►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary (2-17-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
B
So
with
that
said,
senator.
If
you
have
any
opening
opening
remarks,
I
know
I
believe
the
fop
someone
from
the
fop
has
signed
up.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
you
all
sending
me
a
text
and
letting
me
know
I
don't
have
that
sign
up
sheet.
Do
we
no
they'll,
get
it
john?
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
it
all
right.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
committee
members.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
come
back
again
today
and
discuss
with
you
senate
bill
31,
which
would
put
in
place
a
speedy
trial
clock
for
kentucky.
C
Since
the
last
time
we
were
here,
there's
been
a
lot
of
effort,
a
lot
of
additional
conversations
with
interested
parties
and
stakeholders,
which
has
resulted
in
additional
changes
to
the
bill,
and
I
would
direct
the
members
to
pss3,
which
is
the
senate
committee
substitute,
and
I
would
like
to
discuss
those
changes.
If
the
committee
would
be
willing
to
consider
a
motion
to
adopt
that.
C
Is
before
us
senator?
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
very
quickly.
The
first
change
is
on
page
7
line
12
through
13..
This
was
a
drafting
or
typographical
error
that
was
noticed
by
aoc.
C
It
was
pointed
out
that
a
person's
history
of
drug
or
alcohol
abuse
should
be
a
prerequisite
to
the
alcohol
drug
testing,
and
that
was
inadvertently
deleted
from
page
six
line.
Six
and
we're
basically
adding
this
back
in
it's
not
a
a
new
provision.
It's
just
reinserting
an
existing
provision
that
was
somehow
left
out
between
the
changes.
C
This
is
again
another
provision
that
was
brought
to
me
by
the
victims
advocates.
It
allows
compliance
with
marsy's
law.
It
also
allows
victims
to
have
notice
of
the
180-day
and
90-day
hearings
that
are
discussed
in
the
in
the
bill
and
a
couple
key
points
to
keep
in
mind.
This
bill
only
deals
with
those
individuals
that
are
unconvicted
and
afforded
the
presumption
of
innocence.
C
This
bill
does
include
a
180-day
clock
for
felonies
90-day
clocks
for
misdemeanors
for
those
individuals
who
are
in
custody,
if
they're
out
on
bond
or
have
conditions
of
release,
they
would
not
be,
you
know,
applicable
to
those
individuals.
We've
also
made
concessions
regarding
the
kentucky
state,
police,
crime
lab
so
and
and
kcpc
evaluations.
This
some
sometimes
calls
significant
delays,
so
we've
already
incorporated
those
in
there.
Defendants
can
also
waive
the
right
to
speedy
trial.
C
If,
if
they're
consulting
with
their
lawyer,
they
believe
that's
in
their
best
interest
and
then
lastly,
the
the
parties
can
go
before
the
court
and
say
you
know,
judge
we
have
good
cause
here
that
exists.
Perhaps
it's
a
natural
disaster.
Perhaps
it's
an
ailment
that
has
befallen
a
litigant,
and
you
know
maybe
there's
complex
discovery
issues
out
there.
So
again,
good
calls
would
also
be
available
to
those
parties.
So
this
is
a
conservative
legislation.
C
D
Good
morning,
chairman
westerfield
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
all
for
having
us
here
again
to
continue
this
conversation.
My
name
is
shelly
hampton,
I'm,
the
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
kentucky
association
of
counties.
You
previously
heard
our
testimony
our
concern
with
our
continued
and
increasing
jail
costs.
The
state
pays
for
felons
once
they
are
convicted
of
the
felony,
but
pre-trial
that
all
falls
to
the
county.
To
take
care
of
all
of
those
costs.
D
I
will
forego
any
further
comments
in
favor
of
whitley
county
judge,
pat
white,
who
is
on
the
with
us
virtually,
and
I
would
I
would
like
to
give
him
some
time
to
make
some
comments.
Judge.
E
Thank
you
all
for
having
me
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
to
to
contribute
to
this.
I
I
appreciate
the
the
senate
committee
hearing
for
me
and
hearing
from
the
concerns
of
counties
and
appreciate
senator
storm,
bringing
this
bill
up
to
try
to
help
relieve
some
of
the
pressure
the
county
has
faced
over
the
past
few
years.
I'm
sorry
that
I
couldn't
be
there
in
person.
E
We've
had
some
issues
with
covet
in
the
family.
Over
the
last
few
days,
I
just
got
released
from
kobe
quarantine.
Yesterday,
my
wife
just
tested
off
today
she
was
she
had
tested
positive
over
the
weekend,
and
so
I've
had
to
reschedule
fiscal
court
meetings
and
move
some
things
around.
I
apologize
for
not
being
attendants
there
today,
but
the
jail
cost
issue
for
most
counties,
including
whitley
county,
is
the
issue
of
the
primary
issue
for
our
financial
concerns.
E
Just
to
give
you
some
perspective,
this
year
alone,
wetland
county,
which
is
a
small
county.
Around
36
000
people
will
spend
around
1.7
million
dollars
in
contributing
to
jail
costs
and
over
my
tenure
this
is
my
16th
year
we
will
have
lost
near
20
million
dollars
that
we've
contributed
to
to
losses
in
operation
of
our
jail
because
these
pre-trial
expenses,
these
costs
are
not
generated
because
of
any
county
action.
E
They're
not
generated
because
of
anything
the
county
controls,
and
I
think
that's
that's
a
great
concern
for
us,
because
you
know
this
is
such
a
huge
proportion
of
our
budget,
ranging
between
30
to
40
percent
of
our
general
fund
budget.
Goes
this
one
single
expense
and,
and
we
have
no
no
ability
to
adjust
the
policies
as
it
affects
those
things,
these
all
the
crimes
that
people
are
in
jail
for
or
are
state-related
crimes.
E
That's
what
they're
arrested
for
and
that's
what
they're
detained
for
the
state
oversees
a
lot
of
the
arrests,
the
state
police
70
of
the
rest
for
these,
for
these
crimes
come
from
state
or
city
officers.
Only
about
25
30
percent
come
from
from
county
officers
once
they're
in
in
jail.
They
they
go
before
state
judges
and
state
prosecutors,
they're,
bonding
agents
that
set
set
how
long
or
how
much
of
a
bond
they
have
to
have
to
be
able
to
get
out
of
jail
or
employed
by
the
state.
E
The
entire
process
is
dominated
by
the
state
and
the,
but
the
county
receives
the
bill
for
that
in
in
many
counties,
it's
just
becoming
so
burdensome,
but
that
we
just
we
just
can't
hardly
remain
solvent
with
it
and
those
costs
went
up
substantially
through
covet.
There
was
a
you
know:
there
was
some
movement
to
release
class
d
felons,
and
so
we
lost
a
lot
of
that
income
in
whitley
county
that
that
created
an
additional
expense
of
around
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
to
us.
E
So
we
went
from
one
point:
three
million
dollar
a
year
lost
to
a
1.7
million
a
year
loss
and
we've
been
able
to
sustain
and
make
it
through
those
expenses.
Okay,
as
long
as
we've
had
these
federal
transfer
payments
coming
and
all
these
coveted
related
monies
coming.
But
but
in
you
know,
in
in
normal
operations,
this
really
drags
down
what
we're
able
to
pay
our
employees.
It
drags
down
the
equipment
we're
able
to
provide
for
them
it.
E
It
keeps
us
from
being
able
to
maintain
our
facilities
and-
and
it
really
explains
why
why
county
employees
are
so
underpaid
and
why
the
county
doesn't
have
the
resources,
do
a
lot
of
things
that
even
cities
and
and
and
even
cities
and
other
parts
of
state
government
are
able
to
do
so.
