►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary (3-16-22)
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
Representative
cantrell
representative
decker
here,
representative
elliott,
I'm
here
representative
fisher
here,
representative
hevron,
representative
cole,
carney
president,
my
next
office.
Thank
you,
representative
lewis,
president
representative
maddox
present
representative
mccoy
here
representative
mentor
here,
representative
mosher,
I'm
here,
representative
nemes,
here,
representative
petry,.
E
A
Here
in
the
room,
welcome
everybody
as
usual,
we'll
begin
with
our
instructions,
no
signage
in
the
room.
I
don't
see
any
so
that's
not
a
problem.
Always
act
in
this
committee
with
civility
should
act
that
way
in
every
committee,
but
please
act
with
civility
next,
the
phones,
if
they're
silented,
that
will
be,
if
they're
on
silent,
that
will
help
make
sure.
A
I'm
going
to
start
off
by
calling
house
resolution
45,
and
that
is
my
resolution,
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
do
it
from
here
and
what
that
resolution
is
is
a
a
reference
to
the
search
warrant
task
force
that
met
throughout
the
interim
of
the
last
year
attorney
general
cameron
obviously
pulled
that
together
there
were
several
folks
as
part
of
that
task
force.
It
did
not
come
out
with
any
specific.
A
We
have
some
people
in
the
room
that
were
part
of
that
task,
force
and
I'll
ask
them
if
they
would
like
to
say
anything,
but
we
had
some
recommendations
about
how
we
might
be
better
going
forward.
It's
more
complicated
than
people
might
think
we
had
law
enforcement,
we
had
defense
attorneys,
we
had
government
officials,
we
had
prosecutors.
A
I
know
that
many
of
you
are
familiar
with
commonwealth
attorney
rob
sanders.
He
was
part
of
that.
The
dpa
was
part
of
that,
and
so
we
worked
through
various
groups
and
tried
to
come
up
with
some
recommendations
and
you've
been
provided
those
recommendations
that
are
in
your
packet
or,
if
they're,
not
in
your
packet,
we
will
provide
them
to
you.
A
It
basically
did
not
come
out
with
any
rules
directing
that
something
had
to
be
done,
but
it
was
a
recommendation
to
the
parties
involved.
What
we
need
to
do,
one
of
the
things
that
they
discussed
quite
a
bit
was
the
use
of
e-warrants
in
making
that
more
profound
throughout
the
state.
Part
of
the
issue
with
e-warrants
is
some
areas:
don't
have
good
broadband
or
signal
strength,
and
so
we've
had
to
look
at
those
things
as
well,
but
we
have
that
here
in
front
of
you.
A
It
is
a
resolution
that
just
basically
asked
for
the
search
warrant
task
force
to
be
recognized
for
the
recommendations
to
be
recognized
and
to
proceed
with
the
discussions
of
the
things
that
were
discussed.
I
will
ask
if
any
of
the
people
that
served
on
the
task
force
that
are
present
if
they
would
like
to
make
any
comments.
Would
you
like
to
make
any
comments?
Okay,
representative
demas
thank.
F
You
I
hate
to
do
this,
and
maybe
this
is
my
dear
election
in
preparation,
but
we're
asked
to
give
our
imprimatur
to
those
findings
and
I
trust
the
people
that
were
on
it,
but
I
haven't
reviewed
them.
I
would
like
to
hear
from
damon
or
somebody
who
was
on
them
just
40,
000
square
foot,
view
what
you
know
were
there
any
objections
to
them
by
the
group
by
any
groups
that
served.
A
As
he's
getting
ready
to
answer,
I
will
tell
you
representative
nemes
that
the
the
only
way
that
this
came
about
at
the
end
was
that
all
members
of
the
committee
had
a
consensus
as
to
what
was
put
forward
in
these
recommendations.
So
anything
that
was
of
any
concern
was
stricken
and
it
was
all
a
consensus-based
recommendation.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
G
I'll
quickly
be
responsive,
damon
preston,
with
department
of
public
advocacy,
as
as
the
chair
said,
we
did
wind
up
at
at
consensus
and
recommendations.
I
will
say:
consensus
was
a
step
back
from
unanimous.
They
were
not
unanimous
recommendations.
Some
of
some
of
them
were,
but
not
all
of
them
were.
G
I
won't
go
through
all
the
recommendations.
The
chair
said
that
they
would
be
provided.
There
were
some
objections.
The
objections
were
from
all
over
the
room.
You
know,
defense
would
object
to
some
law
enforcement
would
object
to
others.
G
So
perhaps
that's
a
sign
of
a
working
process,
but
many
of
the
recommendations
were
just
for
information
to
to,
because
one
of
the
things
that
frustrated
the
the
search
warrant
task
force
was
the
lack
of
statewide
information,
and
so
it's
to
get
more
information
moving
forward
so
that
perhaps
recommendations
more
specific
could
come
to
you
all
down
in
the
future.
But
right
now
we
didn't
have
adequate
information,
I'll
say
from
the
defense,
just
solely
speaking
as
a
single
member
of
the
task
force.
G
H
A
Actually,
the
parties
involved
were
the
commonwealth
attorney's
office,
the
attorney
general's
office,
the
defense
attorneys
judges,
law
enforcement
was
involved.
What
might
be
helpful
to
this
committee
is
to
go
over
quickly,
there's
like
eight
recommendations,
and
I
can
go
through
those
quickly.
I
won't
won't
belabor
them,
but
one
of
them
was
data
record
keeping
because
there
was
insufficient
data,
as
those
already
been
indicated
to
affect
some
of
these
things.
A
So
one
of
the
things
that
they
want
to
encourage
folks
to
do
is
to
keep
adequate
records
so
that
these
can
properly
be
monitored,
but
the
first
recommendation
was
as
soon
as
feasible.
All
state
and
local
agencies,
with
the
authority
to
execute
search
warrants
should
utilize
an
electronic
platform
maintained
by
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts.
That
was
the
first
one.
The
second
recommendation
was
that
agencies
serving
serving
search
warrants
should
track
the
locations
at
which
the
warrants
were
served.
Locations
should
be
regularly
published
in
a
manner
that
is
accessible
to
the
public.
A
The
format
should
allow
the
public
to
compare
the
number
of
search
warrants
served
across
various
zip
codes
and
regions
of
the
commonwealth,
and
that
format
should
not
reveal
the
addresses
for
which
the
search
warrants
were
served,
sought
or
obtained.
The
next
recommendation
is,
in
the
absence
of
an
emergency,
a
prosecutor
should
review
and
approve
a
proposed
search
warrant
before
the
investigating
agency
seeks
judicial
authorization.
