CHAIR MY NAME IS
CAROLYN [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL AND TO
THINK REPRESENTATIVE BARR FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. WE APPRECIATE IT. I'M A TO GIVE YOU A
BRIEF BACKGROUND ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKED THE QUESTION WHETHER
OR NOT IT'S ILLEGAL UNDER CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT LAWS TO TOUCH SOMEBODY'S CLOSED
CLOTHES BUTTO
CKS COULD IT MAY BE ILLEGAL BUT NOT IN THE WAY THAT YOU EXPECTED IT IS NOT A VIOLATION UNDER CRIMINAL SEXUAL
CONDUCT CODE MAYBE IT'S
DISORDERLY CONDUCT. BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO
BE MATCHED THE WAY A VICTIM MIGHT FEEL
WHEN THEY ARE VIOLATED IN
THIS WAY. I WANT TO GIVE YOU
ONE EXAMPLE. I HAD A RECENT CONVERSATION
WITH SOMEBODY WAS AT A
WORK EVENT COULD ACTUALLY SURROUNDED
BY COLLEAGUES AND SHE
WAS GROPED AT
THAT EVENT [INAUDIBLE] AT THE SAME TIME. IT WAS A VERY INTENSE GROPING
THAT OCCURRED SHE IS A SURVIVOR OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SHE SAID
SHE FELT PRETTY VIOLATED AFTER THAT
AS MUCH AS SHE DID FROM THE SEXUAL ASSAULT BEFORE.
SHE HAS REPORTED IT AND THEY WERE WORKING IT THROUGH THE SYSTEM
BUT WITH A FOUND IS
THEY COULDN'T CHARGE THIS
UNDER [INAUDIBLE] AND SHE DOESN'T
REALLY FEEL THE POTENTIAL
PUNISHMENT THAT MIGHT COME REALLY FITS THE VIOLATION
THAT S
HE FEELS THAT WE HEAR ABOUT THESE EXAMPLES ALL THE TIME. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE IT IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT
THAT WE ARE TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE NEED TO MOVEMENT AND I
THIN
K IT MNCASA WE KNOW HOW COMPLEX THIS CONVERSATION IS RIGHT NOW AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
ALL LEVELS OF CONVERSATION AND CONCERNS ABOUT
THESE PROCESS. BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT FOR A VICTIM
WAS IN GROPED IN THIS WAY IT CAN BE AN ACTIVE SEXUAL
OBJECTIFICATION AND HUMILIATION WE WANT TO HONOR THAT IN OUR
LAWS. SO
IN THAT RESPECT I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN
TO REPRESENTATIVE BARR AND TO THE COMMITTEE AND I DO HAVE A
REESE RESEARCH KELSEY MYERS;
SHE ACTUALLY CHECKED THE STAFF
OF ALL LOOKING AT THE
STATES INCLUDING
THE TERRITORIES; TOO; VERY THOROUGH TO LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT STATES
IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MINNESOTA STACKS UP
ABOUT STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION.
>> CHAIR:
>> CHAIR JOHNSON: THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS?
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL>>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR THANK YOU
REPRESENTATIVE BARR FOR BRINGING THIS FOR. SOMETHING I LOOK 10 SECTION AS WELL AND I HAPPENED TO NOTICE THE
STATUTE WAS ALLOWED
I GUESS THIS ACTIVITY WAS ALLOWED BACK IN 1980. YOU HAVE ANY HISTORY AS
TO WHY
-WHY WOULD THIS BE IN OUR STATUTE TO BEGIN WITH YOU HAVE ANY HISTORY AS WHITE 1988
WAS THE YEAR THAT THEY BASICALLY
MEET THIS ALLOWABLE IN OUR LAW?
>> REPRESENTATIVE BARR:
THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR
. I DID TRY TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH AND VERY HIGH LEVEL WAS NOT
ABLE TO REALLY GET AT WHY THAT
WAS EXCLUDED AND I JUST LET IT GO AND PART OF ME TO
OFTEN WONDERED WHO ON EARTH WOULD ALLOW THIS TO BE INCLUDED I THOUGHT MAYBE THAT WAS BETTER THAT I DID NOT KNOW THAT AS
WELL. BECAUSE
I THOUGHT FOR ME WHAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT IS
THAT IT IT'S
HERE TODAY WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE.
I HOPE THAT HELPS. ANSWER
A QUESTION. >>
CHAIR JOHNSON: MR. DIBBLE MIGHT HAVE MORE INFORMATION
ON THE.>> STAFF: MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS; I HAVE AN
ARTICLE FROM MAY
1987 WHERE IT DISCUSSES
THE AMENDMENT THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION BUT I WILL NAME
NAMES SHOULD SEN. SPIRIT MADE
THE AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDED AND IS QUOTED AS SAYING;
I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK
THE PROBLEM UPPER BEHAVIOR
BUT SOMETIMES YOU MUST MAKE A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN BEHAVIOR THAT IS IMPROPER AND UNSOCIAL
AND BEHAVIOR THAT WE OUGHT
TO CRIMINALIZE. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: ANYONE
FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO COMMENT
ON THIS?
REPRESENTATIVE KENT ARE ANY LESS COMMENTS YOU LIKE TO MAKE >> REPRESENTATIVE BARR: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR. I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THAT STATEMENT. I
THINK IT OFTEN DEPENDS ON
THE CONTEXT AND THE PERSON WHO
IS RECEIVING I'VE BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF THAT BEHAVIOR AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS PROBABLY ALMOST
NO WORK SITUATION FOR ME THAT WOULD BE
ACCEPTABLE. SO THANK YOU FOR HEARING THE BILL AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
THANK YOU. I'LL REAFFIRM THE MOTION
TO RE-REFER HOUSE FILE 2000 TO THE
GENERAL REGISTER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED; NAY. THANK YOU.
>> [GAVEL]
>> REPRESENTATIVE BARR: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND WITH THAT I'LL ASK THE PAIGE TO PASS OUT
THE TREATS. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: THANK YOU.
NEXT REPRESENTATIVE FENTON
. WELCOME TO
THE COMMITTEE. MEMBERS; ALL MAKE THE MOTION TO
RE-REFER HOUSE FILE 3371 TO THE
GENERAL REGISTER.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND BEGIN.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR I AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY FENTON AND I WANT
TO TELL YOU HOW HOUSE FILE 3371 CAME ABOUT.
I OVER THE SUMMER READ AN ARTICLE
THAT HAPPENED IN
NEW YORK THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND WHICH A
YOUNG 18-YEAR-OLD WAS ARRESTED
AND AFTER HER ARREST SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD BEEN
RAPED THE PEACE OFFICER SAID IT
WAS CONSENSUAL. SO AS A RESULT OF
THE ARTICLE THE AUTHOR WENT AND
LOOKED AT OTHER STATES AND WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND I
WAS APPALLED TO SEE THAT THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA WAS ON THAT MATH
IS HAVING NO
CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR THIS AT ALL. SO HOUSE
FILE 3371 THOSE TWO THINGS.
THIS BILL CREATES TWO NEW CRIMINAL
SEXUAL CONDUCT OFFENSES SPECIFIC TO PEACE OFFICERS. IT PROHIBITS A PEACE OFFICER FROM
SEXUALLY PENETRATING; WHICH IS
SECTION 1;
OR SEXUALLY CONTACTING; SECTION 2;
A PERSON IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
PEACE OFFICER. A
PEACE OFFICER WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE
VICTIM'S CONSENT AS A
DEFENSE. ADDITIONALLY; THIS BILL
DOES ALLOW AN EXCEPTION FOR
AWFUL SEARCHES. SO WITH THAT I
DO HAVE
ONE TESTIFIER HERE ON BEHALF OF
THIS BILL. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE COULD IF YOU COULD
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN BEGIN. >> TESTIFIER: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME IS CAROLYN PALMER PUBLIC AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
MANAGER OF THE MINNESOTA
COALITION AGAINSTNATURAL SALT AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IT'S FOR THE BILL AND
THANK REPRESENTATIVE
FENTON FOR BRINGING FOUR. THE PERV IS THE BELT I THINK IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD I THINK IT'S ANOTHER INSTANCE IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE SURPRISED THAT
THE LA
W DOESN'T ALREADY COVER THIS. THERE SHOULD BE NO SEXUAL CONTACT OR PENETRATION OF
A PERSON WHO ENGAGES WITH A POLICE OFFICER AND YES THIS DOES HAPPEN IN OUR STATE.