I
just
appreciate
you
all
con,
considering
the
needs
of
candies
and
and
how
dramatic
this
effect
is
on
us,
and
I
appreciate
you
all
taking
taking
the
time
to.
E
Let
me
speak
a
little
bit
this
morning
and
thank
you
and
I'll
address
any
questions.
If
there
are
any.
B
Thank
you
judge
again
good
to
hear
from
you
glad
you're
doing
better
glad
your
wife
is
doing
better
anything
further
before
I
hear
from
some
of
the
opponents
here
senator
not
at
this
time.
Thank
you
all.
B
Gonna,
let
you
have
the
final
word
when
we
get
to
it,
but
I'm
gonna
have
sean
helbig
come
on
up
with
the
fop
or
whomever
on
behalf
of
the
fop,
was
gonna
speak
to
come
on
up
and
then
judge
ward
you're
on
deck.
B
I
don't
see
you
but
you've
signed
up
so
there
you
are.
I
know,
judge
summy's
signed
up
too,
but
she's
had
a
chance
to
address
the
committee
once
before.
So
I'm
going
to
start
with,
judge
ward
won't
get
to
judge
somebody
this
time
unless
we've
got
time
all
right.
Gentlemen,
if
you
can
keep
your
remarks
to
five
or
so
minutes,
absolutely.
F
Go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
My
name
is
sean
helbig,
I'm
the
national
trustee
for
the
kentucky
return
order
of
police.
I've
been
in
law
enforcement
for
23
years.
Most
of
my
time
was
spent
with
the
bowling
green
police
department
and
working
for
the
warren
county
attorney's
office.
As
a
detective.
F
So
today,
we're
here
in
opposition
of
31
sb-31
I'll,
simply
ask
the
question:
why
are
we
here?
Why
are
you
here?
Why
was
I
the
police
for
23
years?
The
answer
should
be
the
same.
The
answer
should
be
that
we're
here
to
protect
our
communities
and
provide
safety
and
security
for
our
communities,
and
we
do
know
that
there's
evil
in
the
world
and
there
are
people
that
do
bad
things.
F
This
bill
does
not
make
our
community
safer;
it
does
not
provide
for
the
safety
and
security
of
our
community.
In
the
last
24
hours,
I've
seen
two
reports
come
up
on
my
news.
Feed
last
night
in
louisville
metro,
four
individuals
stole
the
car
ran,
shot
at
the
police,
ended
up
wrecking
the
car
and
had
been
taken
into
custody.
F
Just
yesterday
as
well
in
indianapolis
metro,
there
was
an
individual
that
was
out
on
bail
on
an
ankle,
monitor
that
took
a
gun,
carjacked
an
individual
with
a
handgun
and
fled
the
scene
and
was
later
taken
into
custody
granted.
Those
are
just
two
cases,
but
I
can
find
case
after
case
after
case
where
we've
had
people
that
have
been
out
on
bail
or
been
out
on
early
release
that
have
caused
additional
harm
to
our
communities.
F
The
social
experiment
of
bail
reform
has
failed
miserably
across
our
country.
You
know
this
because
crime
is
skyrocketing
across
our
country,
especially
in
our
metropolitan
areas.
I'm
not
here
to
say
that
all
or
every
person
that
commits
a
crime
is
a
repeat
offender
or
is
out
on
bail,
because
there's
never
an
all
or
an
every.
In
any
situation.
F
We
are
finding
that
the
majority
of
our
violent
crimes
are
being
committed
by
repeat
offenders
that
are
out
on
bail
or
out
on
early
release
in
2017
2018.
The
university
of
utah
did
a
study
of
chicago
shortly
after
they
introduced
bail
reform
and
made
it
much
harder
for
judges
to
keep
people
in
on
pre-trial
confinement
or
probable
cause
had
already
been
established.
F
F
Just
look
at
the
last
two
years
of
what's
happened
in
our
country.
We
have
to
hold
criminals
accountable
as
the
fop
we
average
about
two
officers
a
day
across
our
country
that
are
being
shot.
We've
had
six
officers
killed
in
the
first
47
days
of
this
year
by
suspects,
not
all
of
which
were
out
on
bail
or
on
early
release,
but
the
majority
of
those
officers
were
shot
or
killed
by
people
that
are
regulars
to
our
justice
system
and
have
been
released
because
of
programs
like
bail
reform.
F
F
F
The
current
standard
is
safety
of
the
community
and
risk
of
flight.
That
is
this.
New
standard
is
drastically
higher
than
that
standard,
and
I
believe
that
we've
seen
our
judges
apply
that
standard
properly.
Could
we
account
for
covid?
Of
course
not.
I
hate
that
people
are
in
jail
longer
because
of
covid.
F
I
didn't
create
covet,
none
of
us
created
covet.
I
will
end
with
this
most
all
of
us
in
this
room
know
who
mike
o'connell
is
he's
the
county
attorney
for
jefferson
county.
I
think
all
of
us
in
this
room
could
argue
that
he
is
probably
one
of
the
more
liberal
county
attorneys
in
kentucky
his
statement
yesterday.
F
B
B
J
J
J
So
I
want
to
let
you
know
that
I'm
I'm
not
here,
because
I'm
worried
about
my
schedule,
I'm
not
worried
about
how
hard
I
have
to
work,
not
worried
about
how
this
bill
is
going
to
impact
my
daily
life,
although
I
will
tell
you
that
it
is
going
to
create
a
lot
of
havoc
with
my
schedule
and
a
lot
of
havoc
with
my
work,
but
that's
not
really.
What
my
concern
is.
I
sort
of
echo
what
the
state
police
have
to
say
is
that
this
really
is
about
safety
of
the
community.
J
This
bill
really
isn't
about
a
fast
and
speedy
trial.
What
it
comes
down
to
is
about
bail
reform.
If
you
really
look
at
the
bill,
the
bill
is
only
designed
number
one
to
protect
people
who
are
in
custody.
The
constitution
provides
a
fast
and
speedy
trial
to
every
single
solitary
defendant,
whether
you're
in
custody
or
whether
you're
out
of
custody.
J
J
So
really,
this
is
all
about
bail
reform
and
the
concern
that
I
have
is
when
a
judge
looks
at
bail
from
the
very
beginning.
What
we
are
looking
at
is
we
are
looking
at
whether
a
defendant
is
a
flight
risk
or
whether
we
believe
that
there
are
harm
to
the
community
and
if
we
believe
that
we
set
bail
commensurate
with
that
risk,
this
bill
basically
will
say
that
although
I've
already
made
that
determination,
I've
already
had
a
hearing.
I've
already
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
victims.
J
180
days
have
ticked
by
maybe
even
at
the
fault
of
the
defendant,
and
unless
I
can
show
that
the
defendant
is
a
imminent,
serious
risk
of
physical
harm
to
someone
and
a
particularized
risk,
then
I
have
to
let
him
go
and
counsel
ourselves.
What
you're
going
to
do
is
you're
going
to
end
up
releasing
a
lot
of
individuals
that
you
do
not
intend
to
release.
J
J
J
What
I'm
saying
is
true:
you
are
going
to
allow
dangerous
people
out
on
the
streets
after
your
judge
has
already
made
a
determination
that
if
this
person
does
get
out
that
he
probably
will
create
a
flight
risk
or
a
risk
of
harm,
it
doesn't
matter
anymore
that
the
defendant
is
still
a
flight
risk.
I
have
to
release
him,
and
so
honestly,
I
do
not.
I
do
not
think
this
is
a
constitutionally
conservative
bill.
J
We
had
vera
institute
meet
us
back
in
september
and
basically
the
vera
institute,
if
you're
not
familiar
with
that,
I
would
strongly
encourage
each
and
every
one
of
you
become
familiar
with
who
they
are,
but
they
basically
told
us
that
this
was
their
bill
going
to
be
sponsored
by
senator
storm
and
when
we
met
with
them,
we
basically
told
them.