A
That's
because,
obviously,
when
you
have
different
law
enforcement
agencies,
you
might
have
different
policies
or
formats
they
follow,
but
if
you
bring
them
under
the
auspices
of
a
commonwealth
attorney,
that's
schooled
in
this
matter,
they
will
be
able
to
check
those
recommendations.
Recommendation
number
four
is
law.
Enforcement
officers
should
receive
search
warrant
related
training
at
the
beginning
of
their
careers
and
thereafter
should
receive
updated
training
regularly,
as
determined
by
the
kentucky
department
of
criminal
justice
training,
and
the
curriculum
should
include
search,
warrant,
form
and
mandatory
components,
describing
the
property
to
be
searched.
A
Developing
and
articulating
probable
cause
time
limitations
for
probable
cause
and
execution
of
warrants.
Recommendation
five
is
all
enforcement
bodies
should
adopt,
enforce
and
regularly
update
written
policies
and
procedures
that
govern
the
servants
of
search
warrants
in
their
jurisdictions.
Recommendation
six
for
every
search
warrant
that
is
sought.
Law
enforcement
officers
should
consider,
along
with
other
relevant
factors
the
time
of
day
that
is
most
appropriate
for
service
recommendation
7.
Whenever
the
services
of
a
search
warrant
may
impact
a
minor
child,
protective
services
should
be
notified
of
that
search
warrant
and
recommendation.
A
8
law
enforcement
bodies
in
the
commonwealth
should
adopt
some
of
the
of
a
toolkit
guide
of
serving
for
search
warrants
for
a
list
of
the
items
to
be
included
in
a
toolkit.
The
search
warrant
task
force
proposes
that
law
enforcement
bodies
adopt
some
version
of
the
model
toolkit
found
on
page
10
of
the
report.
A
That
basically
was
the
recommendations,
so,
as
you
can
see,
it
wasn't
in
any
form
or
fashion
a
mandate.
The
parties
did
commit
to
continue
working
on
this
together.
You
know,
obviously,
when
you
put
prosecutors
and
defense
attorneys
and
law
enforcement
and
judges
in
a
room
you're,
probably
never
going
to
get
a
full
unanimous
outcome.
Obviously,
in
different
parts
of
the
state,
it's
different
for
rural
communities
than
it
is
for
urban
communities,
and
so
we
were
working
through
all
of
those
processes.
That's
why
these
are
recommendations,
not
mandates.
A
A
We
have
a
motion
for
adoption
by
representative
elliott,
second
by
representative
mosher,
and
I
will
make
sure,
through
our
staff,
that
we
we
send
this
whole
resolution
out
to
everyone.
Again.
It's
all
recommendations,
no
mandates.
I
would
encourage
you
to
talk
to
the
people
that
were
on
the
committee
too,
because
we
are
not
going
to
be
a
task
force,
that's
regularly
meeting,
but
we
will
be
continuing
the
work
that
we
started
so
with
that
we
have
a
motion
for
adoption
in
a
second.
This
is
a
permitted
by
a
voice
vote.
A
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
sub
by
representative
nemus.
We
have
a
second
by
representative
mccoy,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed.
There
is
none
all
right,
I'm
not
sure
who's
going
to
go
first,
but
I
always
like
to
go
with
the
chain
of
command.
So
representative
osborne,
you
had
the
floor
actually.
I
I
appreciate
that,
mr
chairman,
but
I'm
going
to
defer
to
the
actual
bill
primary
bill
sponsor
to
to
start
us
off.
J
Thank
you
very
much,
I'm
gonna
kind
of
explain
why
we're
while
we're
in
this
situation
and
I'm
gonna,
let
zoe
fairfield
speak
and
kind
of
tee
up
the
conversation
so
house
bill
185.
This
action
bill
was
actually
rolled
into
another
dui
bill.
I
believe
it
was
house
bill
154
what
the
original
bill
did
was.
It
gave
our
law
enforcement
and
judges
the
opportunity
to
take
away
at
license
plates
whenever
someone
had
a
dui.
This
was
a
request
for
my
district
judge
in
hardin
county,
and
so
that
was
all
kind
of
rolled
into
one.
J
So
we
had
this
bill
set
in
here
and
after
the
filing
deadline.
Zoe
fairfield
and
her
dad
came
to
the
speaker
and
a
few
of
us
that
had
been
working
on
dui
legislation
and
asked
if
we'd
be
interested
in
carrying
this
bill,
and
so
that's
why
we
have
the
house
committee
sub,
and
so,
if
there
are
no
questions
on
that,
I'm
going
to
give
it
to
zoe
fairfield,
to
kind
of
explain
why
we're
here
today.
K
K
I
hope
to
honor
her
life
by
making
kentucky's
roadways
safer
for
everyone
today.
This
body
has
an
opportunity
to
do
just
that
house.
Bill
185
is
the
proper
step
forward
to
ensure
no
other
families
face
what
mine
has
the
this
bill
will
mandate
a
48-hour
hold
for
all
first
dui
offenses,
my
sister
was
killed
by
a
driver
who
had
been
arrested
for
dui
just
three
days
prior.
K
We
cannot
continue
our
current
process
of
ignoring
dui
crimes
or
pretending
that
they
are
not
violent,
offenses
and
that
they
should
be
punished
as
such,
although
I
believe
there
is
so
much
to
be
done
with
regards
to
making
our
roads
safer.
I
hope
that
this
is
the
process
that
starts
safer
roadways
and
safer
laws
for
all
that.
J
Thank
you
zoe,
so
what
this
bill
does
is
make
some
changes
to
the
penalty
structure
to
do
our
part
to
prevent
such
a
tragedy
from
happening
again,
so
this
would
be
called
lily's
law
and
honoring
zoe's
sister
lily
to
be
considered
driving
under
the
influence.
A
person
must
have
a
blood
or
breath
test
showing
a
bac
of
more
than
.08.
J
Here
the
drunk
driver
was
released
within
hours
and
it
is
scientifically
impossible
to
know
how
long
any
given
person
needs
to
process
the
alcohol
in
their
system
to
be
sober
enough
to
drive.
Factors
include
body,
weight,
metabolism,
composition
and
history
of
alcohol
use
play
a
huge
role.
Therefore,
we
cannot
legislate
the
time
based
on
the
person,
so
we
must
make
some
general
changes
to
the
portion
of
the
penalty
structure
involving
incarceration
time
after
the
arrest.
So
the
bill
does
two
specific
things.