THE WAY I KNOW THIS IS
BECAUSE AT MNCASA WE
WORK WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT ADVOCACY PROGRAMS AROUND THE STATE AND I HEAR THIS
AND I HEAR THIS OFTEN.
WE OFTEN KNOW THE VICTIMS TO REPORT. BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE SOME FORM
OF RETALIATION
HARASSMENT OR SOMETHING MIGHT ACCOMPANY IT.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THESE CASES VERY
OFTEN. BUT I EMAILED A GROUP
OF MEMBERS MANY OF THEM SAID THIS A VERY FAMILIAR
CIRCUMSTANCE. I WANT TO REALLY POINT OUT
AND ASSERT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM
FOR ALL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD THAT WE KNOW THIS IS AN EXCEPTION BUT WE BELIEVE
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE COVERED IN
THE LAW. SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT ARE RECEIVED FROM OUR MEMBER PROGRAMS
INCLUDED INCIDENCES THAT HAPPENED DURING
TRAFFICKING STOPS AND THERE'S BEEN ADDITIONAL HARASSMENT THAT'S ACCOMPANIED THAT IN RARE INSTANCES WHEN A REPORT HAS BEEN MADE BY ABOUT A FELLOW
OFFICER'S ACTIONS. SOMETIMES ACTIVITIES HAVE OCCURRED IN
THE JAIL WHICH
MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE DEPENDING ON THE
[INAUDIBLE] CORRECTIONS OFFICERS IT COULD BE IN THE
INTAKE PROCESS
WHERE PEOPLE HAVE RUN INTO CONCERNS AND A KEY AREA WHERE IT HAPPENS QUITE A BIT IS AN INSTANCES
WHERE PERSON STOPPED FOR A
PROSTITUTION AND THEY
ARE HAVE SEXUAL FAVOR IS DEMENTED AND
IN EXCHANGE FOR HAVING THE CHARGES NOT FOLLOWED UP ON.
I'M PARTICULARL
Y CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ONE BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE DONE A LOT OF GOOD WORK IN OUR STATE RECOGNIZING ISSUES AROUND PROSTITUTION IN PROVIDING SERVICES AND SUPPORT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
IN PROSTITUTION AND THAT SEEMS TO
BE CONTINUING BY SECONDS A GROUP OF
PEOPLE THAT A TOOL BEING USED AGAINST THEM. SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING
THIS CHANGE IN
THE LAW AND WE THINK IT'S
VERY APPROPRIATE AND DEFINITELY HAPPENS AND APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT.
PETER JOHNSON THANK YOU. I BELIE
VE REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN HAS A AMENDMENT FOR THIS AS WELL. >>
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR I WOULD MOVE THE A-
ONE AMENDMENT.. WHAT THIS DOES I THINK I'VE
TALKED TOREPRESENTATIVE FENTON
ABOUT THIS; I BELIEVE I
PROBABLY READ THE
SAME ARTICLE THAT YOU
REFERENCED INITIALLY AND ALS
O HAD CONSTITUENTS REACH OUT TO ME AND
OTHER PEOPLE. SO MANY OF YOU KNOW I WORK IN A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE FIELD
SO I HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ME
WHO ARE SHARED CONCERNS ABOUT
MINNESOTA BEING ONE OF THE STATE WHERE THIS IS
NOT TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL
AND THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY
I HAD A FRIEND WHO WORKS IN
CRIMINAL APPEALS AND A FRIEND
WHO WORKS IN SEXUAL VIOLENCE
ADVOCACY REACH OUT TO ME TO
RELAY SITUATIONS WITH A PERSON
NOT HAVE TECHNICALLY BEEN IN
CUSTODY BUT STILL
DIDN'T FEEL THEY
COULD LEAVE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN OFFICER
IN UNIFORM CARRYING A
GUN AND SO THIS
IS JUST CHANGES THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE SURE WERE ACTUALLY CLOSING THE LOOPHOLE WE THINK THAT WE
ARE CLOSING BECAUSE THE TERM
IN CUSTODY; IS
RELATIVELY NARROW UNDER THE LAW
AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE
ANY QUESTIONS IF OTHER MEMBERS
HAVE THEM. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: ANY
QUESTIONS MEMBERS?
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON >>
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: I JUST WANT TO VERIFY
ONE THING IF THAT'S OKAY. PERHAPS HAVE
OUR NONPARTISAN
RESEARCH DISCUSSED. I THINK THIS A
FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT BUT CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE RESTRAINT IN
THIS AMENDMENT? >> CHAIR JOHNSON: MR. DIBBLE
>> STAFF: MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS; CONSTRUCTIVE RESTRAINT
IS WHEN THE OFFICER IS USING
HIS AUTHORITY AND POSITION
OF POWER TO EFFECTIVELY RESTRAIN
THE PERSON
. IT IS IN CONTRAST TO BEING
PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED WHICH WE
WOULD ENVISION IN BACK OF A SQUAD CAR OR HANDCUFFED
SUMMARY WHERE
CLEAR PHYSICAL INCAPACITATION OR LIMITATION ON THE PERSON'S ABILITY
TO LEAVE IT'S AKIN TO THE LAST CLAUSE OF
THE AMENDMENT
STATES THAT THE PERSON THAT
I FEEL ABLE TO LEAVE. IT WOULD BE RELATED TO
THAT ANALYSIS AND WOULD BE
IN A SITUATION MY SITUATION ANALYSIS BASED ON THE
OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE
TO BELIEVE WERE THEY ALLOWED
TO LEAVE IN THE PRESENCE OF A
POLICE OFFICER.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON:
THANK YOU. >>
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR THIS IS DEFINITELY A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND WHEN SHE AND I
DISCUSSED THIS WE BOTH SAID WE WANT TO
DO THIS
RIGHT AND WE WANT TO DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST
TIME. SO I ASK THAT MEMBERS VOTE YES ON
THE AMENDMENT. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON
THE AMENDMENT?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.]
OPPOSED; NAY.
THE AMENDMENT IS ADDED
>> [GAVEL] >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE >>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: I WILL SUPPORT THE BILL BUT I
LOOKED IN LOCKUP INSTITUTIONS FOR 20 YEARS.
HAD TRAINING VIRTUALLY EVERY YEAR AND
WAS ALWAYS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT
HAVING SEX WITH
AN INMATE; HAVING SEX WITH SOMEBODY
IN CUSTODY
WAS ILLEGAL. THERE WOULD BE NOTHING THAT WOULD
GET YOU THAT ONLY FIRED; BUT
HAULED IN FRONT OF A
JUDGE FASTER TO HAVE SEX
WITH SOMEBODY THAT WAS IN
YOUR CHARGE. THEY WERE CONSIDERED VULNERABLE AT THAT POINT
AND YOU ARE IN A POSITION
OF AUTHORITY I AM GUESSING THAT
REPRESENTATIVE
GROSSELL REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON; FORMER
LAW-ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE
HERE WILL TELL YOU
SOMETHING THAT WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT
HAVING SEX
THAT SOMEONE YOU HAD POWER OVER IS AGAINST
THE LAW. I SAW THE THING ON FACEBOOK I'VE A NUMBER OF MY CONSTITUENTS
EMAIL ME AND SAY; WE TAKE
THIS UP ABSOLUTELY IT IS AGAINST THE LAW IN MINNESOTA TO HAVE SEX
WITH SOMEBODY THAT YOU HAVE
POWER OVER.
AGAIN; I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT COULD IF IT MAKES IT A LITTLE CLEARER I WILL SUPPORT IT
BUT I DON'T WANT
PEOPLE THINKING THAT IT'S RAMPANT IN MINNESOTA BECAUSE
I
T'S NOT. LIKE I SAID; EVERY TRAINING I EVER WENT TO FOR 20
SOMETHING YEARS THEY MADE IT
CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT IF
YOU TOUCH
SOMEBODY INAPPROPRIATELY YOU ARE GOING TO
BE FIRED AND HAULED IN FRONT OF
A JUDGE AND PROSECUTED FOR IT. I CAN
NEVER STOPPING A
FEMALE INMATE THAT CALLED ME HONEY
AND SAID; NO; YOU DON'T GET TO
DO THAT. IT JUST SORT OF IRRITATES
ME THAT IT SOMEBODY WOULD THINK THAT WAS TRUE
IN MINNESOTA. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON >>
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR. IN STATE LAW IT IS ILLEGAL FOR
CORRECTION OFFICERS
HAVE SEX WITH AN INM
ATE COULD UNFORTUNATE; THE PEACE OFFICER IS NOT PART OF
THAT LAW AND THAT IS WHAT I'M DOING HERE. I
WENT TO-I ASKED ALL OF
MY FRIENDS-BECAUSE I'M A HUGE SUPPORTER OF OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
AND A FEW OF THEM
WERE ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED TO FIND OUT WHEN THEY WENT BACK
AND LOOKED THEY SAID YOU
ARE RIGHT. CORRECTION OFFICERS ARE
-IT IS AGAINST THE LAW IN THE STATE FOR
CORRECTION OFFICERS BUT NOT FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND THIS IS WHAT THAT DOES.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS?