Here's
the
problem
that
we
have
it's
not
about
how
fast
the
judge
can
work
and
it's
not
about
needing
more
judges.
What
it
really
is
about
is
we've
got
some
problems.
J
J
J
He
has
slotted
four
dpas,
meaning
he's
entitled
to
have
40
bas
in
his
county.
He
has
one
dpa.
They
cannot
fill
the
other
three
spots,
so
he
has
said
to
me
how
about
we
fix
some
problems?
How
about
we
talk
about
if
the
dpa's
office
is
not
able
to
fill
those
spots,
how
about
we
be
able
to
contract
with
attorneys
private
attorneys
and
allow
those
private
attorneys
to
try
those
cases?
J
J
B
Thank
you.
I
don't
think
and
judge
sammy.
I
appreciate
you
coming,
but
I'm
gonna
move
along
here.
I
don't
think
I
see
anybody
else
on
this
side
of
sheet
or
on
yeah.
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
else.
Senator
storm
you
want
to
have
the
final
say
here.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
committee
members,
just
to
address
a
few
of
those
issues
again
we're
working
on
committee
substitute
three
and
I
also
discussed
the
change.
That's
reflected
there
in
paragraph
10
b,
which
is
on
page
three
and
we've
already
talked
about
that.
In
the
event,
the
court
has
made
a
finding
of
public
safety
risk
by
clearing
convincing
evidence
at
a
due
process.
Hearing
at
any
stage
of
the
proceedings,
then
we've
already
put
in
here
that
the
defendant's
not
entitled
to
automatically
be
released,
so
that
concern
is
has
already
been
addressed.
C
C
We
all
know
that
that's
an
issue
and
we've
tried
to
address
that
in
this
bill
again,
defendants
can
waive
these
rights,
but
I
don't
think
that
you
know
there's
anything
taking
away
the
judge's
discretion
to
make
an
assessment
on
public
safety.
This.
B
Thank
you.
Can
a
judge
continue
this
beyond
180
days
for
various
reasons
under
the
bill?
Yes,
thank
you.
Are
we
requiring
the
judges,
make
a
finding
on
the
record
for
why
they're
keeping
someone
in
yes,
two.
C
Things
already
an
exists
existing
language
on
page
10
in
the
statute
that
we're
not
changing.
If
a
court
determines
that
a
defendant
should
not
be
released.
Pursuant
to
subsection
subsection
six
of
the
section,
the
court
shall
document
the
reasons
for
denying
the
release
in
a
written
order.
That's
already
the
law
in
kentucky.
What
we're
asking
the
court
to
do
is
make
individualized
findings
regarding
these
issues.
K
I
have
a
question
of
whoever
wants
to
answer
it.
You
know.
I
appreciate
because
yesterday
senator
shickle
center
from
boone
and
I
had
a
pretty
extensive
conversation
with
sean
ryan,
the
two
judges
they
gave
me
some
ideas
and
made
some
suggestions-
and
I
saw
judge
ward
just
make
the
comment
that
this
is.
You
know
not
a
conservative.
K
You
know
what
what
I'm
interested
in
is:
what's
fair,
not
liberal
or
conservative,
and
you
alluded
to-
and
there
were
several
things
in
the
conversations
that
were
alluded
to
right
now:
one
the
bail
forms
and
what
pretrial
does
and
what
judges
consider
is
primarily
rules
of
the
courts
if
I'm
not
badly
mistaken,
and
somebody
can
respond
to
that.
So
anything
that
that
ryan
or
sean
would
have
questions
about
would
be
related
to
court
procedures,
not
really
legislation.
K
K
The
scrutiny
on
someone
who
is
in
custody
versus
not
in
custody
on
a
speedy
trial
motion
is
totally
different
if
I'm
not
badly
mistaken,
because
you're
looking
at
what
freedoms
are
being
restrained
and
if
one
wants
to
make
a
speedy
trial
motion,
you
consider
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
which
includes
our
parties
ready.
Can
you
get
witnesses
here?
Are
there
extraordinary
circumstances?
K
Those
types
of
things
are
taken
into
consideration
on
speedy
trial,
which
also
are
you
in
custody?
I
believe
that's
one
of
the
things
that's
considered.
If
I'm
and
then
one
comment
was
made
to
me
in
this-
that
individuals
were
released
even
though
they
had
bail
jumped
and
had
cut
their
home
incarceration
monitors.
K
Those
seemed
to
be
indicators.
They
would
be
flight
risks
which
would
in
any
criminal
situation
whether
it
be
a
misdemeanor
or
generally
don't
see
it
in
a
capital.
Offense
would
be
detrimental
to
one
being
released
on
bond
if
they
had
committed
acts
of
flight,
because
risk
of
flight
is
to
be
be
considered.
J
So
senators
divers
you're
correct
on
a
lot
of
things
that
you're
saying,
but
the
difference
is,
is
that
the
180
day
mark
changes
that
standard.
J
So
when
we
look
at
the
flight
risk
and
everything
that
we
do
now
we're
looking
at
whether
the
defendant
is
a
risk
of
flight
or
danger
to
the
community
at
the
very
beginning,
so
this
bill
right
now
basically
says
at
the
very
beginning.
I
can
go
off
of
that
standard
number
one
and
show
by
clearing
convincing
evidence.
The
defendant
is
a
particularized
risk
of
serious
physical
injury.
So
I
can
make
that
determination
and
bypass
the
original
determination
that
I
make.
J
But
the
original
determination
I
make
is
whether
a
defendant
is
a
risk
of
flight
or
a
danger
to
the
community
at
180
days.
This
bill
changes
that
standard
I
no
longer
can
consider
the
defendant's
flight
risk
or
whether
he's
a
danger
to
the
community.
I
now
must
only
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
a
particularized
risk
of
imminent
serious
physical
harm
to
someone,
so
the
standard
gets
changed
at
180
days
and
at
the
180
day.
Mark
again.
J
J
So
if,
if
that's
what
senator
storm
means
to
do,
then
I
would
like
to
have
at
least
a
legislative
intent
on
that,
but
senator
sivers,
the
other
thing
that
you
were
saying
in
terms
of
the
rules
that
we
adopt
by
aoc.
Yes,
the
supreme
court
has
set
out
a
lot
of
standards
for
us
and
there's
things
that
we
have
to
look
at.
J
We
have
to
look
at
the
defendant's
criminal
history
when
we're
looking
at
flight
risk
and
we're
looking
at
dangerous
community
we're
looking
at
the
defendant's
criminal
history
we're
looking
at
their
past
ftas
we're
also
looking
at
the
verified
risk
assessment,
but
the
verified
risk
assessment
is
not
just
something
the
supreme
court
has
done.
You
all
have
adopted
it
and
have
made
it
part
of
legislation.
J
So,
even
if
I
wanted
to
change
that
verified
risk
assessment,
I
would
not
be
able
to
do
that
unless
I
came
back
to
you,
because
it's
no
longer
just
an
aoc
rule
or
supreme
court
rule,
it's
it's
your
rule,
but
I
have
to
look
at
the
verified
risk
assessment
which
we
were
trying
to
tell
you
yesterday
that
verified
risk
assessment.
I
know
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
time,
but
that
thing
has
some
major
major
major
flaws.
Yeah.
J
J
J
There
are
four
factors:
the
length
of
the
delay,
the
prejudice
to
the
defendant,
the
reason
for
the
delay,
all
those
things
you're
saying
are
true,
so
that
applies
to
a
defendant,
who's
in
custody
or
out
of
custody,
because
the
fast
and
speedy
trial
constitutionally,
really
how
I'll
start
yeah
so
anyway,
the
long
and
short
of
it
is
is
that
in
the
definitive
in
jail
is
another
factor.