J
J
Second,
this
bill
brings
kentucky
in
line
with
neighboring
states
by
making
a
third
offense
a
class
d
felony
rather
than
a
misdemeanor.
The
sentence
is
now
mandated
to
be
between
one
and
five
years
as
well.
Previously,
a
court
could
choose
a
fine
and
jail
time
of
no
less
than
30
days
or
more
than
a
year.
If
there
was
aggravating
factors.
J
The
30
days
became
a
mandatory
60.,
and
so
with
this
also
there
is
a
house
committee
title
amendment
declaring
an
emergency
just
for
the
committee's
knowledge,
and
I
will
actually
go
ahead
and
pass
it
over
to
speaker
osborne
if
he
has
any
additional
comments.
I
Thank
you
samaras.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
zoe
a
couple
things
that
are
are
still
in
process
on
this
bill
and
we're
obviously
limited
by
time
remaining
in
session.
So
we
wanted
to
get
this
thing
moving.
That's
why
we
chose
to
use
a
vehicle
that
was
already
in
play
and
and
also
some
ongoing
discussions
about
the
mandatory
hold
over
time
again,
as
samara
said,
the
48
hours
was
the
request.
I
I've
already
had
a
number
of
you
that
that
have
expressed
some
some
concerns
about
that
48-hour
time
period
and,
and
certainly
that
is
something
for
discussion.
I
think
that
we
can
all
agree
that
that
a
minimum
time
long
enough
to
sober
up
is,
is
appropriate
and
it
will
be.
I
think
you
will
find
a
complete
openness
and
receptiveness
to
to
making
sure
that
that
we
are.
We
are
reasonable
in
that
process.
Another
thing
that
representative
nemes
has
been
working
on.
I
F
Thank
you
speaker.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
ncic
portion,
which
is
not
in
the
bill,
wants
you
to
know
why
it's
not
right.
Now.
When
someone
gets
arrested,
what
happens?
Is
they
go
to
jail
and
the
pre-trial
officer
runs
the
court
net
report
so
that
lets
us
know
what
the
the
record
is
in
kentucky.
They
also
run
an
ncic
report,
they're
supposed
to
run
an
ncic
report
to
let
us
know
let
the
judge
know
or
let
the
pre-trial
officer
know
when
they
make
the
recommendation
to
the
judge
whether
there's
any
offenses
outside
of
kentucky.
F
We
know
that
that
in
we
believe
that
ncic
report
is
not
being
done
each
time
as
I
talked
to
the
the
courts,
I'm
told
that
they're
supposed
to
do
that.
Every
time
we're
figuring
out
exactly
you
know
what
we
can
do
to
be
helpful
to
make
sure
that's
done.
So
our
judges
have
all
the
information
they
need
to
keep
the
dangerous
people
in
jail
and
and
the
ones
that
aren't
dangerous.
Let
the
judge
take
that
into
account
until
the
determination
of
when
to
release
them,
whether
to
release
them.
F
So
we
don't
have
the
ncic
portion
of
it
in
the
bill
right
now.
We
are
working
on
that
and
if
we
don't
get
that
done,
this
session
is
something
that
we'll
be
looking
into
in
the
in
the
interim.
I'm
I'm
informed
by
the
court
system
that
they're
obviously
dedicated
to
making
sure
that
that
their
pre-trial
officers
do
those
reports
and
provide
that
necessary
information
to
the
judges.
A
L
Good
morning,
everybody,
my
name
is
phillip
lawson,
I'm
the
new
legislative
agent
for
kcdl.
I
know
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
meet
many
of
you.
Nor
have
a
chance
to.
You
know,
obviously
make
a
statement
here,
and
you
know
when
I
got
the
committee
substitute
last
night.
Obviously
hearing
the
testimony
today
and
like
many
of
you,
I
also
read
the
herald
leader
article
from
march
7th
of
this
year
regarding
the
drastic
increase
in
fatalities
here
in
the
state
of
kentucky
that
was
released
in
1920..
L
L
My
concern
as
well
as
ours
in
terms
of
the
organization
is
the
dui
structure
that
we
have
in
place
has
been
in
place
since
1984
and
it
shows
and
it's
been
designed
to
gradually
escalate.
You
know
you
know
first,
second,
third
and
fourth,
so
my
concern
is:
is
that
obviously
you
know
there's
a
desire
to
to
make
some
changes
to
address
this?
My
concern
is
is
that
I
would
just
hope
that
you
know.
Maybe
we
can.
L
L
Now
the
important
change
between
those
and
what
we're
experiencing
under
current
law
now
is
the
implementation
of
the
ignition
interlock
device
system,
our
dui.
You
know
laws
changed
drastically
when
it
came
to.
You
know
the
license
suspension
component
when
we
enacted
those
changes
where
it
made
the
ignition
interlock
device
mandatory.
L
I
think
from
a
you
know,
large
standpoint
that
has
been
very
receptive
in
district
courts.
I'm
I'm
not
a
lobbyist,
as
I
tell
people,
I'm
a
trial
attorney,
I'm
a
full-time.
You
know
criminal
defense
lawyer
do
some
other
areas,
so
I
do
some
of
this
work
and
it
seems
to
be
very
receptive
both
from
judges
prosecutors
as
well.
As
you
know,
the
defense
bar
and
my
concern
is-
is
that
we
haven't
had
enough
time
to
see
how
that
has
impacted
in
terms
of
public
safety.
L
A
Thank
you,
sir.
As
always,
the
legislation
is
a
process
and
we're
at
the
beginning
of
that
process.
I
think
the
speaker's
already
indicated
along
with
representative
nemas,
that
there
are
some
things
they're
working
on,
even
as
we
move
forward
in
the
process,
but
due
to
the
late
hour,
so
to
speak,
we
needed
to
get
it
moving
and
so
we'll
continue
to
work
on
that
as
we
move
forward.
But
with
that
we
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
representative,
scott.
C
C
What
else
can
we
do
besides
locking
people
up,
because
that's
not
going
to
work
even
for
48
hours,
it
seems
like
if
we're
using
our
gels
as
detox
facilities,
we're
actually
not
addressing
the
problem,
and
people
are
going
to
get
back
out
and
have
the
same
behavior.
So
is
there
something
else
that
we
could
do
besides
arresting
people.
F
Thank
you,
I
think
that's
a
good
question,
representative
scott,
especially
in
jefferson
county,
where
we've
had
seven
deaths
in
the
last.
I
think
four
months,
that's
a
very
significant
problem
that
we
have
to
get
our
hands
around
in
louisville.
I
would
note
that
this
is
a.
This
is
a
bill
that
applies
to
all
120
counties
and
not
everybody
has
the
same
problems
that
we
have
that
we
need
to
fix.