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON
THIS BILL? THEN I WILL
BE REFER HOUSE FILE
3371 TO THE GENERAL REGISTER
AS AMENDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED; NAY.
>> [GAVEL] >> CHAIR JOHNSON: THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL..
MEMBERS; REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL MOVES
TO REFER HOUSE FILE 2934 TO
CIVIL LAW.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR I MOVED TO HAVE IT REFERRED TO CIVIL LAW FROM HERE; PLEASE. THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON: STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN. >> RE
PRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS SHOULD REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL AND
THIS BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY WAS
A BILL
THAT FOR STATE ADJUDICATION TO BE
MADE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE WHO ARE
ASKING FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS DONE ON BUS DRIVERS
SO THE STATES OF ADJUDICATION WILL BE
MADE AVAILABLE AS A FOR
ANY DISQUALIFYING CHARGES. THEY
ARE ALREADY ON THE FILE
THAT ANYTHING THAT THEY BEEN
CONVICTED OF AS FAR AS
A DISQUALIFYING CHARGE FOR A
CONVICTION THAT IT WILL
COME OUT IN THE
BACKGROUND CHECK BUT AT THIS POINT;
RIGHT NOW; STAYS OF ADJUDICATION OR NOT.
THIS BILL IS TO ALLOW THE BCA
TO ALSO INFORM THOSE WHO ARE DOING
BACKGROUND
CHECKS FOR BUS DRIVERS
LICENSES THAT IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PERSON HAS
A STATE OF ADJUDICATION FOR A
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSE SO THEY CAN MAKE A CLEAR INFORMED
DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO HIRE
THIS PERSON. I'M GOING TO START OUT WITH JUST A SHORT
AUDIO CLIP IF I MAY
MR. CHAIR? >> CHAIR JOHNSON: GO AHEAD.
>> [VIDEO]
MEDICARE 11 INVESTIGATION DISCOVERED THAT MY BE MISPLACED TRUST.
HE WAS THAT MAKES ME VERY
NERVOUS 52-YEAR-OLD GLENN DAVID JOHNSON WASN'T TO LAST WEEK A SCHOOL
BUS DRIVER. TRANSPORTING KIDS TO AND FROM LANE-
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE AND
JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY. HE WAS ARRESTED ACCUSED OF TOUCHING
TEEN GIRLS CARE 11 HAS LEARNED IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME.
NO QUESTION THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONCERNING PATTERN
OF CONDUCT GOING BACK NOW ABOUT 20
YEARS. [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE ANOKA
COUNTY
OFFICE PROSECUTED GLENN JOHNSON IN 19
I COULD DO THEM 32-YEAR-OLD ADMITTED HE RUBBED IN UNDERAGE GIRLS
PRIVATES. YOUNG SAYS BECAUSE OF COMPLICATED CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE VICTIM A CONVICTION WAS NO
SURE THING. THIS WAS A VERY
DIFFICULT CASE. JOHNSON PLED GUILTY AND RECEIVED A STAY OF
ADJUDICATION SHOULD WHICH MEANS HE WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION FOR TWO YEARS BUT
AFTER THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CONVICTION ON
HIS RECORD. WE DO NOT REACH THE
PERFECT RESULT BUT THE RISK OF
AN ACQUITTAL
WITH A NEED TO AFTER OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL WAS
VERY REAL. THAT STATE OF ADJUDICATION JOHNSON RECEIVED IS NOW TECHNICALLY A CONVICTION.
IN MINNESOTA ONLY DISQUALIFIES BUS DRIVERS WHO
HAVE CONVICTIONS. SO A M
AN WHO ADMITTED TO SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A YOUNG GIRL IS LEGALLY ALLOWED
TO DRIVE THEM TO SCHOOL.
THEY ADMITTED THEIR GUILTY
THEY STILL
THAT SHOULD BE A LOT OF IT CAN BE ANYWHERE NEAR A CHILD
FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE BUS COMPANY TELL US THEY WERE UNAWARE OF JOHNSON'S HISTORY. THAT'S
NOT SURPRISING CARE 11 HAS BEEN REPORTED HOUSE STAYS OF ADJUDICATION RESULTED IN SECRET SEX OFFENDERS IN MINNESOTA
THEIR CRIMES LARGELY CONFIDENTIAL BY THE COURT
SYSTEM. SOMETIMES WITH
TRAGIC RESULTS. IN RESPONSE THE BILL
THAT COMPLETE BANDS STAYS OF ADJUDICATION HAS
BEEN INTRODUCED AS A MORE MODERATE MEASURES THAT WOULD
INCREASE TRANSPARENCY. WHILE
LAWMAKERS DEBATE WHAT IS
THE BEST FIX PARENTS ARE LEFT TO WONDER
JUST WHO IS DRIVING
THEIR KIDS. THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR
A CHILD ON DRIVING A BUS OR
ANYTHING THAT GLENN JOHNSON IS NOT BE CONVICTED OF HIS LATEST CHARGES OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT--
>>
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: MR. CHAIR THAT IS THE
CASE THAT BROUGHT THIS TO MY ATTENTION
AND TO THE REST OF US HERE
I IMAGINE
AS WELL. IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE BUS DRIVER HAD
RECEIVED A STAY OF
ADJUDICATION FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL
CONDUCT ACT WITH A MINOR OF THE SAME
AGE GROUP WITH A FEMALE
AS WELL AND YEARS LATER CAME BACK AS A
BUS DRIVER AND DID THE SAME
THING. SAME AGE GROUP. A
FEMALE STUDENTSAND HE WAS ACCUSED OF
TOUCHING THEM OR WHATEVER
THE CHARGE; THE COMPLETE CHARGE WAS
SO; THIS IS SOMETHING I WANT TO
AID SCHOOLS TO PROTECT THE
CHILDREN BETTER. SO THIS WILL
TAKE THE
STAY OF ADJUDICATION PORTION AND MAKE IT
DISCOVERABLE DURING THE
BACKGROUND CHECKS SO AGAIN; LIKE I SAID; THE SCHOOL
CAN MAKE A GOOD
INFORMED DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS PERSON SHOULD BE TRANSPORTING CHILDREN.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON: FIRST TESTIFIER WE HAVE IS CAROLYN PALMER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN.