So
it's,
but
it's
the
liberty
of
a
defendant
is
not
the
only
factor
about
whether
there
was
a
fast
and
speedy
trial.
It's
just
a
factor.
C
Let's
look
at
paragraph
10
on
page
three:
basically,
what
happens
is
the
only
time
the
180
day
or
the
90
day
hearing
would
take
place.
The
the
section
10
hearing
would
be
if
the
defendant
hasn't
waived,
the
right
to
speedy
trial.
If
the
defendant
has
had
blood
or
ksp
isn't
excluded.
I
should
say
if
competency
is
not
an
issue
if
there's
no
good
cause
so
other
than
those
factors,
that's
the
only
time
that
that
the
hearing
in
10
would
be
contemplated.
C
Now
we
did
also
put
10
b
in
which
was
the
language
that
the
victims
advocates
requested
and
that
talks
about.
If
the
court's
already
made
that
finding
of
public
safety
risk,
then
the
defendant
has
the
burden
to
come
forward
and
show
a
material
change
in
circumstances.
That's
in
10
b,
already
in
the
statute
that
we're
putting
in
the
statute
page
three.
L
So
no
actions
by
the
defendant
are
going
to
be
able
to
delay
or
he's
like
to
be
able
to
lay
himself
out
of
jail
using
this
statute.
C
Exactly
and
we've
also
put
into
this
that
these
cases
aren't
going
to
be
dismissed,
we're
one
of
12
states
that
don't
have
an
automatic,
speedy
trial
right.
So
what
happens
is
other
states
that
do
have
it
if
the
speed
trial
clock
is
violated,
the
case
is
dismissed.
We're
not
doing
that.
We're
saying
that
the
court
then
has
a
hearing
to
make
a
determination
whether
or
not
the
the
defendant's
to
be
released.
The
charges
still
stay
standing.
L
And,
and
just
real
brief,
mr
chairman,
if
I
maybe
a
particularized
risk
to
persons
or
persons,
those
people
can
be
in
the
community
correct.
So
in
the
event
of
a
a
child
pornographer
you
could
you
could
decide
that
this
person
represents
a
particularized
risk
to
to
children
in
the
community.
Could
you
not,
I
believe
so?
Yes,.
L
C
B
B
B
M
I
have
heard
from
from
multiple
prosecutors
and
judges
in
this
state
that
that
they
are
adamantly
opposed
to
this
bill
and
I
can
understand,
like
I
understand
their
their
concerns,
and
I
understand
your
concern,
sir,
and
and
I
do
I
go
to
intent
and
I
think
the
intent
here
is
good
and
I
think
you
have
shown
a
strong
willingness
to
work
with
different
groups
to
try
to
make
this
bill,
which
I
think
does
have
good
intentions
feasible
in
a
system.
That's
clearly
broken
and
I
would
agree
with
everybody
here.
M
We
need
to
fix
this
system.
We
really
need
to
fix
this
system,
it's
a
hard
vote,
but
it's
a
yes
thank
you.
B
A
A
P
P
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
You
know
I
was
thinking
I
was
sitting
here.
I
think,
and
somebody
could
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think,
except
for
senator
stivers,
I'm
the
senior
person
on
this
committee
on
the
judiciary
committee
who
yeah,
but
he
wasn't
were
you
on
before
gerald
yeah
committee
members
yeah
on
this
committee,
and
it
just
seems
to
me,
like
we
don't
learn
from
our
mistakes.
P
You
know
I
remember
house
bill
463
and
caico
was
here
cheering
on
house
bill
463
and
it
was
going
to
save
us
all
this
money
in
the
jail
jails
and
even
the
jailers
association-
and
you
know
I'm
a
former
jailer
former
law
enforcement
officer
and
back
then
they
were
cheering
that
oh,
it's
gonna
save
us
all
this
money,
it's
going
to
be
great,
we're
going
to
rehab
all
these
drug
offenders
and
all
it's
done
is
increased
our
jail
costs
and
increased
our
crime
rates.
P
And
since
then,
in
my
mind,
we've
had
parade
of
soft
on
crime
legislation.
Sadly,
we've
released
prisoners
from
prison
on
the
governor's
orders,
thousands
of
them
we've
raised
and
I'm
ashamed
to
admit.
Some
of
this
I
voted
for.
I
drank
the
kool-aid
too,
raised
the
knee
threshold
for
theft.
I
just
did
that
last
year.
I
think.
Looking
back
on
it
was
a
mistake.
P
There's
there's
been
a
lot
of
them.
What
we're
talking
about
here
is
basically
it's
really
pretty
simple.
P
And
are
elected
by
the
people
in
their
area
and
say
you
know
we're
not.
We
we
just
don't
have
a
whole
lot
of
confidence
in
you
and
we're
going
to
interpret
case
law
for
you
and
the
judges.
I
talked
to,
and
also
the
prosecutors
who
did
not
testify
the
prosecutors,
who
are
very
much
opposed
to
this
law.
P
The
police,
who
are
very
much
opposed
to
this
law,
record
crime
rates
here
in
kentucky.
What
in
the
world
are
we
doing
passing
a
bill
like
this
louisville,
the
most
homicides
in
history
and
we're?
Our
answer
is
this:
our
answer
is
to
start
second
guessing
our
judges
and
telling
them
how
to
apply
case
law.
P
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I've
been
following
the
vero
institute
for
a
long
time.
Why
are
we
listening
to
them
instead
of
our
police
and
our
prosecutors?
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
your
indulgence
and
I'm
sorry.
I
went
over
the
time.
K
My
vote,
mr
chair.
Yes,
sir,
I
appreciate
the
discussions
have
gone
on
here.
I
think
they've
been
really
good
discussions
and
I
think
I'm
going
to
disagree
with
my
good
friend
and
former
roommate.
K
I
somewhat
get
offended
by
the
people
who
say
that
I'm
not
conservative,
you
have
fiscal
conservative,
you
have
social
conservatives,
you
have
all
types
of
conservative
designations,
but
this
is
a
balancing
approach
and
I
don't
see
this
as
being
soft
on
crime.
I
see
this
as
concluding
the
case
getting
the
case
over
with,
in
the
most
efficient
and
timely
manner.
To
me,
resolving
a
case
is
the
ultimate
solution
to
all
things,
because
justice
delayed
is
justice
denied,
and
this
pushes
people
to
get
the
case
resolved.
G
G
O
Mr
chairman
I'll
explain
my
vote.
Yes,.
B
O
And
I
do
vote.
I
appreciate
this
being
brought.
It's
the
people
need
to
know
this
thing's
going
out
of
committee,
so
it
gets
a
full
oversight
by
the
full
senate
after
this,
and
I
appreciate
that
maybe
the
people
sitting
here
don't
know
that
the
bond
said
I
understand,
for
that.
Fellow
did.
The
shooting
in
louisville
was
100
000
cash,
and
you
know
what
came
across
my
phone
while
ago.
O
I
Like
explain
my
vote,
yes,
sir,
I
will
die
and
reserve
the
right
to
change
my
vote
on
the
floor
as
the
process
keeps
moving
along.
There's
several
reasons.
We're
here:
lack
of
judicial,
coveted
labs,
competency
hearings,
whatever
those
are
definitely
not
the
fault
of
local
courts,
but
but
they're,
also
not
the
fault
of
the
defendant
and
the
defendant
has
a
right
to
speedy
trial.
Everybody
up
here
swore
to
uphold
the
constitution,
that's
part
of
the
constitution
and
the
real
problem
I
had.