But
I
would
say
this:
the
48-hour
rule
that
we're
working
on
as
the
speaker
suggested
that
it's
not
time
to
treat
the
person.
F
Then
it's
time
to
protect
the
community.
Let's
not,
let's
not
let
them
get
back
out,
and
I
know
we
have
overcrowding
I
get
it.
We
have
to
address
that
no
doubt,
but
this
person
is
a
dangerous
to
them
dangerous
to
themselves
and
to
others
they
they
were
recently.
You
know
within
the
last
few
hours
in
front
of
a
steering
wheel,
driving
a
car,
so
we
need
to
get
them
off
the
roads
immediately.
That's
what
the
48
hour
hole
does,
and
I
would
suggest,
on
the
the
third
term,
that
making
the
third
offense
a
felony.
F
My
friend
mentioned
the
interlock
device.
That's
why
it's
even
more
reasonable
that
we
that
we
make
that
change,
because,
if
they're
getting
a
third
offense
after
we've
already
done
those
things,
including
our
new
interlock
interventions-
that's
even
worse,
and
so-
and
this
is
a
within
10
years-
they
have
a
problem.
What
this
does
it
mandates
240
days
on
the
third
offense,
and
so
we
need
to
do
more
treatment.
Yes,
but
I
think
these
two
provisions
are
are
necessary
at
this
time.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
legislation.
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
continue
talking
about
this
and
zoe,
I'm
so
sorry
for
your
loss.
How
tragic
I
mean
and
no
family
should
have
to
go
through
what
your
family
is
going
through.
Now
I
completely
agree.
M
I
agree
that
when
an
individual
is
especially
if
they're
on
their
third
dui
and
they're
picked
up
yet
again
that
they
should
have
a
48-hour
hold
to
make
sure
that
they
are
safe
and
no
longer
a
danger
to
others,
we
already
have
a
202,
a
statute.
I'm
wondering
I
mean
that's
72
hours.
M
I
don't
know
if
you've
considered
that
provision
in
in
looking
at
this
legislation.
I
know
that
this
is
a
process,
so
maybe
we
can
talk
about
that
and
also
a
mandatory
assessment,
and
that
would
speak
to
representative
scott's
issue
with
the
whole
idea
of
you
know
the
individuals
not
getting
help
for
their
obvious
issue
with
alcohol,
so
I
think
that
probably
a
mandatory
assessment
during
that
48
hours
would
be
prudent.
So
have
you
considered
any
of
anything
like
that.
I
Chairman
moser,
I
didn't
obviously
I
have
not
brought
representative
nemus
along
for
his.
His
good
looks
watch
it.
I
I.
The
reason
that
that
that
jason
is
involved
is
because
he
deals
in
a
lot
of
these
matters
and,
and
has
has
kind
of
evaluated.
That
and,
and
feels
like
this
is
appropriate,
had
not
talked
about
the
the
mandatory
evaluation,
though,
however,
so
I
I
will,
I
will
yield
to
his
thoughts
on
that.
F
There
are
when,
when
somebody
gets
arrested,
it
doesn't
happen
every
time
in
every
community.
It
certainly
happens
in
louisville,
most
of
the
time
when
someone
comes
in
there's
a
nurse
right
there.
So
if
you
go
into
the
jail
you
you
go
to
the
holding
area,
then
you
go
to
the
preacher
officer
which
is
sitting
up
there.
Sometimes
it's
on
the
phone,
but
most
of
the
times
in
louisville.
It's
it's
on
at
the
it's
a
bench:
it's
not
a
judicial
bench
and
there's
a
nurse
right
next
to
it,
and
sometimes
they
can
get
treatment.
F
It's
not
every
time
I
would
say
this
is
much
different
than
202a,
because
202a
is
obviously
by
definition,
a
danger
to
themselves
or
to
the
community.
These
people,
in
the
short
term
are
dangerous
to
the
community,
have
already
sold
that
because
they
were
recently
in
a
car
inebriated,
but
we
need
to
distinguish
between
social
drink
all
of
it's
wrong.
They
put
themselves
in
the
community
in
significant
danger.
F
No,
no
reservations
on
that,
but
someone
who's
a
who's,
a
perennial
offender
or
someone
who's
a
mo.
You
know
multiple
times
is
different,
and
so
perhaps
we
need
bottom
line
is
we
need
to
talk
more
about
treatment?
Obviously,
this
bill
doesn't
do
that.
It
doesn't
increase
that
or
decrease
that
that
aspect.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
speaker
and
representative
hevron
and
representative
nemes.
Thank
you
for
working
on
this
issue.
You
know
my
great
aunt
lost
her
husband
in
the
1960s
in
her
30s.
He
was
killed
by
a
drunk
driver
and
she
remained
a
widow
up
until
her
death
about
20
years
ago.
So
my
family
has
been
touched
by
this
issue
as
well,
and
so
I
thank
you
for
your
bravery
zoe
in
appearing
before
our
committee
today.
H
F
We're
looking
at
that
most
states
have
a
hold.
We,
we
don't
necessarily
have
a
hold
in
kentucky.
It's
an
ore
in
the
statute
here
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
times
what's
happening.
Is
people
are
getting
released
before
they're
sobered
up
and
at
the
very.
N
F
Kentucky
law
should
say
they
don't
get
out
until
they're
sobered
up,
and
so
I'm
looking
at
that
right
now
we're
looking
at
it
very
quickly.
Most
states
have
a
hold.
I
don't.
I
can't
tell
you
what
30
states
have
versus
20
states
on
the
hours.
Looking
at
that
right
now,
and
I
would
also
note
that
the
other
change
we're
making
on
the
third
offense
is
the
the
my
understanding.
The
majority
of
the
states
have
the
third
offense,
where
we,
whereas
we
have
the
fourth
offense.
H
K
K
K
So
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
this
is
lily's
law.
I'm
thankful,
it's
not
my
brother's
law.
He
lived,
but
I
have
a
few
questions
or
comments.
Actually,
in
response
to
the
questions
about
the
48-hour
rule,
I
do
think
our
jails
are
overcrowded.
I
do
think
that's
a
problem,
but
this
is
a
safety
measure.
K
J
That
was
actually
rolled
into
another
bill.
It
was
a
representative
flannery's
house
bill
154.
It
was
rolled
into
his
bill,
so
this
has
already
taken
care
of
its
past.
It's
in
the
senate.
I
believe
it
might
have
even
passed
on
the
consent
calendar
yesterday
in
the
senate,
so
the
license
plate
issue
has
been
taken
care
of
already.