>> TESTIFIER:
MR. CHAIR MY NAME IS CAROLYN
PALMER PUBLIC LEGAL AFFAIRS
OF MINNESOTA COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL A
SUBJECT ONLY THANK YOU
FOR HEARING SO MANY SEXUAL ASSAULT
CONVERSATIONS. IS VERY GOOD WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AT THE LEGISLATURE I WANT TO
THANK REPRESENTATIVE
GROSSELL FOR HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH A GOOD; GIVE A
LITTLE BACK THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION
CONVERSATION DID START
LAST SESSION [INAUDIBLE] WE SEE THIS IS A STRUCT TO BE
BALANCED TO BE STUCK WITH STAYS OF ADJUDICATION MANY TIMES THEY ARE A LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY PROSECUTORS NEED
THE VICTIM IS TOO
YOUNG TO TESTIFY MAY BE INCAPACITATED SUFFERING FROM EXTREME TRAUMA BUT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO WANT THE SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO HOLD OFFENDERS
ACCOUNTABLE WHENEVER THEY CAN. SO WE APPRECIATE HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY PROBABLY SOME OF THE MOST COMPLICATED CASES
TO SOMETIMES PROSECUTE. SO WE SEE THE BALANCE THAT HAS TO BE
STRUCK HERE WITH ALL THESE
VARIOUS RULES. REALLY WANT TO
THANK REPRESENTATIVE
GROSSELL FOR TAKE A LOT OF TIME OVER THE
PAST YEAR
TO SPEAK WITH SO MANY STAKEHOLDERS AND
I THINK WE HAVE ALL COME TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE EVERYBODY IS
COMING FROM
TO WORK TOGETHER IN WAYS THAT I THINK WILL
BENEFIT VICTIMS. ONE THING WE DID AGREE ON FOR EXAMPLE IS THAT
INFORMATION ABOUT STAYS OF ADJUDICATION AS CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IS IMPORTANT FOR EMPLOYEES. SO THEY KNOW
THE BACKGROUND WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE ACCESS TO CHILDREN OR
VULNERABLE ADULTS OTHER FOLKS. WE
DEFINITELY THINK GREATER DATA ACCESS IN THIS INSTANCE IS VERY MUCH WANTED
. THE OTHER THING IS I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE STAYS OF ADJUDICATION WITH REGARD TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT AT THE
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSE. FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
. WE CERTAINLY HEARD MANY CASES OVER THE YEARS FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
HAVE ACTED TOWARDS CHILDREN IN WAYS THAT ARE DEFINITELY VERY CONCERNING AND
CERTAINLY ILLEGAL. SO WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE THAT THIS MEASURE IS IN PLACE
;; TOO. AGAIN NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF DRIVERS
BUT AGAIN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
THE EXCEPTIONS ARE OUR CHILDREN ARE IN HARM'S WAY. AGAIN AM
I THINK
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL FOR TAKE THE LEAD
ON THIS AND IT'S IMPORTANT WORK AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
NO QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS. NEXT
TESTIFIER IS CARMEN QUINNEY.
>> TESTIFIER: CHAIR AND COMMITTEE WE HAVE TO TESTIFIERS WHEN THE MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS.
MY NAME IS
RYAN ELF I'M WITH THE MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYERS AND I'M ALSO AN ATTORNEY WITH
THE FIRM THAT REPRESENTED
MR. JOHNSON FEATURED IN A CLIP AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH A VETERANS
DEFENSE PROJECT. THERE ARE SOME VERY SEVERE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES I FEAR IN
THIS BILL. STAY
S OF ADJUDICATION ARE VERY SPECIAL TOOL WITHIN THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT
IS USED IN MY LINE OF WORK MOST IMPORTANTLY
AND
SPECIALTY COURTS SUCH AS VETERANS COURTS AND MENTAL
HEALTH COURTS. WERE
DRUG COURTS. THE POINT IS TO ALLOW
THE PERSON TO GO
THROUGH WHATEVER TREATMENT THE COURT DEEMS IS NECESSARY
WITH AN AGREEMENT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COME OUT THE BACK SIDE OF
THAT TREATMENT WITHOUT
A CONVICTION. FOR OUR VETERANS THAT GO INTO VETERANS COURT
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT
INCENTIVE TO GET THEM TO DO THE VERY
DIFFICULT TREATMENT THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS
THEIR POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR ANY OTHER SERVICE
RELATED DISORDER MAY HAVE LED TO
A CRIME.
IF YOU TAKE THIS TOOL AWAY AND THOSE PEOPLE
MAY NOT BE CONVICTED WITH A WILL
STILL HAVE A BCA RECORD THAT REFLECTS
THE CRIME IT WILL VERY MUCH LIMIT
THAT TOOL AND HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS FOR THEM.
THE JOHNSON CASE IS REALLY
UNFORTUNATE I
DO NOT REPRESENT HIM WHEN HE RECEIVED THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION BUT OUR FIRM
REPRESENTED HIM ON THE MOST
RECENT CASE I AM A FATHER I'M
TROUBLED BY THE
FACT THAT SOMEBODY CAN BE DRIVING
MY CHILDREN AROUND WITH THAT
RECORD BUT I THINK THERE ARE
MUCH MORE NARROWLY TAILORED WAYS OF APPROACHING THIS THAT
APPROACH CRIMINAL SEXUAL
ASSAULT CASES WILL NOT ELIMINATE THIS TOOL THROUGHOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
THAT'S MY LAST POINT IS THAT
THIS PROBLEM IS LIMITED TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT CASES. I DO NOT SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE GETTING REALLY UPSET SOMEBODY RECEIVED A STAY
OF ADJUDICATION ON A DWI
FOR EXAMPLE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A TOOL THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS
WHERE SOMEBODY CAN AVOID A CONVICTION AND EARN THE WAY OUT OF THAT CONVICTION
AND THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING TOOL WE HAVE
FOR THAT. SO I WOULD JUST
LIKE THAT TO BE CONSIDERED AS YOU CONSIDER THIS BILL. IF THERE'S
ANY QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE? >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO
>>
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: THIS MAY BE A LITTLE MORE FOR REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL BUT A KIND OF RELATE SERVICE GOOD TRANSPARENCY AND THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME AND I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN SO FOCUSED ON
THE ISSUE AND THANK YOU
FOR THAT ABOUT
FOLKS WHO THEIR ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AND SAY OF ADJUDICATION I GUESS AS I LOOK AT THIS DOES ENCOMPASS A REALLY
WIDE VARIETY OF OFFENSES.
I'M WONDERING
IF THAT WOULD INCLUDE FOR EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE HE HAS A TRACE AMOUNT
OF DRUGS SO THEY GET A GROSS
MISDEMEANOR SENTENCE AND
HAD UP GETTING A STAY
OF ADJUDICATION IT CERTAINLY A CONCERNING CAN SITUATION. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW; YOU INTENDING TO
COVER SO MANY OTHER INFERENCES
AN ADDITIONAL TO THE
SEXUAL OFFENSE OR MIGHT YOU BE INTERESTED IN KIND OF FOLK
FOCUSING IN ON THE
SEX OFFENDERS? >>
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR ONE THAT'S
BEEN OFFERED TO WORK WITH ME ON THIS AND APPRECIATE
YOUR INPUT.
THIS BILL - EXCUSE ME - DOES
NOT CHANGE WITH THE STATUTE ALREADY COVERS.
THE LIST OF DISQUALIFYING OFFENSES
IT ENCOMPASSES
HYBRID THAT IS WITH THE LANGUAGE OF IT
IS ALREADY. MINE IS
ONLY ADDING THE STAYS OF ADJUDICATION
PORTION TO IT ON THE
SAME DISQUALIFYING OFFENSES THAT ARE ALREADY COVERED IN
STATUTE. SO IT IS NOT BROADENING IT. IT'S NOT ASKING FOR MORE
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSES. IT IS JUST SAYING THAT THIS PERSON
THAT HAS BEEN
IN COURT AND IF THERE'S A CASE WHERE
THE PROSECUTION CANNOT QUITE
TAKE IT TO TRIAL BECAUSE OF
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES; WITH THE DEFENSE
LOOK AT THE CASE AND SAYS IF I TAKE THIS TRIAL
BY TRY TO FIGHT THIS I COULD VERY WELL BE CONVICTED.
SO TO GET THAT
STATE THERE ADMITTED TO HAVING DONE
THIS ACT TO GET THAT STAY
OF ADJUDICATION. SO; FOR ME TO SAY THAT SOMEONE
WHO IS NOT
A FIRST-DEGREE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
CHARGE OR EVEN A TRACE AMOUNT THERE
ARE SOME
DRUG OFFENSES ALREADY COVERED UNDER THE STATUTE THA
T SAY; NO; THEY SHOULD BE DRIVING
A BUS. I
AM NOT BROADENING IT. I'M JUST ADDINGTHESE CASES
IN THERE. AND; LIKE I SAID; IT
GIVES THE SCHOOL OR WHOEVER THE
BUS AUTHORITY THE INFORMATION TO MAKE
A DECISION ON WHETHER THEY SHOULD PROCEED OR NOT.
THE STILL ALLOWS THEM TO; IF THIS
PERSON IS IN A SITUATION
THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER TO HIRE THEM
OR NOT. BUT
IT IS-IT STILL GOES BY THE
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSES THAT ARE ALREADY IN STATUTE.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR
.. I WANT TO CLARIFY WAS STAFF THAT LAST POINT BECAUSE THE WAY I READ THIS IS TO IF
THEY HAVE A STAY OF ADJUDICATION FOR THIS
GROSS MISDEMEANOR DRUG OFFENSE OR WHATEVER IT IS BUT MAYBE A
MISREADING THAT. BUT THE SCHOO
L DISTRICT DOESN'T GET THAT OPTION TO SAY; THIS PERSON IS
A GOOD BUS DRIVER. WE'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THEM ETC. BUT
JUST MAYBE WE COULD GET CLARIFICATION
FROM STAFF IF IT
IS AUTOMATIC VERSUS THE SCHOOL
GETS DISCUSSION.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: AGAIN IS
NOT BROADENING WERE TAKING AWAY FROM STATUE. IT
JUST ADDING THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION AND APPEARED
I MAY HAVE MISSED A BOOK
ON THE. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: GO AHEAD.