I
The
reason
I
vote
I
is,
is
the
bill
sponsor
has
180
days
in
here,
and
I
can't
get
anybody
on
the
other
side
to
give
me
a
time
frame.
You
know
how
long
is
too
long
for
somebody
to
be
held,
and
so
hopefully,
if
some
people
from
the
other
side
would
come
together
on
this,
then
then
we
could
get
something
accomplished,
but
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
senator.
L
Willier,
mr
chairman,
explain
my
eye
vote.
Yes,
sir,
you
know
look.
I
trust
me.
I
have
consistently
supported
the
police
and
law
enforcement
down
here.
I've
consistently
supported
our
judicial
officers,
but
you
know,
as
senator
turner
and
senator
stivers
both
mentioned.
I
mean
there
is
a
a
a
a
value
to
the
community
and
moving
these
cases
along,
and
I
think
that's
all
this
bill
encourages
folks
to
do.
L
It
still
preserves
that
judicial
discretion
as
the
the
drafter
noted
to
to
hold
those
people
that
represent
a
real
and
present
danger
to
the
community.
If
that
was
not
in
there,
I
would
I
could
not
be.
I
would
be
a
no
vote
on
this
bill.
L
So
you
know
this
is
a.
I
think
this
bill
strikes
the
right
balance
between
preserving
individual
rights
and
protecting
our
community,
so
I
will
cast
an
eye
vote.
B
Hello,
would
I
I'm
going
to
use
my
vote
exclamation
to
to
respond
to
a
couple
of
things.
I
have
all
the
respect
in
the
world
for
law
enforcement
for
the
gentleman
from
the
fop,
with
whom
I
stand
on
just
about
every
issue.
They
they
bring
before
this
committee.
That's
come
up
before
bills
have
been
stopped
cold
because
their
feedback
means
that
much
to
the
chair
and
to
this
committee,
but
I
disagree
with
them
on
a
couple
of
things
that
they
mentioned.
B
B
I
think
that
might
end
up
driving
bail
values
up
for
everybody
and
those
organizations
don't
have
skin
in
the
game.
That's
a
whole
other
conversation
this
committee
may
end
up
having
I
know
house
bill.
313
is
out
there
sponsored
by
representative
blanton
that
addresses
that,
but
we
haven't
been
able
to
reform
bail
here
and
again.
I
don't
think
this
is
a
bail
reform
bill
as
much
as
it
is
a
speedy
trial
bill.
I'm
not
even
concerned.
I
appreciate,
judge
white's
testimony.
B
The
cost
concerns
are
really
not
important
to
me.
I
know
it's
important
to
the
judges
and
to
the
county,
jailers
and
counties
generally.
My
concern
is
about
the
constitutional
rights
of
the
people
that
are
in
custody
and
who
are,
as
senator
wheeler
just
reminded
us
and
as
the
senator,
the
sponsor
senator
storm
reminded
us
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
they're
innocent
still,
and
if,
if
it
did
require
much
like
senator
wheeler,
just
said,
if
it
required
that
these
that
these
folks
be
let
out
and
that
judicial
discretion
was
thrown
out
the
window.
B
I
wouldn't
be
hearing
the
bill,
but
I
asked
you
questions
senator
storm
and
you
responded.
The
affirmative,
each
time
can
people
keep,
can
the
judges
keep
these
people
in
yeah,
and
so
with
respect
to
the
examples
that
judge
ward
shared,
I
find
it
really
hard
to
believe
a
judge
can't
find
a
cause
and
make
a
finding
on
the
record
on
their
calendar
order.
Why
they're
keeping
someone
in
custody
in
every
single
one
of
those
fact
patterns?
B
B
B
B
I've
seen
a
chart,
they
are
woefully
underpaid
compared
to
every
other
lawyer,
including
non-elected
prosecutors
and
including
lawyers
in
every
other
cabinet
of
state
government
and
their
their
folks
are
the
lowest
paid
and
the
governor
did
him
a
favor
and
gave
him
not
a
penny
in
his
proposed
budget,
which
was
a
sucker
punch
to
their
morale.
All
of
these
folks
need
more
money,
and
the
lab
certainly
does
so
that
folks
aren't
having
to
wait,
which
is
a
frustration
for
crime
victims.
B
B
B
I
appreciate
it
and
it
is
with
great
respect
that
I
that
I
entertain
all
of
those,
and
we
hear
those
in
this
committee
they're
available
valuable
to
us,
and
I
appreciate
the
time
that
all
those
groups,
including
judge
ward,
judge
summi
and
a
slew
of
others,
have
spent
with
senator
storm
and
that
senator
storm
has
spent
with
them
with
just
about
every
prosecutor
in
the
state.
I
know
members
have
gotten
a
ton
of
emails,
so
we've
gotten
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
feedback
and
I
appreciate
the
time
that
everyone's
given
to
it.
B
We're
not
going
to
spend
53
minutes
on
this
one,
mainly
because
it's
a
bill
we've
seen
before
now.
There
is
a
committee
substitute
and
I'm
going
to
entertain
a
motion
and
a
second
on
that
right
now
got
a
motion
from
senator
schickel
I'll
make
the
second
okay
senator
wheeler
make
the
second
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
substitute,
please
vote
by
saying,
aye
aye,
all
right,
senator
carol,
you've
got
the
floor.
I'm
gonna!
B
You
make
your
prepared
remarks.
We've
got
folks
from
the
press
association
that
want
to
speak,
and
I
want
to
give
them
time
to
speak,
but
as
this
is
something
this
in
fact
now
has
this
committee
heard
before
the
legislature
has
passed
before
it
was
vetoed
last
year.
So
it's
we've.
This
is
old.
Hat
senator
go
ahead.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
danny
carroll,
the
state
senator
from
the
second
district.
H
You,
mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
this
bill
senate
bill.
63
is
a
bill
designed
to
protect
the
personally
identifiable
information
of
members
of
the
criminal
justice
system
and
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
do.
Since
I
think
members
are
familiar
with
this
bill,
I'm
going
to
go
through
just
some
of
the
changes
that
are
in
this
bill
and
then
we
can
get
into
detail
in
the
other
aspects
as
well.
Basically,
the
bill
deci
defines
public
agencies
that
this
information
is
related
to
it
defines
who
is
protected
in
this
bill.
H
It
has
to
do
with
the
the
public
officer,
that's
protected
and
immediate
family
members.
I
have
narrowed
down
the
definition
of
an
immediate
family
member.
The
bill
from
last
year
senate
bill
48.
The
version
that
we
passed
was
it
somewhat
expanded
where
it
included
family,
not
living
in
the
residence.
H
I'm
going
to
refer
to
that
to
pii
from
this
point
forward
so,
and
I
would
ask
that
you
all
have
the
draft
in
front
of
you
and
if
you
have
questions
just
follow
along
in
section
one,
it
makes
the
definitions,
all
those
that
are
included
as
a
judicial
officer
defines
what
pii
is
and
what
information
is
protected
and
it's
personal
information
date
of
birth
account
information
information
from
a
child
relative
in
the
home
that
is
protected,
and
there
is
a
a
pretty
long
list
there
of
things,
information
that
is
protected
school
day
care
or
employment,
location,
social
security,
number
vehicle
registration,
and
you
all
can
fall
on
down
that
list.
H
In
section
2,
it
adds
pii
to
the
list
of
of
a
public
officer
in
the
media
family
to
the
list
of
public
records
protected
from
open
records.
Unless-
and
this
is
existing
language
in
the
statute-
and
I
think
this
is
important
to
this
unless
upon
order
from
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
and
what
that
means
is
is
basically
if,
if
someone
is
denied
access
based
on
this
law,
should
this
pass,
then
they
do
have
remedy
through
the
court
system
to
gain
access
to
the
information,
and
I
would
also
advise
the
current
language.