K
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think,
since
we're
all
telling
our
stories
here,
I've
also
been
impacted
by
drunk
driving.
Luckily,
it
was
only
my
property
that
was
damaged.
A
drunk
driver
flew
through
my
apartment,
complex
and
hit
my
car.
Luckily
I
was,
I
think
I
was
asleep
when
it
happened,
and
I
can't
imagine
you
know
the
if
I
had
been
physically
injured
or,
and
people
who
have
been
physically
injured,
who
have
been
impacted
by
this.
K
It's
it's
it's
terrible,
but
I
I
think
that
all
of
us
having
a
connection
and
story
about
this
shows
what
a
common
offense
this
is,
and
we
know
that
this
is
a
commonly
charged
offense
and-
and
I
haven't
looked
at
this
in
a
while,
but
I
know
that
the
data
shows
for
the
most
part
after
your
first
dui
offense.
A
lot
of
people
do
not
commit
a
second
offense.
K
So
if
we're
going
to
hold
somebody
in
for
48
hours,
we
know
that
they're
going
to
get
out.
We
know
that
they're
going
to
move
on
with
their
life.
You
know
a
lot
of
collateral
consequences
can
happen
when
someone's
left
incarcerated.
If
they
were
supposed
to
be
at
their
job
a
day
or
two
later
say,
if
they
get
picked
up
on
a
saturday
night,
they
were
supposed
to
be
at
their
job
monday
morning.
They
don't
show
up,
they
lose
their
job
and
they
can't.
K
If
they
don't
have,
you
know
an
any
economic
security
to
to
pay
for
restitution,
for
example-
and
I
keep
thinking
about
this
wondering
if
there's
a
better
way,
maybe
if
we
could
start
at
12
hours
and
maybe
have
some
sort
of
data
like
we
know
that
we
have
breathalyzers
and
if
the
idea
is
until
when
somebody
is
sobered
up
enough
to
to
be
released,
whether
if
we
could
use
something
like
a
breathalyzer
to
to
prove
that
they
can
meet
certain
criteria
and
and
lessen
the
impact
of
those
collateral
consequences,
and
this
bill
just
needs
a
lot
of
work
and
I'm
I'm
willing
to
to.
F
Mr
chairman,
real
quickly,
if
I
could
just
very
quickly
my
friend
is
correct
on
most
people,
don't
recommit
the
same
offense,
but
one
in
five
do,
and
we
also
know
that
you
don't
get
arrested
and
caught
every
time
you
drive
drunk,
and
so
you
know
I
want
to
put
that
up
for
consideration
as
well
and.
J
To
follow
up
with
representative
nemes
in
our
meeting
earlier
this
week,
we
they
were,
we
were
talking
with
the
fairfields
and
generally
someone
will
drive
80
times
before
they
get
caught
in
their
first
dui,
and
I
think
that's
very
eye-opening,
and
it's
something
that
members
of
the
committee
should
really
think
about
too.
O
O
Am
I
hearing
you
all
say
that
in
the
committee
sub
there's
a
mandatory
48
hour
hold
post
arrest
because
the
section
I'm
seeing
is
actually
the
what
happens
after
you're
convicted
and
there's
a
distinction
there
and
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure.
I
understand.
F
O
O
So,
anyhow,
a
lot
of
work
to
do
there
nemus
just
one
quick
question
for
you
or
a
comment
on
the
ncic
part.
Will
you
make
sure
that
if,
as
that
goes
through
development,
it
becomes
part
of
the
discovery
for
the
criminal
file.
O
K
O
L
Like
you,
representative
mccoy,
this
is
I'm
a
criminal
defense
lawyer.
I've
been
doing
it
for
10
years
used
to
be
a
public
defender
just
to
comment
on
your
two
statements.
I
agree
with
your
reading
that
it
doesn't
have
the
48
hour
hold
and
then.
Secondly,
I
am
also
unaware
of
any
law
in
our
state
that
would
require
48
hours
upon
arrest.
P
A
few
quick
comments,
mr
chairman,
very
quickly.
First,
I'm
reading
this
the
same
as
representative
mccoy.
This
looks
like
a
conviction-
maybe
it's
not
in
the
right
place
in
statute
of
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
for
the
hold.
Secondly-
and
it's
it's
been
a
few
years
since
I've
arrested
somebody
when
we're
saying
we
don't
hold
anybody
last
time
that
I
arrested
somebody
on
ai,
it
was
four
hours
minimum
before
somebody
could
sign
them
out.
P
P
My
understanding
already
has
a
48-hour
hold
on
duis
initially,
and,
and
we
can,
we
can
debate
the
amount
of
hours
it
needs
to
be
that
that's
one
thing
and-
and
I
have
experience
where
I
have
arrested,
someone
taking
them
in
administered
intoxilizer,
they
were
well
above
the
legal
limit,
and
before
I
got
my
paperwork
processed,
they
were
released.
P
P
P
Now
we'll
point
out
that
there
is
legislation,
if
you
go
over
in
section
10
or
two,
that
does
require
treatment
as
part
of
your
agreement
and
your
plea
to
be
enrolled
in
alcohol
abuse
treatment
in
section
two,
that's
already
in
statute,
so
I
get
it.
We
want
to
look
out
for
people's
rights.
We
want
to
look
out
for
people's
jobs,
but
when,
in
this
country,
do
we
forget
about
victims?
C
C
F
Well,
if
they
wouldn't
be
a
dui,
it
wouldn't
be
a
felony
for
the
dui
they'd
likely
get
charged
with
wanting
endangerment
or
something
else.
That
is
a
felony.
That's
my
understanding
so,
but
the
third
offense
dui,
if
they
kill
somebody
in
and
of
itself,
is
not
a
felony
but
they'd
probably
be
charged
with
other
things
as
well.
You
want
to
speak
to
that
phil.
L
Yes,
representative
bradshaw,
I
actually
brought
a
dui
guilty
plea
for
him,
just
to
kind
of
help
remind
me
of
the
aggravating
circumstances.
Yes,
if
somebody
were
to
be
seriously
physically
injured
on
a
dui
third
offense
as
it
sits
now,
it
would
be
an
aggravated
circumstance
under
the
dui
third
and
but
he
would
also
this
person
under
this
hypothetical
would
likely
be
charged
with
either
reckless
homicide
manslaughter
or
something
even
worse.
I've
had
cases
involving
those
types
of
things.
L
A
K
May
I
explain
please
I'm
going
to
vote
yes,
because
I
trust
you
all
to
address
what
what
has
been
said
today,
because
there's
clearly
a
lot
of
issues
that
need
to
be
resolved.