>> STAFF: MY REAL CONCERN IS NOT
TO THE TEXT SPECIFICALLY THE
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSES. IT IS
THE LANGUAGE ON UNDERLINE ON
PAGE 4; LINE 4.3 AND 4.4. THIS
WOULD CAUSE AL
L STAYS OF ADJUDICATION TO BE REPORTED TO
THE BCA. IN A WAY THEY ARE
NOT CURRENTLY.
THAT WOULD OUTSIDE OF JUST A BUS
DRIVING HOME THAT WOULD PUT ALL OF US
INTO THE BCA
RECORD THAT I FEAR COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE POINT OF THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION.
THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME. AS
FAR AS WHAT IS A
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSE; THAT'S MORE OF THE
CONCERN OF BUS
DRIVER UNIONS AND PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF
MY LANE BUT THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT
CONCERNS ME.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON: MR. DIED
>> STAFF: MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS; TO THE
SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED; YES;
THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION FOR
DISQUALIFYING OFFENSE WOULD BE
AN AUTOMATIC
-"WENT OF A CONVICTION AND THEREFORE DISQUALIFY THE PERSON
FROM SERVING AS A
BUS DRIVER. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO >> REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: I GUESS MY
CONCERN REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL WE HEARD
FROM PROSECUTORS
THAT SOMETIMES THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE STATE OF
ADJUDICATION A
S YOU DESCRIBED; SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT QUITE ENOUGH WHATEVER IT IS AND
I THINK YOU REALLY ARGUED WELL THAT REGARDING
SEX OFFENSES THAT MAY BE
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT PERHA
PS WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT ONE OF THOSE DRUG OFFENSES WHO RIGHT NOW COULD BE RESOLVED
AS [INAUDIBLE] IF THAT PERSON IS A
BUS DRIVER THEY ARE GOING TO SAY I'M NOT
GOING TO AGREE TO THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION NOW BECAUSE IF I DO I'M GOING TO LOSE MY JOB
ANY NOW SO I MIGHT AS
WELL TAKE IT TO THE TRIAL AND MAYBE THE PROSECUTOR HAS TO DISMISS THE CASE. IF YOU LIKE THE ARGUMENT IS
BE MADE SOME TIMES THERE'S FLEXIBILITY
NEEDED. WE NEED TO BALANCE OUT AS BECAUSE AS YOU POINTED OUT THAT CAN BE A PROBLEM IN SOME OFFENSES. I'M JUST WONDERING IF-I RECOGNIZE YOUR
BROADENING [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THAT MAY
HAVE SOME UNDETERMINED
CONSEQUENT IS. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM BOTH. I JUST WONDER WITH THIS BILL IN MY MAKE SENSE TO FOCUS ON SEX OFFENSES CONTINUE TO BE I
F YOU'RE CONDUCTED IN ONE OF THESE OTHER THINGS WERE
DISQUALIFIED BUT ARE WE HITTING A BIGGER TARGET THAT WE NEED
TO GIVEN
THE PARTICULAR CONCERNS YOU RAISE. I'M JUST RAISING THIS IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO WORK
WITH YOU. >> REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL:
I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT
AS WELL. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: GO AHEAD
>> TESTIFIER: I STILL HAVE
ONE OTHER B
E VIVID WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON HOW THIS AFFECTS
CAUTION SPECIFICALLY. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: OKAY.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE DO YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED.
BECAUSE OUR GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. MY NAME
IS CARMENEQUITY ATTORNEY
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA'S
LEGAL SERVICE AS WELL AS A MEMBER
OF [INAUDIBLE] AND I HAVE TO SAY IT'S LIKE
TO SEE SOME OF MY FORMER COLLEAGUES ON
THIS COMMITTEE IN MY REPRESENTATIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
BE HEARD. I SHARE SOME
OF REPRESENTATIVE PINTO'S CONCERN ABOUT HOW BROAD THE BILL
CURRENTLY IS. I ALSO
WAS SURPRISED WHEN I HEARD
ABOUT THIS. WE DO WANT
SEX OFFENDERS DRIVING
SCHOOL BUSES. MY ISSUE IS
NOT WITH THE BULK OF THE BILL. IT'S REALLY IN SECTIONS WHEN LOOKING AT
HOUSE RESEARCH THE BILL SUMMARY SECTION 4 AND FIVE ARE MY CONCERN.I WOULD LIKE TO TELL
YOU ABOUT MY UNIQUE
CLIENT SACKED. I'M ATTORNEY FOR
UNIVERSITY MINNESOTA.
WE WILL OFFER ON CAMPUS IT JUST
FOR STUDENTS DON'T WORRY NO GENERAL FUND MONEY GOES TO US BUT WE ARE PAID BY THE STUDENT SERVICE FEE. SO WE ARE LIKE A PRE-K
LEGAL SERVICE.
A FULL-SERVICE LAW FIRM AT THE U. STUDENTS GET US FOR FREE IF THEY PAY THAT FEE. MY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND I DO
CRIMINAL DEFENSE; ALL MISDEMEANORS-AN
EXPUNGEMENT WORK. SO WHAT
I SEE IS DUMB COLLEGE KIDS COME 18 YEARS OLD MAKING
STUPID MISTAKES AND SOMETIMES DOING BAD THINGS BUT MOSTLY JUST DOING DUMB STUFF AND A LOT OF
THEM GET STAYS
OF ADJUDICATION. EVERY CLIENT THAT COMES INTO
MY OFFICE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I
ASKED HIM
ASIDE FROM TELLING ME ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU DO AND ALL THE GREAT THINGS IS
WHAT YOUR BIGGEST CONCERN AND THEY
ALWAYS
SAYTHEIR RECORD. THAT IS WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT BECAUSE
THEY KNOW IN THIS DAY AND AGE
THEIR RECORD NUMBER WE KNOW
ALL COMPANIES ARE DOING BACKGROUND
CHECKS NOW.
THINGS ARE SO COMPETITIVE AND THESE KIDS I HAVE TO TELL YOU ALL THERE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN ME. THEY ARE THE BEST AND ABOUT BRIGHTEST AND I WANT THEM TO HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY
WHENEVER THEY ARE APPLYING FOR JOBS. SO LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT ONE CASE IN PARTICULAR. I HAD A STUDENT
FULL-TIME STUDENT WAS
WORKS AT PIZZA NEAR CAMPUS.
STADIUM BILLETED
I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR MEMBER HUNTS PIZZA USED TO DO THAT
ONE DAY THEY EITHER GIVE OUT FREE PIZZA OR BUY ONE GET ONE FREE SOMETHING
LIKE THAT. IT WAS THEIR BIG DAY.
SOMEBODY CALLED IN SICK TO WORK IN THE MANAGER CALLED MY STUDENT AND SAID CAN YOU COME INTO WORK TODAY AND HE SAID OKAY I WILL COME IN. THE LINE WAS
WRAPPED AROUND OUT ONTO
WASHINGTON AVENUE COULD IT TOOK AN HOUR TO GET TO
A GIRL CAME THROUGH A LINE AND ORDERED A BEER. MY CLIENT CHECKED HER ID
CHECK WELL ENOUGH YOU SOLD HER A BEER. SHE WAS UNDER 21. ACTUALLY;
WHAT HAPPENED THERE WAS A STING OPERATION THE CITY IN MINNEAPOLIS DECIDED TO DO
ON THEIR BUSIEST DAY WHICH I
HAD TO [INAUDIBLE] BUT WE LET THAT
ONE GO. HE WAS CHARGED WITH A
GROSS MISDEMEANOR
FOR DISTRIBUTING ALCOHOL TO THE MIND OBVIOUSLY A GROSS MISDEMEANOR ON HIS RECORD IS DEVASTATING..