B
B
Right,
I
am
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
let
the
folks
from
the
press
association
come
up.
I
also
want
to
draw
members
attention
to
a
letter
that
should
be
in
members
folders
from
the
kentucky
open
government
coalition,
or
I
I
think,
that's
the
name
of
the
organization,
this
benson
habers
group,
even
if
it's
not
in
your
folders
and
it
should
be,
but
even
if
it's
not
or
for
people
in
the
audience
or
listening
online,
it's
on
the
web.
Thank
you.
That's
it!
It's
also
on
the
website.
B
Under
the
meeting
materials
link
or
it
should
be,
they
could
not
be
available
to
speak.
I'm
gonna
have
them
come
up
senator
and
I'm
gonna
give
you
the
last
word
after
that.
If
that's
okay,
we
got
rick
adams,
robert
thomas
and
andrea
stallman.
You
all
come
on
up,
y'all
might
need
to
scoot
or
move
for
a
moment.
Q
My
name
is
rick
adams.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
having
us
having
me
today.
I'm
legal
counsel
for
the
kentucky
press
association
and
I'm
here
to
testify
on
their
behalf
today
against
senate
bill
63.
N
B
Q
Mr
chairman,
the
members
of
committee
kentucky's
open
records
act
has
made
our
commonwealth
a
national
model
for
government
transparency.
While
balancing
the
need
to
protect
private
individuals,
information
sb63
will
bring
that
status
to
an
end.
It
is
an
unconstitutional
bill
that
will
censor
the
publication
of
information
it
for
the
first
time
imposes
civil
liability
for
the
civ
for
the
publication
of
truthful
information
about
public
officials
that
will
unconstitute
unconstitutionally
chill
all
manner
of
protected
speech.
It
is
a
frankly
an
attack
on
the
first
amendment
and
and
kentuckians
do
prostrate
rights.
Q
The
bill
is
incredibly
broad.
Application
creates
far
more
problems
than
it
solves,
at
least
public
agencies,
journalists,
businesses
and
citizens,
unsure
of
what
they
can
say
or
do
concerning
a
wide
range
of
kentucky's,
most
powerful
public
officials.
The
bill's
unintended
consequences
are
impossible
to
overstate.
Q
The
bill
can
be
separated
into
two
key
components.
First,
I
want
to
talk
about
section
5
of
the
bill,
which
imposes
the
civil
liability
that
I've
mentioned.
This
is
this
is
a
dramatic
departure
from
existing
law.
As
I
said,
it
imposes
civil
liability
for
the
publication
of
truthful
information
about
a
public
official.
Q
Q
These
substantial
penalties
will
stifle
or
punish
all
manner
of
constitutionally
protected
speech.
The
the
bill
is
so
broad
as
to
impose
liability
for
publishing
the
name
and
employment
assignment
of
any
public
official
protected
in
this
bill.
Any
number
of
essential
stories
published
by
kpa
members
across
this
commonwealth
would
have
been
impossible
to
report
and
publish
under
this
law.
I'm
talking
about
groundbreaking
stories
that
expose
habitual
perjury
that
resulted
in
the
release
of
wrongfully
convicted
kentuckians.
Q
I'm
talking
about
stories
about
the
sexual
abuse
of
minors
that
would
otherwise
not
have
been
made
public,
and
it's
it's
not
only
these
major
stories
that
will
be
affected.
It
will
make
it
impossible
for
local
media
outlets
to
report
on
bread
and
butter.
Local
stories
that
have
stories
like
crimes
in
the
community
court
proceedings
or
even
positive
contributions
of
these
public
officials
that
are
protected
on
the
bill.
Q
Citizens
and
journalists
will
just
simply
not
know
whether
they
can
talk
about
a
report
on
public
officials,
employees
or
controversies
that
happen
to
turn
on
the
categories
of
information
that
are
protected
by
this
law.
That's
a
clear
violation
of
the
first
amendment
and
the
due
process
clause.
Q
That's
all
section:
five,
that's
bad
section!
Two
and
three
aren't
much
better
together.
These
sections
do
two
things.
First,
section
three
mandates
that,
upon
the
request
of
a
protected
public
officer
in
this
from
this
bill
or
their
immediate
family
member,
an
agency
must
redact
and
remove
previously
published
personal
and
identifiable
information
within
72
hours.
Q
After
all,
if
I
publish
someone's
name
first
and
last
name,
their
address
can
be
discovered
in
the
white
pages
and
their
job
title
employer
can
be
used
to
identify
their
work
location.
These
provisions
are
unworkable.
It
brings
essential
functions
of
government
to
a
halt.
Just
think
of
how
will
title
companies
and
mortgage
lenders
perform
routine
tasks
essential
to
the
public
functioning
of
commerce,
without
public
information
on
deeds
and
liens?
Q
I
think
another
important
example
is
kref.
Under
this
bill,
kref
will
be
required
to
delete
personal
information
from
public
view,
if
requested
to
do
so
by
a
public
officer.
Many
judges,
prosecutors
law
enforcement
officers
in
kentucky
are
elected
officials.
Access
to
their
political
donations
is
essential
for
kentuckians
to
monitor
corruption.
Issues
to
illustrate
this
point.
Governor
beshear
is
a
former
attorney
general
under
this
and
is
therefore
a
public
official,
that's
protected
under
this
bill.
Q
If
he
so
chose,
he
could
write
a
letter
to
all
government
to
kref
and
ask
that
they
conceal
and
redact
all
of
his
political
donation
history
in
perpetuity
and
for
all
of
its
problems.
This
bill
provides
not
much
benefit.
The
open
records
act
already
protects
personally
private
information
and
if
the
legislature
believes
that
definitions
should
be
broadened,
it's
easy
to
add
an
exemption
to
the
open
records
act
that
would
exempt
narrow
categories
of
information
from
publication.
I'm.
B
Q
Mr
chairman,
I
would
just
conclude
by
saying
that
this
bill
is
it's
been
said.
That's
based
on
daniel's
law
in
new
jersey,
which
was
passed
about
a
year
ago
within
one
year
of
that
bill's
passage.
The
new
jersey
legislature
has
had
to
pass
a
new
bill
cleaning
that
bill
up
because
it
was
unworkable,
not
just
for
press
associations
but
for
their
county
clerks
et
cetera.
Q
They
were
required
to
a
three
million
dollar
appropriation
to
create
a
new
government
agency
called
the
affirmation
office
of
information
privacy.
That's
essentially
acts
as
a
clearinghouse
for
these
requests
to
redact
information
and
that
the
the
general
inspector
of
that
office
has
broad
investigatory
powers
to
investigate
any
of
the
requests
made
and
accept
or
deny
them,
because
the
bill
was
unworkable
to
start.
So
I
urge
the
committee.
This
is
a
bad
bill
for
kentucky.
G
Okay,
I
respect
the
intention
of
senate
bill
63
and
the
attempt
to
prevent
offenders
from
knowing
where
public
officers
and
their
immediate
families
live
and
work.
Journalists
and
other
professionals
in
our
state
have
the
same
concerns,
but
I
believe
senate
bill
63
will
have
unintended
consequences
if
passed
in
its
current
form.
Our
country
was
built
on
the
principle
of
a
free
press.
It's
part
of
the
first
amendment
now,
would
journalists
be
forced
to
defend
in
court
the
publishing
or
broadcasting
of
truthful
information,
a
public
officer
could
sue
for
civil
damages
and
punitive
damages.
G
Anyone
who
disseminates
personally
identifiable
information
about
them
or
an
immediate
family
member
under
this
bill,
some
of
our
highest
elected
officials,
would
qualify
because
of
their
prior
experience,
and
that
includes
members
of
the
legislature,
the
attorney
general
and
the
current
governor.