K
J
J
The
fairfields
are
constituents
of
speaker
osborne,
and
so
here
the
fairfields
have
brought
this
issue
and
they've
they've
seen
their
representative
bring
this
into
policy
into
legislation
to
see
the
conversation,
and
so
I
think
that's
really.
The
true
zoe
gets
to
be
part
of
that
that
conversation
of
seeing
how
laws
are
made
and
she's
advocating
something
terrible
happened,
she's
having
the
courage
to
advocate
and
make
better.
So
this
doesn't
happen
to
anyone
else
in
the
commonwealth,
and
so
I
just
I
vote
yesterday
for
her
bravery
and
her
family
for
advocating.
Q
Briefly,
explain
I'm
going
to
pass
for
today.
I
appreciate
the
sponsor's
intent
and
then
bringing
the
bill
and
zoe.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
engagement.
I
do
echo
some
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
brought
up
by
my
colleagues
today
and
just
for
clarification.
B
C
Zoe,
thank
you
for
your
advocacy
and
your
courage
and
I'm
so
sorry
for
your
loss.
I'm
voting
yesterday,
but
I
concur
with
representative
cantrell
that
this
is
still
a
concept
and
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
get
across
the
finish
line,
but
I'm
I'm
certain
that
work
will
be
done
based
on
the
good
conversation
we've
had
in
committee
today
and
that's
the
purpose.
Thank
you.
C
A
Yes,
15.
there
being
15,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
four
passes.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
shall
pass
and
you
had
three
passes.
Add
four:
okay,
there's
also
a
title
amendment
to
this,
so
I
need
a
motion
representative
blanton,
sir
a
second
representative
mosher,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed.
There's,
none
all
right!
Congratulations
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
mr
speaker,
while
you're
here
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
call
house
bill
675
if
is
represented
mccoy
still
here,.
A
You,
mr
speaker,
all
right,
then
we'll
call
house
bill.
R
Let
me
go
he's
there
all
right.
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
william
lawrence.
I
am
the
state
representative
for
the
70th
district
and
I
have
with
me
today
jeff
schumacher
an
attorney
from
my
district.
If
you'll
introduce
yourself
morning
or
good
afternoon,
brother.
R
I
want
to
first
say
thank
you
to
the
chairman
and
representative
mosher
for
your
help
on
helping
draft
this
bill.
I'm
going
to
let
jeff
if
you
would
just
kind
of
explain
the
bill
briefly.
I
know
we've
got
a
very
full
agenda
today
and
we'll
move
forward.
D
Real
very
quickly,
without
practice
for
30
years,
in
kentucky
courts
and
numerous
times,
I've
had
done
termination
of
parental
rights
cases
typically
for
young
women
who
have
fathers
that
are
not
involved
with
the
child.
Don't
know
the
child,
and
so
I
would
routinely
do
these
cases
because
these
women
did
not
want
if
something
happened
to
them.
For
that
uninvolved
other
parent
to
come
in
as
a
child,
they
wanted
to
be
able
to
terminate
those
rights
and
then,
by
their
own
last,
will
and
testament
able
to
determine
who
received
custody
of
that
child.
D
So
I
did
those
typically,
you
know
in
30
years
have
done
numerous
of
them,
and
so
I
filed
one
a
couple
years
or
maybe
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
and
it
was
rejected
because
the
there
had
been
a
recent
change
in
the
in
the
statute
and
the
statute
basically
said.
If,
if
you
had
never
had,
you
could
file
it
for
a
termination
apparently
still
file.
D
But
if
you
had
never
been
involved
with
a
cabinet
case
before
that,
you
couldn't
get
a
final
resolution,
whereas
which
made
no
sense,
because
a
good
parent
that
had
never
had
any
involvement
with
the
cabinet
was
being
prevented
from
terminating
a
deadbeat
parent,
whereas
a
person
that
had
been
involved
with
the
cabinet
and
had
a
lot
of
cases
in
the
cabinet
which
would
indicate
they
had
their
own
issues,
they
could
do
that,
but
it
didn't
make
any
sense,
and
so
we
tried
to
get
it
through
and
the
circuit
judge
said
well,
you
know
the
law's
got
this
conflict,
I'm
not
going
to
rule
on
it,
I'm
not
going
to
allow
it.
D
I
then
filed
an
appeal
at
the
court
of
appeals.
Court
of
appeals
came
back
with
the
same
thing,
so
this
is
a
legislative
problem.
They've
created
this
conflict
and
from
what
and
I've
talked
to
representative
lawrence.
That
was
very
receptive
and
we
talked
to
the
other
committee
members
at
the
time
that
worked
on
the
drafting
of
these
legislation
and
we
came
up
with
a
draft
that
fixes
the
problem
very
easily
and
allows
those
kind
of
cases
to
go
forward.
Regardless
of
whether
they've
had
cabinet
involvement,
that,
in
a
nutshell,
is
got
involved.
I
G
A
D
R
A
R
N
R
Thank
you
christy.
The
bill
that
I
have
brought
you
today
house
bill.
217,
will
add
the
domestic
violence
shelters
as
a
covered
location
for
terroristic
threatening
christie.
Could
you
give
them
a
quick
background
of
the
story
that
you
guys
that
you
had
brought
to
me
and
why
this
is
so
important
to
your
center
and
other
domestic
violence
centers
throughout
the
state
of
kentucky.
N
Absolutely
thank
you
all.
Thank
you,
chairman
massey,
and
thank
you
committee.
In
september
of
2021,
a
person
fled
to
our
maysville
program.
Her
partner
was
being
extremely
physically
and
mentally
abusive.
After
about
10
days
with
us,
her
partner
began
texting
her
non-stop.
He
called
our
hotline
over
40
times
in
two
days.
He
actually
pretended
to
be
a
boone
county,
police
officer,
he'd,
cuss
and
scream
at
staff
who
answered
he
made
threats
toward
the
ion
center
and
the
client.
N
He
demanded
that
we
let
him
talk
with
the
client,
even
though
he
didn't
know
if
she
was
there
or
not.
If
we
didn't
get
the
client
to
respond
in
a
certain
time
frame,
he
threatened
to
hurt
her
and
us
he
called
her
in
one
day
over
a
hundred
times
for
from
multiple
numbers.
He
used
burner,
phones,
burner
apps,
just
so
we
couldn't
trace
them.
He
called
her
place
of
employment
and
was
stalking
her.
There.
Maysville
police
department
in
fact
had
to
walk
her
to
her
car.
N
She
closed
at
night
at
her
job
on
9
18.