THE STATE OFFERED HIM A STAY OF ADJUDICATION UP BECAUSE THEY CAN APPROVE THE CASE. THEY COULD PROVE IT
BECAUSE THE SKIT HAD
NO RECORD AND WE WANT TO HAVE
EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HAVE THIS ON HIS RECORD EVENTUALLY GET
AN EXPUNGEMENT
TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT HE PLED GUILTY AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE HE HAS HAD NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. MY CONCERN
IS THAT
CASE; IF THIS BILL WERE TO GO FORWARD AS IT'S WRITTEN WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO
THE BCA THAT RECORD WOULD BE THERE WHEN MY CLIENT
IS TRYING TO OBTAIN INTERNSHIPS AND JOBS
UNLESS AND UNTIL HE COULD GET
AN EXPUNGEMENT. SO AGAIN MY CONCERN IS THE
OVERBREADTH OF THE BILL AS IT'S CURRENTLY RENTED I AGREE
WITH REPRESENTATIVE PINTO WE COULD TAILOR THIS
TO INVOLVE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. SOMETHING
LIKE THAT. BUT IF I THINK ABOUT
MY CLIENTS WERE POSSESSING FAKE IDS
THAT'S A BIG THING ON CAMPUS RIGHT NOW WERE DOING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THAT-THEY GET STAYS OF ADJUDICATION AS WELL. UNDERAGE DRINKING YOU GET STAYS OF ADJUDICATION ON THAT.
THIS IS OUR FUTURE WORKFORCE AND I DO WANT TO SEE THEM SADDLED WITH
A RECORD THAT IS GOING TO
PREVENT THEM
FROM BEING THE BEST PEOPLE THEY COULD BE IN THE PEOPLE WE
FRANKLY NEED
IN OUR STATE. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
I WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE DETTMER >>
REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR THE ISSUES I THINK ARE ALL VALID.
MY CONCERN IS
REPORTING OF ALL STAGE OF THE DUPLICATION TO
THE BCA AND WHEN I LOOK AT
THE DISQUALIFYINGOFFENSES
IT SEEMS THERE EITHER RELATED TO SEXUAL CONDUCT OF SOME NATURE; CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OR THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL AS DRUG CRIMES. IT
INCLUDES MISDEMEANOR GROSS MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY
DRUG CRIMES. SO IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO TAILOR THIS
TO EXCLUDE MISDEMEANOR OR GROSS MISDEMEANOR ON THE
DRUG CRIMES I THINK WOULD BE MORE MEANINGFUL
AMENABLE TO ME BECAUSE AS THE
SAME WAY THE KID
IS YOUNG. GETS A TRACE AMOUNT OR
POSSESSION CHARGE AND 5-10 YEARS LATER
HAS PRETTY MUCH MOVED ON WITH
HER LIFE THAT THIS MIGHT STILL
FOLLOW THEM EVEN WITH A STAY
OF ADJUDICATION. SO IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN CONSIDER
MOVING FORWARD
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL I'M SORELY HAPPY TO
SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT. BUT
I MEAN; IT'S A VERY SMALL POPULATION WERE TALKED
ABOUT THAT SCHOOL
BUS DRIVERS. I THINK WHEN WE THINK OF
THE NUMBERS
OF CASES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED I
THINK THERE PROBABLY COULD BE A VERY
SMALL NUMBER BUT I'M CONCERNED; TO
COME ABOUT
4.3 AND 4.4 REQUIRES ALL STAYS
OF ADJUDICATION TO BE REPORTED TO
THE BCA. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS YOUR INTENT
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL
>> REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: IF I CAN REFER TO RESEARCH IF I MAY. IN REFERENCE TO THIS CASE;
IF I'M READING
THIS CORRECTLY; IT IS FOR THE PERIOD OF THE
STAY THAT THEY WOULD
BE DISQUALIFIED. IT
IS PERMANENT.. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. THAT'S A CONVERSATION I'M WILLING
TO HAVE.FOR ME; TO PROTECT OUR
KIDS FROM A MULTITUDE OF THINGS AND ONE OF THEM PRIMARILY BEING
THE VIDEO THAT I SHOWED OF A
PREDATORY OFFENDER A
SEXUAL PREDATOR DRIVING THE SCHOOL BUSES; THAT'S THE INTENT OF MY BILL. THAT'S THE INTENT OF WHAT I WANT TO PROTECT THEM FROM
BUT LIKE I SAID; IT
DOES NOT-I SEE THE POINT YOU
ARE MAKING AND I KNOW
THERE'S CONVERSATIONS THAT CAN BE HAD
AS WELL. BUT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO COVER
THE DISQUALIFYING FACTORS THAT DO KEEP THEM FROM
DRIVING BUS
FOR THOSE ARE THINGS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
AS WELL. IF SOMEONE IS A AND IS
IN VIOLATION OF ANY
OF THESE IS TO METERS OR
GROSS MISDEMEANORS THERE SHOULD BE A TIME OF
NOT BEING ELIGIBLE TO DRIVE A
SCHOOL BUS I BELIEVE
THAT IS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET THEIR LIVES IN
ORDER. SO I SEE THE ARGUMENT THAT ARE BEING
PUT FORWARD
AND I'M WILLING TO HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
MR. DIEBEL YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
>> TESTIFIER: I WOULD JUST
POINT OUT THE
SCHOOL BUS DRIVER IN THE CARE
11 PIECE; IS ONLY DISQUALIFIED
FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A STAY WAS
IN PLACE WAS STILL OF AN ELIGIBLE
FOR THE DRIVE BUS
IN 2017. SO THAT'S THE INTENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO BE
MAJOR REFORM TO
THE PROPOSAL. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE WARD>>
REPRESENTATIVE WARD: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR WE OFTEN TALK IN OUR
COMMITTEE HEARINGS SOMETIMES ON THE FLOOR
ABOUT USING AN AX OR HATCHET WHERE WE NEED A SCALPEL. THIS
STRIKES ME AS ONE OF
THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO USE THE SCALPEL AND FOCUS
MORE INTENTLY
ON WHAT THE TARGET REALLY IS AND NOT CAUSE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. TWO
PEOPLE WHO; AS THE TESTIFIERS
HAVE SAID; IN THEIR USE
AND EXPERIENCE;;
IMMATURE BRAIN; DO SOME STUPID STUFF AND THEN
THEY MATURE AND WE WANT AND NEED
THESE PEOPLE TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES WITH
A HANDICAP OF SOMETHING HANGING OVER THEIR HEADS LIKE THAT. SO I
WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE COULD
LOOK AT AMENDING US; FIXING IT AND
CHANGING IT TO USE THAT
SCALPEL INSTEAD.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL >>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL I CALLED YOU. SORRY. [LAUGHING].
>>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR YESTERDAY OR DAY BEFORE IN CIVIL LAW WE HEARD A NEW BILL ABOUT LIFT AND
UBER AND TRANSPORTING PEOPLE TALK ABOUT BACK ON
CHUCK'S EXTENSIVELY AND WE TALKED
ABOUT
MINNEAPOLIS ORDINANCES AND BACKGROUND CHECKS AND ALL THAT AND I TO
SAY ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] I WAS WONDERING IF WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT
PARITY BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS
FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
OF VERSUS THE OVER
AND LIFTED NEAPOLIS IN ST. PAUL VERSUS
TAXI DRIVERS. I'M JUST TRYING
TO HELP
BECAUSE WERE OPENING THIS CONVERSATION A COUPLE
DAYS AGO; I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ALREADY REQUIRING IN THE STATE
FOR
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND IF THIS IS MORE
OR LESS OR IF THERE ARE HOLES
OR THAT. I DO WANT TO PUT
NONPARTISAN RESEARCH ON THE SPOT BUT THEY
MAY KNOW SOME OF THAT
OR MAYBE REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL
MIGHT KNOW?
>> CHAIR JOHNSON: MR. DIEBEL
>> STAFF: MR. CHAIR
REPRESENTATIVE
O'NEILL THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE BACK ON SUCH AS IS TO TAILOR
THEM TO THE OCCUPATION IN WHICH THE PERSON IS GOING TO SERVE SO IN THE CASE OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVER THEY START WITH ALL FELONIES
AND THEN THEY GO
TO SPECIFIC GROSS MISDEMEANORS
AND MISDEMEANORS THAT MAY
SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE NOT A RELIABLE PERSON TO DRIVE A BUS. SO SIMILARLY; YOU LOOK AT OTHER BACKGROUND CHECK STATUTES;;
THEY LOOK AT THE CRIMES THAT MAY AFFECT THEIR ABILITY
TO PERFORM
THAT PROFESSION. FRANKLY; I DON'T KNOW FOR
TAXI DRIVERS HAVE A
BACKGROUND CHECK IN THAT
REQUIREMENT BUT THAT'S REALLY A CIVIL LAW ISSUE
AND I BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO THE CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
TO TAKE UP AND DEAL WITH THAT
BACKGROUND CHECK.