As
we
pointed
out,
the
goal
in
our
reporting
isn't
to
give
someone
a
road
map
to
find
a
public,
official's
home
or
or
put
their
loved
ones
at
risk,
is
to
create
change,
expose
wrongdoing
and
ensure
those
without
a
voice
are
heard.
F
G
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
other
members
for
allowing
us
to
speak
today,
I'm
going
to
start
by
saying
I
was
born
and
raised
here.
I
am
thankful
each
day
to
live
and
work
in
my
home
state,
I'm
a
proud
kentuckian
and
I'm
dedicated
to
the
service
of
local
broadcast
journalism.
I
believe
that
the
dedicated
work
of
local
journalists
is
a
necessary
function
in
not
only
our
democracy,
but
it's
critical
to
the
health
and
safety
and
the
growth
of
our
state.
N
First,
I
must
express
that
I
understand
what
is
at
the
heart
of
this
bill:
the
protection
of
life
and
specifically
those
serving
in
a
law
enforcement
capacity
who
may
become
targets
or
their
families
who
may
also
become
targets.
My
father
is
a
former
fbi
agent
who
worked
for
30
years
in
louisville.
He
proudly
served
kentucky
and
our
entire
country
throughout
his
career
working
many
high
profile
and
often
often
dangerous
cases.
N
I
was
that
kid
at
home,
while
her
dad
was
out
working
a
bank
robbery
or
a
murder,
investigation
or
other
cases
that
I
wasn't
allowed
to
know
about.
I
sincerely
understand
the
intent
of
this
bill,
but
I
am
asking
today
that
you
continue
to
work
on
it
to
make
sure
that
kentucky's,
open
records
law
is
not
so
drastically
changed
that
it
would
impede
the
critical
abilities
of
local
journalists.
N
It
is
the
blanket
application
of
the
bill
that
concerns
me
as
a
career
journalist.
I
cannot
recall
a
time
that
we
have
published
someone's
personal
address
or
their
phone
number.
In
fact,
our
newsroom
like
most
has
legal
and
ethical
policies
in
place
so
that
we
can
responsibly
report
on
issues
of
public
importance
while
at
the
same
time
protecting
personal
information
that
could
sub
that
could
put
subjects
of
news
stories
at
risk
of
threat
or
violence.
This
law,
as
is,
would
simply
remove
a
whole
swath
of
public
information
from
public
scrutiny.
N
N
Exemptions
will
certainly
create
an
administrative
backlog
and
that
will
halt
open
records
requests.
They
will
not
be
fought,
responded
to
or
filled
in
a
timely
fashion,
and
already
it
takes
a
while
information
that
was
currently
being
used
to
check
the
public
trust
will
no
longer
be
available
to
us
as
it
was.
I
am
concerned
about
the
burden
this
will
place
on
county
agencies
to
keep
track
of
information
and
also
the
consistency
of
the
systems
that
each
will
use
to
track
the
exemptions.
N
Lastly,
I
would
like
to
address
the
issue
of
liability
in
this
bill.
The
proposed
civil
liability
provision
is
a
major
concern
for
journalists.
It
would
put
any
person
who
disseminates
the
subject:
information
at
risk
of
a
lawsuit,
regardless
of
how
or
from
whom
they
obtained
this
information.
The
financial
burdens
caused
by
this
would
create
a
significant
chilling
effect
on
our
coverage
of
matters
of
public
interest.
We
do
not
see
the
logic
in
making
anyone
liable
for
the
release
of
protected
information
in
public
records
other
than
the
public
agency
that
actually
releases
that
information.
N
N
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
reiterate:
I
am
familiar
with
the
heartbreaking
genesis
of
daniel's
law
in
new
jersey
as
a
journalist
and
a
citizen
of
this
state
afforded
the
services
of
law
enforcement
and
others
referenced
in
this
bill.
I
certainly
understand
a
reasonable
protection
of
private
information,
but
I
do
not
believe
it
should
be
accomplished
by
such
a
blanket
elimination
of
public
access
to
information.
N
I
fear
this
bill
would
devastate
the
good
that
true
investigative
journalism
can
do
and
does
do
in
our
communities
and
the
liability
risk
simply
put
would
unconstitutionally
have
a
chilling
effect
on
journalists
tasked
with
carrying
out
our
first
amendment
protected
freedoms.
I
would
request
more
work,
be
done
on
this
bill
to
consider
how
kentucky
would
manage
the
exemption
process.
Remove
liability
for
journalists
and
protect
the
rights
of
the
public
under
the
first
amendment.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
You,
mr
chair,
this
panel,
I'm
just
I'll
be
honest,
I'm
struggling,
I
don't
understand,
I
wrote
down,
create
change,
expose
wrongdoing
make
sure
changes
are
made
and
and
where
I
struggle
with
your
guys
argument,
I
don't
understand
to
accomplish
any
of
that
for
any
of
the
individuals
on
this
panel
or
any
elected
officials.
A
You
can
do
that
without
publication
of
an
address
without
publication
of
the
children's
names
I
mean
fill
me
in
we're
always
doing
a
balancing
act
right
and,
in
this
case
we're
balancing
safety
and
it's
to
me
it
doesn't
really
seem
that
hard.
You
still
have
access
to
our
address
here
to
our
title
and
as
far
as
the
kref
example,
I
don't
think
the
way
I
understand
the
bill.
A
Q
Certainly,
I
would
certainly
like
to
answer
that
question.
I
think
the
personally
identifiable
information
is
so
broadly
defined
in
this
bill.
For
example,
it
includes
employment
location.
Q
So
if
a
reporter
were
to
go
to
the
local
courthouse
to
just
report
on
what
was
happening
that
day-
and
they
mentioned
a
judge's
name
and
the
courtroom
that
they
work
in
that's
a
violation
under
this
bill,
it's
so
broadly
defined
that
basically
any
information
that
could
lead
someone
to
discern
somebody's
location
at
a
given
time
could
subject
them
to
civil
liability,
not
to
mention
the
preemptive
redaction
of
public
records
that
could
be
requested
by
any
public
official.
On
the
dispel.
G
G
There
are
eight
of
them,
the
same
age
as
me,
and
three
of
us
live
in
fayette
county.
So
for,
if
we
were
doing
a
story
about
me
like,
we
would
want
to
cross-reference
and
be
able
to
make
sure
we're
identifying
the
correct
person
there
are
also
59.
You
know
the
senator
who
who
this
bill
is
senator
daniel
carroll.
There
are
59
daniel
carrolls
in
kentucky,
so
I
mean
I
think
for
us
to
have
the
not
necessarily
we
want
to
report
some
of
that
private
information.
A
Quick,
mr
chair,
quick
response,
I
mean
I
don't
I'm
not
aware
of
anyone
in
the
general
assembly
having
the
same
name
as
another
general
assembly
member,
we're
talking
about
elected
officials,
we're
not
talking
about
the
4.3
4.4
million
kentuckians
talking
about
elected
officials,
you're
still
allowed
to
use
their
title,
you're
still
allowed
to
use
their
name.
Thank
you.
B
B
I
I
agree
that
it's
been
badly
misrepresented
I'll,
do
it
quickly?
Thank
you.
H
But,
mr
chairman,
I
think
it's
important
for
the
public
to
know
some
of
the
things
that
our
guests
were
harping
on,
that
that
invokes
the
civil
liability
part
of
this,
and
there
there
has
to
be
somali
intent
in
the
release
of
the
information
it
has
to
be
in
response
to
a
decision
or
action
or
to
influence
or
impact
any
future
action
taken
by
the
public
officer
as
part
of
his
or
her
official
duties
and
with
the
intent
to
intimidate,
harass,
threaten
or
alarm
and
the
dissemination
places
the
public
officer
or
his
or
her
immediate
family
in
reasonable
fear
of
physical
injury
or
reasonable
fear
of
harm
to
their
property.