He
texted
the
client
and
stated
he
had
a
9
millimeter
and
he
and
her
friend
were
on
their
way
to
light
the
place
up.
He
gave
her
an
hour
to
call
him
back.
He
also
then
called
the
ion
center
and
told
us
he
was
on
the
double
a
coming
to
get
us
and,
as
I
listened
to
the
recording
he
said,
you
have
15
minutes
to
get
her
to
call
me
or
I'm
going
to
blow
this
place
up.
It's
going
to
be
a
big
finish.
N
You're
going
to
watch
this
shelter
go
boom,
we're
so
grateful
to
the
maysville
pd.
They
were
right
there
and
in
fact
they
did
ping
his
phone
and
he
was
on
the
way
on
the
double
a
and
for
us
the
reality
set
in
that
these
threats
could
be
carried
out.
We
made
an
evacuation
strategy
with
our
fire
department
and
police
were
stationed
outside
our
shelter
he
was
arrested
and
when
he
was
charged
with
terroristic
threatening,
he
could
only
be
charged
with
a
misdemeanor
because
shelters
were
not
schools
or
government
government
entities.
N
You
all
know
very
much
that
a
safe
place
for
survivors
to
escape
is
foundational
to
shelters.
Staff
were
also
tremendously
impacted
by
these
threats.
They
already
have
profoundly
difficult
jobs,
supporting
children
and
people
through
the
worst
of
their
sufferings.
N
Our
staff
and
shelter
provides
these
life-saving
services,
and
we
know
the
most
dangerous
time
for
survivors
is
when
they
make
the
decision
to
leave.
Research
tells
us
45.
Percent
of
dv
homicides
are
triggered
when
survivors
leave,
and
we
also
know
that
20
percent
of
victims
of
domestic
violence
related
murders
are
not
survivors,
they're,
corollary,
victims,
their
friends,
family,
neighbors,
police
officers,
bystanders,
shelter,
staff
in
the
late
1990s
myself.
A
Representative
nemes
and
the
second
by
representative,
mccoy
ma'am,
typically
when
when
things
are
going
well,
we
stop
talking
so
we're
gonna,
see
if
there's
questions,
and
we
do
have
one
question
that
representative
cantrell.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
trying
to
do
some
quick
research
over
here.
It
looks
like
terroristic
threatening
is
comes
in
the
first
degree,
second
degree
and
third
degree.
The
second
degree
is
a
class
d
felony.
I'm
trying
to
look
at
some
of
the
definitions
and
then,
in
the
first
degree
this
this
would
be
a
class
c
felony
and
obviously
the
situation
that
was
described
in
in
this
example
is
obviously,
but
you
know,
between
the
constant
calls.
K
Impersonating
a
police
officer
threatening
the
entire
safety
of
that
structure
obviously
falls
within
that,
and
I
think
a
class
c
would
be
appropriate.
Are
we
missing
something
and
not
putting
this?
Also?
In
the
second
degree,
terroristic
threatening
statute.
N
I
think
it's
something
that
we
can
look
into.
I
would
probably
possibly
so
I
think
that
again,
these
are
such
critical,
critical
issues
and
severity
of
violence
is
extreme.
We've
seen
so
many
homicides
recently
and
of
domestic
violence
victims,
so
we
definitely
need
as
much
protection
as
we
can
possibly
have.
R
These
domestic
violence,
centers
are
probably
one
of
the
places
that's
going
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
people
coming
there
to
attack
them,
because
that's
where
their
partner
has
went
to
to
hide
from
that
from
that
individual,
that's
after
them,
so
definitely
want
to
do
everything
that
we
can
to
protect
them
and
that
that
facilities.
M
Explain
my
vote
quickly.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
this
very
important
piece
of
legislation.
I
am
a
yes
definite,
yes,
enthusiastic,
yes
and
and
two
excellent
bills
today.
Thank
you.
A
F
O
There's
nine,
you
may
proceed.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
this
is
a
bill
that
we
did
last
week
and
last
week
trying
to
be
efficient.
We
added
another
bill
onto
it
and
representative
daniel
elliott,
along
with
representative
nemas,
had
some
concerns
that
bill
is
still
being
worked
on.
It
was
one
sponsored
by
representative
minton.
I
think
they're
going
to
continue
to
work
on
it.
So
what
the
committee
sub
does?
O
O
It
deals
with
the
very
limited
situation
of
a
limited
guardian
or
a
limited
conservator
just
clarifies
that
a
court
can
can
appoint
somebody
in
an
emergency
before
we
get
into
the
whole
hearing
and
also
clarifies
who
can
bring
the
petition
and
that
the
petition
has
to
be
accepted
by
the
clerks
so
that
it
can
all
go
forward.
A
C
My
vote-
I'm
a
yes
today
and
I'm
glad
to
see
675
moving
forward.
It
does
some
things
that
are
extremely
necessary
and
I'm
glad
representative
mccoy
noted
that
we'll
continue
to
work
on
the
care
act
part
of
this,
because
it
also
does
things
that
are
extremely
necessary
and
look
forward
to
working
with
all
of
the
stakeholders
to
move
that
bill
forward.
Thank
you.
F
B
A
A
E
Okay,
thank
you,
have
a
motion
from
representative
nemes
and
a
second
from
second
from
representative
fisher.
E
A
S
Thank
you
stacy,
for
assuming
I
prepared
remarks.
No
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
here
on
house
bill
782
and
this
committee
substitute,
which
truly
is
a
collaborative
effort
between
the
auditor's
office
and
the
kentucky
county.
Attorneys
association
really
want
to
commend
stacey
and
their
leadership
for
working
with
us
on
this.
S
As
you
may
be
aware,
a
couple
of
years
ago,
our
office
conducted
a
special
examination
and
looked
at
several
county
attorney's
offices
and
and
made
a
number
of
observations
of
areas
where
we
thought
there
was
room
for
clarification
that
could
be
beneficial
both
from
a
public
transparency,
standpoint
and
beneficial
to
county
attorneys
as
well.
So
this
bill
seeks
to
address
several
of
those
items
number
one.
S
It
clarifies
end
of
term
transfer
of
office
protocol,
that's
been
an
issue
in
a
number
of
counties
where
successors
have
been
elected
and
had
some
issues
with
getting
the
resources
of
the
office
transferred
to
them.
It
also,
notably,
would
create
an
annual
financial
reporting
element
for
county
attorneys
to
file
some
financial
reporting
with
pac.
We
did
set
that
out
a
little
bit
to
start
that.