THE SUBSTANCE AND WHAT SPECIFICALLY
IS INCLUDED.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON: MEMBERS THIS IS GOING TO CIVIL LAW NEXT.
REPRESENTATIVE UGLEM >> REPRESENTATIVE UGLEM: THAT WAS MY QUESTION. I
THINK PROBABLY WOULD HAVE A CHANCE FOR A AMENDMENT
TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER WE HAVE DISCUSSED ALL THESE THINGS AND
MOVE FORWARD TO CIVIL LAW
AND GET-DO A LITTLE MORE WORK ON
THE BILL. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: MEMBERS;
IF I
T GOES THROUGH CIVIL LAW IF WE NEED TO WE CAN ALWAYS BRING IT
BACK HERE.
REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS >>
REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: THANK YOU; MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS; REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL; I LIKE TO BILL THE WAY IT IS.
I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES AS WE
LAID OUT
DISQUALIFYING CONVICTIONS WITHIN STATUTE FOR
THE ACTIVITY; THE
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. IF YOU ARE CONVICTED
DRUG USER OR A CONVICTED
SEX OFFENDER OR YOU PLED GUILTY TO
THAT IS THEY
OF ADJUDICATION THE ACTUAL
ACTIVITY ISN'T WHAT WE ARE DISPUTING. IT IS WHAT
ATTORNEY YOU GOT AND WHAT
LEGAL REMEDY YOU WERE ABLE
TO FIND ON THE WAY OUT. SO IF AS
A LEGISLATURE WE ARE SAYING
THAT ACTIVITY; BY THAT INDIVIDUAL; IS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE
AROUND CHILDREN THAN WHAT THE HECK IS THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU HAVE A
GOOD LAWYER AND YOU ENDED UP
PUTTING IT DOWN TO A STAY OF
ADJUDICATION OR IF YOU JUST WALK INTO COURT;;
FACIAL CHARGES; AND STRAIGHT UP
PLED GUILTY. THE ACTUAL FENCE;
THE ACTIVITY THAT YOU ARE COPPING TO
IS THE SAME. SO I HAVE A
REAL CHALLENGE TRYING TO PARSE OUT
THAT THIS PERSON SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DRIVE A SCHOOL BUS
BECAUSE THEY WALKED IN AND
PLED GUILTY TO A
PROHIBITIVE CRIME BUT THAT
PERSON SHOULD BECAUSE THEY GOT AN ATTORNEY WORKED OUT
A DEAL EVEN THOUGH
THEY DID THE EXACT
SAME THING. SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH STARTING TO PARSE
THAT OUT. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE
HILSTROM FEELS I NEED
YOUR HELP ON THE SPILLOVER AND THE BILL. I THINK
WE NEED MAKE
CERTAIN WE DISQUALIFY PEOPLE THAT ARE UNSAFE TO DRIVE OUR CHILDREN
;; WHETHER IT IS IN A TAXICAB
OR WHETHER IT'S ON A SCHOOL BUS OR WHETHER IT IS IN SOME
OTHER FORM. WE'VE ALL
SORTS OF DISQUALIFICATIONS IN THE STATUTE
AND A LOT OF TIMES IT IS ABOUT THE
CONDUCT AND
IF SOMEONE HAS ADMITTED THE FACTS ON
THE RECORD THEY ARE CERTAIN OFFENSES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEY ARE INELIGIBLE. THE QUESTION IS;
IS EVERY
SINGLE FELONY RECENT TO BE
DISQUALIFIED FROM DRIVING A SCHOOL BUS. I PROSECUTED
FINANCIAL TRANSACTION CARD FROM SOMEONE TOOK THEIR MOM OR DAD'S
CREDIT CARD AND THEY USED
IT ILLEGALLY AND EIGHT
MOM AND DAD WANT TO TEACH YOUR CHILD A LESSON IN MANY INSTANCES YOU
CHARGE THEM WITH A
FELONY OFFENSE
MOMS AND DADS DON'T USUALLY WHETHER KIDS OF RECORDS
SO THEY COME IN AND SAY;
THEY LEARNED THEIR LESSON BUT I DO WANT THEM TO BE SCARRED WITH A FELONY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE.
SO CAN WE GET A STAY OF ADJUDICATION? IF YOUR PORT EVERY STATE OF ADJUDICATION OF FELONY YOU BE
REPORTING THOSE TWO AND THERE WOULD BE A DISQUALIFYING FROM DRIVING A
SCHOOL PARSE. I APPRECIATE SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE AND I REALLY WANT TO HELP YOU MAKE IT RIGHT BECAUSE I WANTED TO ALSO APPLY TO THEBE OVER AN
D LIFT DRIVERS WERE TO SEE THE BILL IN CIVIL LAW
AS WELL. SO ON BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU BETWEEN NOW AND CIVIL LAW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET
THE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TRYING
TO DO WITHOUT TELLING EVERY SICKLE PERSON WHO'S EVER MADE A MISTAKE THAT FOREVER AND EVER YOU CAN'T
REHABILITATE YOURSELF. I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO
EXCLUDE EVERYONE THAT YOU WANT TO
E
XCLUDE EVERYONE'S THE ONES THAT SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING SCHOOL BUS. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE >> REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE:
THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR I LIKE
THE IDEA THE BILL AND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THE ONE THING
I'VE HEARD THAT'S KIND
OF DISTURBING IS THAT THIS BILL
WOULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED THE
GUY FROM CARE 11. SO
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GET TWEAKED BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO GET THE GUY OFF THE ROAD
. DID I
MISUNDERSTAND THAT/ >> CHAIR JOHNSON: [INAUDIBILE / OFF MIC]>>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: WHAT DID
I MISUNDERSTAND?
>> STAFF: I WAS MAKING THE POINT THAT IF THE PERSON
WAS DISQUALIFIED ONLY
DURING THE STAY OF IT YOU
COMMISSION WHICH IS ONE IDEA THAT
WAS RAISED AND IF
THE PERSON CARE 11 CASE WOULD'VE ALREADY
BEEN RESTORED TO HIS RIGHTS AND
WOULD'VE BEEN [INAUDIBLE] BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE UNDER THE SPELL. THIS BILL; WHAT YOU HAVE A STAY
>> REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: I'M SORRY I MISUNDERSTOOD.
MY APOLOGIZE. I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. BIJU JOHNSON
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL >>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. AGAIN BACK TO REPRESENTATIVE'S
HILSTROM ABOUT THE
OVER AND LIFT IN THE
TAXI DRIVERS;; I KNOW WE WERE TALKING AND CIVIL
LAW ABOUT A FIVE-YEAR LOOK BACK VERSUS A SEVEN-YEAR
LOOK BACK
AND JUST TRY TO LOOK THROUGH YOUR BILL
REALLY QUICKLY. SO WE TALK ABOUT THE BACKGROUND CHECK IS GOING BACK FIVE YEARS? IS IT SEVEN YEARS?