H
So
it's
not
quite
as
simple
as
our
media
folks
reported.
This
does
not
hide
any
actions
of
anyone,
it's
just
the
pii
and
as
far
as
business
transactions,
those
are
addressed
in
the
bill
and
those
transactions
are
allowed
through
the
legislation
and-
and
there
is
an
argument
that
it
is
already
protected.
So
if
it's
already
protected,
how
can
it
be
unconstitutional?
H
And
in
this
day
and
time,
any
public
agency
that
is
doing
the
right
thing
would
be
protecting
this
information
and
all
we're
saying
is
it
will
be
protected
and
the
process
is
the
same.
If
you
want
remedy,
if
you
want
access
to
it,
you
go
to
the
courts
and
you
you
file,
remedy
in
the
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
and
the
the
information
can
be
attained.
H
L
Just
briefly
senator
carol,
just
for
example,
just
hypothetically-
let's
just
say
I
was
a
multi-millionaire,
but
I
got
on
the
floor
of
the
senate,
I'm
just
a
working
class
american.
I
live
in
a
small
house.
I
don't
have
a
beach
house
or
anything
like
that,
but
I
owned
a
15
000
square
foot
mansion
on
the
inlet
in
in
downtown
miami.
Would
they
be
able
to?
Would
they
get
in
trouble
if
they
posted,
like
an
aerial
shot,
to
show
my
democracy
of
my
house
down
in
florida
as
as.
H
It
if
it's
one
of
those
that
protect
it
again
there
has
to
for
there
to
be
any
civil
liability
that
intent
in
those
three
categories
that
I
that
I
just
spoke
of,
that
would
have
to
be
established
for
there
to
be
civil
liability
involved.
There
has
to
be
some
intent
to
harm
someone
in
the
release
of
that
information,
for
the
civil
liability
to
kick
in.
B
M
G
I'm
going
to
vote
no
at
this
time,
but
I'm
going
to
reserve
the
right
to
change
that
position.
I
want
to
look
deeper
into
this
because
the
issues
have
been
raised
here
and
and
because
of
its
implications
with
respect
to
the
first
amendment.
Thank
you.
B
B
and
take
that
up
at
another
time
and
we're
going
to
take
we're
going
to.
Unfortunately,
we're
going
to
skip
senate
bill
110,
but
that'll
be
the
first
bill
that
I
call
at
the
next
meeting
senator
thomas.
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
bill
and
I
apologize
for
not
having
adequate
time
with
education
meeting
at
11
30.
I
lose
everybody
in
12
minutes
and
your
your
bill
is
going
to
take
longer
than
12
minutes.
I
don't
want
to
give
it
more
than
12
minutes.
Frankly,
so
senator
mcgarvey
come
on
up.
R
B
On
up,
if
you're
here
with
senator
mcgarvey
or
in
support
of
senate
bill
153,
that's
your
cue
well.
R
R
Catherine
robb
is
here
virtually,
and
I
believe
dr
eric
russ
is
here
virtually
as
well.
Let's
get
to
the
substance
of
the
bill.
All
all
this
bill
does
is
remove
the
civil
statute
of
limitations
for
victims
of
childhood
sexual
abuse.
Why
is
this
important?
This
is
one
that
came
to
me
from
a
constituent.
R
In
fact,
one
in
10
people
under
the
age
of
18
are
likely
to
be
victims
of
childhood
sexual
abuse.
You
know
nearly
one
in
four
girls,
nearly
one
in
13
boys
will
be
some
type
of
victim
of
abuse.
The
reality
is
we're
getting
to
understand
this.
The
average
age
of
coming
to
grips
with
this
is
52
years
old.
Think
about
this.
R
When
a
child
is
abused
sexually,
it
is
often
by
a
family
member
by
a
loved
one
by
a
friend
and
neighbor,
a
trusted
person
in
the
community,
whether
that's
church
boy
scout
school,
to
take
the
courage
to
come
forward
takes
years
and
because
it
takes
so
many
years
to
come
forward
the
current
statute
of
limitations
for
civil
actions.
Again,
this
is
civil
actions,
not
criminal
actions.
R
Civil
actions
is
only
10
years
if
you're
abused
at
age,
8,
age,
9,
your
statute
of
limitations
runs
when
you're
barely
an
adult,
and
so
we're
seeking
to
get
rid
of
that
statute
of
limitations
for
civil
actions
to
make
victims
whole
and
get
them
the
relief
they
need
with
mr
pfeiffer.
Here
I'd
like
you
to
introduce
yourself
and
go
ahead
and
testify
for
the
committee.
S
Thank
you.
My
name
is
cornelius
pfeiffer.
I
go
by
cal,
a
member
of
the
child.
Sexual
abuse
and
exploitation
prevention
board
under
the
auspices
of
the
governor
have
been
involved
with
supporting
victims
and
of
child
sexual
abuse.
For
the
last
20
years,
I
see
now
as
an
opportunity
to
simply
put
change
the
statute
of
limitations
which
silences
victims
and
protects
predators.
S
I
because
of
the
limited
amount
of
time
I
I
was
going
to
read
some
documentation
that
child
sexual
abuse
has
been
known
for
many
years.
This
is
my
abnormal
psychology
book
from
college.
S
Copyrighted,
1964.,
that's
58
years
leads
the
question:
why
hasn't
this
been
brought
up
before
kentucky
is
leads
the
nation
in
child
sexual
abuse.
S
A
question
that
also
in
eliminating
the
the
child,
sexual
abuse,
it
provides
a
means
for
a
victim
and
a
survivor
to
be
believed
to
have
their
day
in
court,
provides
validation,
potential
reimbursement
for
maybe
years
of
therapy.
Expenses
provides
a
vindiction
and
it
outs
perpetrators.
S
Ultimately,
it
helps
in
healing
the
wounds
that
have
been
created
for
these
people,
victims
and
survivors
that
they've
been
injured
for
the
last
20
30
40
years.
S
B
R
Yeah,
it's
not
a
lot
of
states
have
a
statute
that
is
longer
than
kentucky
so
significantly
longer.
There
are,
there
are
still
even
a
good
number
of
states
that
have
no
statute
of
limitations
whatsoever.
B
Okay
got
a
motion
on
the
bill
from
senator
neal,
a
second
from
senator
kerr.
I
don't
want
to
cut
you
off
and
I
want
to
let
these
other
two
folks
speak.
If
you
think
that's,
if
senator,
if
you
want
them
to
to
be
heard,
I
don't
want
to
cut
anybody
off.
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
here
to
oppose
the
bill.
Then.
B
H
B
A
B
Aye
bill
passes
eight
to
zero
bill
passes
with
favorable
expression.
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you
senator
mcgarvey.
I
appreciate
it
guests
online.
Thank
you
both
for
your
willingness
and
your
patience
sitting
through
the
meeting.
Only
to
not
talk
want
to
thank
senator
schroeder
for
pointing
that
out.
I
remember
the
bill.
Remember
senator
schroeder's
work
on
that
and
I
appreciate
it
senator
thomas
senate
bill
110
will
be
first.
B
Thank
you
at
our
next
meeting,
which
will
probably
be
next
thursday,
but
members
you've
again,
that's
another
one
by
the
way,
as
a
reminder
that
we've
seen
before
senator
turner's
brought
this
bill
before
we've
passed
the
bill
before,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
so
take
a
look
at
that
a
short,
simple
bill
right,
senator.