S
So
there's
plenty
of
time
for
everyone
to
be
trained
and
understand
what
the
expectations
are,
but
we
think
that's
really
a
positive
step
forward
for
county
attorneys,
who
don't
currently
have
to
do
that,
and
it
would
also
amend
a
statute
that
allows
county
attorneys
to
invest
funds
just
like
other
county
officials.
There's
a
an
investment
statute
that
listed
pretty
much
every
county
official
except
for
some
reason,
county
attorneys.
S
And
so
we
think
you
know
that's
a
good
clarification
as
well,
and
then
the
final
clarification
or
change
that
it
makes
relates
to
cold
check
fees,
which
is
one
of
the
many
functions
that
county
attorneys
handle,
is
assisting
with
collection
of
cold
checks,
and
it
would
simply
treat
those
fees
consistent
with
every
other
fee
that
comes
into
the
county
attorney's
office.
It
would
be
restricted
to
use
by
the
county
attorney's
office
for
operating
purposes.
Only.
E
C
You
so
much
chairwoman,
just
one
question
wanting
to
understand
the
reasoning
on
page
11
at
the
bottom
for
taking
out
the
point
about
the
excess
fees.
I
just
want
to
understand
the
purpose.
S
So
that
relates
to
what
I
said,
making
it
consistent
with
how
they
handle
all
of
the
other
funds
that
come
into
their
office,
the
cold
check
fees
from
what
I
understand
and
stacy
could
speak
more
to
this,
but
it's
a
very
minimal
revenue
stream.
It's
really
a
declining
revenue
stream
for
most
county
attorneys,
who
are
even
still
handling
it
at
all.
So
it's
very
rare
for
those
fees
to
be
turned
over
as
excess
fees
and
to
the
extent
that
there
are
any
excess
fees.
It's
very
minimal.
S
One
of
the
things
we
noticed
when
we
did
our
special
exam
was.
There
are
even
a
few
counties
who
had
passed
an
ordinance
to
say
we
don't
want
you
to
turn
these
over
county
attorney's
office.
You
keep
them
and
retain
them
for
your
operating
purposes.
So
we
just
thought
moving
forward
and
trying
to
give
clarity
to
all
of
our
county
attorneys.
It
would
make
sense
to
treat
all
of
their
revenue
streams
the
same
and
not
have
this
one
tiny
little
funding
stream,
that's
handled
differently,.
A
A
E
J
F
F
A
A
This
is
the
last
one.
This
is
an
expungement
bill,
it's
senate
bill
33,
and
I
do
want
to
explain
the
history
a
little
bit,
so
people
are
clear
of
what's
going
on
here,
so
senate
bill
33
passed.
It
had
a
floor
amendment
that
several
thought
was
problematic
which
we
addressed,
but
we
also
as
part
of
this
bill,
brought
in
another
bill
that
had
been
filed
by
representative
huff.
There
are
two
distinctions
because
one
deals
with
the
core
concepts
of
expungement,
the
other
one
deals
with
ability
to
pay
fees.
E
A
A
One
of
those
is
there's
a
difference
in
expunging
misdemeanors
and
a
difference
in
expunging
felonies,
and
you
may
remember
that
in
the
past
we
passed
a
bill
that
allowed
class
d
felonies
to
be
expunged
five
years
after
the
end
of
the
sentence
or
end
of
probation,
whichever
occurred.
So
it's
essentially
still
a
10-year
period
to
get
an
expungement,
because
you
have
to
serve
your
original
sentence,
which
is
one
to
five,
and
then
you
have
to
wait
five
additional
years
after
that
in
order
to
have
that
felony
expunged.
A
But
we
have
many
misdemeanors
that
some
of
them
can
become
enhanceable.
We
heard
about
one
today,
so
we
passed
a
bill.
I
think
three
years
ago.
Maybe
four
that
allows
a
dui
if
you
have
a
second
offense
within
a
10-year
period
as
opposed
to
a
five-year
period,
it's
enhanceable,
so
it
counts
as
a
second
offense.
And
if
you
have
a
third
within
that
time,
it's
also
enhanceable.
A
And,
of
course,
we
dealt
with
the
third
offense
here
today,
so
there
are
certain
misdemeanors
that
can
be
enhanced
if
you
get
a
subsequent
offense
part
of
the
issue
is
all
misdemeanors,
obviously,
is
a
time
served
of
a
year
or
less
so
typically
on
a
misdemeanor
expungement.
You
still
have
a
five-year
period
after
that,
in
order
to
expunge
it.
We
were
trying
or
attempted
to
try
to
clean
up
that
language.
But
what
happened
with
the
senate
floor
amendment?
A
Is
they
put
a
10-year
period
on
for
expungement
which
made
it
conflicting
because
it
would
take
you
10
years
to
get
a
misdemeanor
expunged
when
you
could
get
a
felony
expunged
after
five?
And
so
that's
why
we
sought
to
correct
that
in
the
language
that's
been
filed
before
this
committee
to
allow
those
expungements
to
continue
forward,
but
not
to
create
an
inevitable
conflict
between
the
expungement
of
a
felony
and
the
expungement
of
a
misdemeanor,
and
so
that's
why
the
language
was
changed.
To
reflect
that.
A
The
other
thing
that
was
talked
about
with
the
aoc
is
they
were
keeping
all
of
these
files
for
misdemeanors
and
if
it
was
going
to
be
a
10-year
period,
they're
going
to
keep
all
of
these
files
for
10
years
and
that
created
some
problems.
So
we
worked
with
them
to
get
this
language
straightened
out,
so
that
if
it's
not
an
enhanceable
misdemeanor
that
after
five
years,
those
files
could
be
destroyed
and
a
new
offense
would
become
a
first
offense
for
purposes
of
expungement.
E
F
A
Well,
actually,
I
would.
I
would
second
that
motion
I
I
I've
talked
with
representatives
about
this.
I
believe,
if
you've
done
the
crime
and
you
so
to
speak,
done
the
time,
then
you've
paid
your
debt
to
society
and
therefore
you
should
have
that
lifted
from
you.
We
are
working
on
it.
It's
taking
a
long
progress
to
get
there,
but
certainly
it
also
helps
our
workforce.
A
F
E
Yes,
briefly,
speak,
I
I
like
this
we're
going
in
the
right
direction,
but
I
look
forward
to
representing
nemesis
bill
next
year.
Thank
you.
C
M
F
C
A
E
A
Thank
you
before
we
adjourn,
I
think
representative
petry
didn't
call
out
a
vote
on
217
or
16.
One
of
those
I
wanted
to
ask
him
or
let
you
ask
him
if
he
wants
to
record
a
vote.