CAN YOU JUST
CLARIFY THAT? >> REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: I HAVE TO LEAVE FOR
REFER TO RESEARCH. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: MR. DIEBOLD
>> STAFF:
THERE IS NOT A LOOK BACK PERIOD IN THE SCHOOL
BUS DRIVER ENDORSEMENT I'M
AWARE OF. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO >> REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: I JUST WANT TO NOTE IN RESPONSE
TO WHAT REPRESENTATIVE
ZERWAS SAID WE BEEN HEARING
FROM COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND SEXUAL ADVOCATES AND OTHERS THAT IF YOU REMOVE THAT
MIDDLE OPTION OF A STAY
OF ADJUDICATION YOU ARE GOING TO GET
MORE CONVICTIONS BUT YOU ARE ALSO TO GET MORE CASES
THAT EITHER ARE IN CHARGE
AT ALL RESULT IN DISMISSALS AND
RESULTANT ACQUITTALS. THIS IS N
OT REMOVING THAT OPTION ALTOGETHER BUT REGARDING SOME OF
THESE OFFENSES THERE
MAY BE SOME FOLKS WHO SAY
IF SOME OF THESE EMPLOYMENT OPTIONS ARE CLOSED OFF TO ME THAT I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH STAY OF ADJUDICATION AND WE UP AGAIN MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET CONVICTED BUT SOME MORE FOLKS
WILL BE EVEN THE CASES ONE RESULT IN
A CONVICTION.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF
BALANCING ACT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO STRIKE CARE. IS YOUR POINT THAT WE LOOK AT THE CONDUCT
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF THE
IMPACT
WHETHER SUMMARY DRIVES A BUS OR
NOT BUT IF YOU BLOCK OFF THIS AVENUE
WILL BE MORE PEOPLE THAT ONE OF EITHER STEVE ADJUDICATION OR A CONVICTION
MAY HAVE SOME BEHAVIOR WE LIKE
TO BE HAVE THEM BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR. I JUST WANT TO RESPOND
TO THAT EASTER CHAIRMAN.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON:
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL >> REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: IN REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE THINGS
BEING SAID REPRESENTATIVE
DEAN ARE MADE A GOOD POINT. THERE'S
A SMALL PERCENTAGE
OF OCCUPATIONS SCHOOL STRUTHERS
WHETHER TRANSPORTING MOST
PRECIOUS CARGO. NOW WITH THAT
BEING SAID I
WILL DEFINITELY BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED HERE AND AS
FAR AS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A SCHOOL BUS; 70;
80 CHILDREN AND SOMEONE
VERY DEPENDABLE.NOW; AS FAR
AS PEOPLE GOING
TO TRIAL FOR THEIR BUS DRIVERS LICENSE
OR TO GET A BUS DRIVERS LICENSE
I THINK THIS MAY BE GOING A LITTLE OVER-THE-TOP BECAUSE
ONCE AGAIN THIS A VERY
VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S AND OVERWHELM THE COURTS WITH MANY
MORE CASES.
BUT AGAIN; I'M NOT DISCOUNTING ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE. I WOULD
LIKE TO'S
SPEAK FURTHER HERE ARE SOME MORE IDEAS
WHICH IS ALWAYS BEEN WELCOME. I WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE IT MORE OFTEN
WITH A LOT OF MY BILLS IS BEEN
VERY DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE TO
COME FORWARD WITH HELP
I APPRECIATE MNCASA'S GETTING
ON BOARD WITH ALL OF MY BILLS HERE BUT
AS CARLENE SAID; IT HAS BEEN WITH
MUCH EFFORT THAT WE'VE
GOT TOGETHER AND GOT ON THE SAME SHEET OF MUSIC. IF THERE
IS MORE FINE-TUNING TO DO HERE
I'M CERTAINLY OPEN AND WELCOME
TO ANYTHING THAT WOULD
MAKE THIS A BETTER PIECE
OF LLEGISLATION. >> CHAIR JOHNSON:
THANK YOU. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?
COMMISSIONER EVANS.
SUPERINTENDENT EVANS.
>> TESTIFIER:
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING FREE.
I'M SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
BUREAU APPREHENSION
AND SET A COUPLE TIMES TO
HELP CLARIFY IS YOUR CONSIDERING THIS; WHAT A STAY OF ADJUDICATION DOES AND DOES NOT DO. A STAY OF ADJUDICATION
IS ALWAYS REPORTED TO US BY THE COURTS. THE BC WOULD TALK ABOUT RECORD IN A VERY BROAD TERMS WHEN WE ARE HERE.
STAYS OF ADJUDICATION ARE REPORTED TO US
UPON ARREST. WHAT IS CONSIDERED
AND WHAT
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL BILL IS DOING IN
THE SITUATION
IS CLARIFYING THAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO A
POTENTIAL EMPLOYER.
APPROXIMATE 150
DIFFERENT DISSEMINATION BASED ON STATUTES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON LAW FOR
BACKGROUND CHECKS AS YOU
JUST NOTED. WITH THIS DOES IS WE LOOK TO
THE STATUTE
AS TO WHAT INFORMATION CAN
BE SHARED WHETHER A STATE CAN GO OUT OR WHETHER ESTATE STAYS WITHIN THE BCA
SO I JUST WANT MAKE SURE AS YOU'RE GOING TO THIS WE RECEIVE
ALL STAGE OF ADJUDICATION
INFORMATION NOW WHICH ARE CONTEMPLATING
WHEN YOU CONTEMPLATE WITH THESE BILLS IS WHETHER OR NOT EMPLOYER IS RECEIVING THAT INFORMATION AS THEY MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: BE
READY O'NEILL >>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR THIS IS UNFAIR TO ASK YOU BUT IF YOU COULD PROVIDE
THE COMMITTEE WITH INFORMATION AT SOME POINT
AS TO WHICH OF THOSE YOU ARE
ALREADY DISCLOSING; THE STATE OF ADJUDICATION OUT OF THE 150
AND AT SOME POINT IF YOU COULD
PROVIDE ME WITH A WHOLE
COMMITTEE WITH WITH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 150 THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL I THINK IT
>> CHAIR JOHNSON:
SUPERINTENDENT EVANS
>> TESTIFIER: I WILL GO BACK AND TALK WITH HER STAFF ABOUT THIS PRECARIOUSLY HAD A CONVERSATION
IN RELATION TO THE BILL AS TO HOW WE PARSE THIS UP YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE
SPREADSHEET WITH CRIMINAL HISTORY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT GOES WHERE AND WHAT WE DEFINE AS OPEN ARREST AS OPPOSED TO-BUT
I AGREE THESE ARE ISSUES FOR ALL OF YOU TO
CONTEMPLATE AS YOU LOOK AT BACKGROUND CHECKS ACROSS
THE BOARD. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE?
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL YOU WANT TO RENEW
YOUR MOTION? >>
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: I RENEW MY MOTION MR. CHAIR.
JUST ONE MORE THING. EVERYTHING I'M
DOING HERE IS TO PROTECT
THE CHILDREN. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME.
I KNOW IT'S THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THIS WHOLE
COMMITTEE. SO I DON'T TAKE OFFENSE
TO SUGGESTIONS I BEEN A DEPUTY FOR NUMBER OF YEARS.
I'VE HAD A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS MADE TO ME.
[LAUGHING] I DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF THEM
PERSONALLY BECAUSE WE CAN WORK
THROUGH THIS. I DON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO
ANYTHING NOW.
I JUST HOPING WE CAN
COME OUT WITH A VERY GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATURE FOR
OUR KIDS. >> CHAIR JOHNSON: THANK YOU.
WITH THAT
REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL RENEWS HIS MOTION T
O REFER HOUSE FILE 2034 TO
CIVIL LAW. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.]
OPPOSED; NAY. >> [GAVEL] >>
CHAIR JOHNSON: YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY TO CIVIL LAW.
WITH THAT; WE WILL BE ADJOURNED
UNTIL TOMORROW
AT 10:15 AM. >> [GAVEL] >> [ADJOURNMENT]
>>
For more infomation >> Elon Mosk: A primeira nave espacial interplanetária tripulada pronta em 2019 e a Era das Trevas - Duration: 4:44. 
For more infomation >> Nỗi Buồn Gác Trọ | Ca sĩ : Phương Dung | Sáng tác :Mạnh Phát & Hoài Linh | Việt Nam Niềm Nhớ - Duration: 3:37. 
For more infomation >> Bánh Mì Full 12 Tập | Nhạc Anime EDM Gây Nghiện | Tuyển Tập EDM 2018 - Duration: 8:33. 
For more infomation >> Muhammah Ali & The Jacksons - Subtitulado en Español - Duration: 2:48. 
For more infomation >> Tôi Là Bình Trà - Bé Vũ Thạch ♫♫ Ca Nhạc Thiếu Nhi ♫ Nhạc Trẻ Mầm Non, Phim hoạt hình siêu nhân - Duration: 2:49. 
For more infomation >> Troll Gái Xinh | Yêu Bao Lâu Thì Được " Làm Thịt " ? - Duration: 10:07. 
For more infomation >> News Conference: Syracuse & Arizona State - Postgame - Duration: 33:35. 
For more infomation >> My Favourite Conspiracy Theories! [CC] - Duration: 8:55. 
For more infomation >> Oldest Message In A Bottle - Behind the News - Duration: 2:39. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét