►
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).
A
E
A
A
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee.
I
am
here
in
senator
harper
angel's
stead
today.
I
believe
she's
still
on
the
senate
floor
representative,
rachel
roberts,
district
67.
and
I'm
layla
kashan
staff
attorney
with
the
kentucky
association
of
sexual
assault
programs
senate
bill.
378
is
a
crime
victims,
compensation
board
bill.
It
ensures
that
members
of
the
crime,
victims,
compensation,
board
and
staff
receive
trauma-informed
training
to
better
understand
the
challenges
faced
by
victims
of
crime.
F
The
training
will
consist
of
six
hours
within
30
days
of
being
hired
and
three
hours
each
year
thereafter
with
agencies
that
specialize
in
victim
advocacy.
There
are
many
such
agencies
who
are
willing
to
conduct
this
training
at
no
cost
so
that
the
people
who
answer
these
calls
and
help
victims
understand
how
to
do
so
in
a
trauma-informed
way
that
helps
them
move
through
the
system
while
not
experiencing
any
further
trauma.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
nemus.
We
had
a
second
by
representative
hevron
or
we
have
a
dual
second
by
representative
hevron
and
mackenzie
cantrell
representative
cantrell,
all
right
with
that
there
is
no
sub,
so
I'll
look
and
see.
If
we
have
any
questions
seeing
none.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
F
D
E
G
A
Yes,
there
being
15,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
zero
pass.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor
with
that.
You
can
also
send
the
message
to
the
senator
that
she
can
continue
her
good
work
in
the
chamber.
I
think
they
are
talking
about
senate
bill
1.
A
The
first
thing
I
want
to
say
is
a:
this
is
for
law
enforcement
purposes
only
the
reason
it
was
brought
to
us-
and
I
did
see
a
presentation
on
it-
was
because
they
believe
it
will
help
them.
Stop
the
sexual
trafficking
problem
we
have
in
our
country,
and
they
believe
that
they
can
use
photographs.
They
can
use
video
clips,
they
can
use
tv
clips
etc
to
try
to
catch
people
that
are
sexually
trafficking,
both
men
and
women
across
our
nation.
A
But
what
this
bill
does
is
it
sets
up
a
work
group
that
will
have
to
review
all
of
the
policies
and
procedures
regarding
this,
specifically
the
policies
and
procedures
set
by
by
each
type
of
agency
that
is
going
to
use
this.
We
already
have
facial
recognition
technologies.
You
might
be
aware
on
your
phones
and
if
you
look
at
the
last
section
on
page
three,
it
talks
about
the
section
shall
not
apply
to
a
generally
available
consumer
product
that
includes
facial
recognition
technology,
provided
that
the
facial
recognition
technology
is
intended
only
for
personal
or
household
use.
A
So
they've
also
cut
that
out.
They
will
collect
data
as
to
how
this
is
going
to
be
used
and
they're
going
to
specify
a
process
that
requires
law
enforcement
agencies,
utilizing
this
to
compare
publicly
available
or
lawfully
acquired
images
against
a
database
of
publicly
available
or
lawfully
acquired
images.
So
this
is
not,
as
some
people
concerned
about
it,
the
big
brother
of
fear
that
some
people
might
think
it
is.
It
basically
is
a
technology
that
will
allow
them
to
scan
imagery
from
public
images
that
are
already
out
there.
A
People
that
are
on
tv
people
that
have
had
news
articles
done
about
them,
potentially
family
photographs,
anything
like
that
and
track
people
that
might
be
known
as
sexual
traffickers.
A
H
H
A
Actually,
I
concur
with
your
assessment
of
that.
That
is
something
we
I
think
could
fairly
easily
address.
I
think
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
what
I
believe
is,
quite
frankly,
the
premier
law
enforcement
agency
in
the
state
to
be
involved
in
that
process,
because
I'm
not
the
sponsor.
I
certainly
don't
have
the
authority
to
make
that
change,
but
I
certainly
would
concur
in
your
assessment
that
that
be
a
good
change
to
be
made
to
this
bill,
to
make
it
even
even
better
bill.
F
I
have
a
similar
question.
The
other
thing
that
struck
me
as
a
strange
omission
is
that
there
there's
no
no
requirement
that
a
civil
liberties
group
like
the
aclu,
which
has
done
a
lot
of
work
on
this,
and
certainly
you
know,
protecting
people's
personal
information
and
civil
liberties
is
their
priority.
A
Again,
the
way
I
would
answer
that
is,
I
saw
the
presentation
on
the
information
and
what
it
can
do.
I
did
not
participate
in
the
drafting
of
the
bill.
I
believe
we
do
have
the
drafter
here,
but
that
all
being
said,
I
don't
think
these
are
changes
that
would
be
of
significant
concern
to
the
sponsor.
Perhaps
the
way
to
address
it
is
if
representative
blanton
is
going
to
do
a
floor
amendment
anyway,
that
we
can
look
to
that
and
address
any
of
those
deficiencies
that
might
involve
other
groups.
A
My
experience
with
these
types
of
groups
is
you
want
to
find
that
special
sweet
spot
where
you
have
all
of
the
right
people,
but
not
so
many
people
that
you
can't
be
effective
and
so
how
they
came
to
the
decision-making
components
of
what
groups
were
included
or
not?
I
am
not
fully
familiar,
but
I
certainly
will
carry
that
word
to
the
sponsor
chairman
westerfield.
A
I
think
the
idea
is
to
get
something
in
progress
if
we've
got
this
available
and
it
will
assist
law
enforcement
in
in
providing
a
very
essential
need
for
people
that
are
being
you
know,
sexually
trafficked
or
or
those
kinds
of
circumstances
that
we
can
help
them.
So
I
am
not
opposed
to
that
at
all
personally
as
chair
of
this
committee,
but
it
might
be
a
good
way
to
deal
with
it
in
one
floor
amendment,
especially
in
the
waning
days
of
the
session.
G
I
I
have
a
question
and,
as
the
only
thing
I
dislike
more
than
agreeing
with
blanton
is
agreeing
with
nemus,
but
the
question
I
have
is
along
those
lines.
We
could
save
ourselves
a
lot
of
time
if
we
get
those
interested
groups
involved.
Like
defense
counsel,
they
know
they've
used
this
data
before
we
agree.
I
agree
with
stopping
trafficking
of
women
and
girls,
but
man
on
the
other
end,
if
we
don't
get
their
input,
we're
going
to
be
right
back
where
we
started
with
a
delay.
G
E
Yes,
so
I
think
there's
some
glaring
omissions
here
in
addition
to
the
kentucky
state
police,
you've
got
no
prosecutors
involved
in
this,
and
prosecutors
are
obviously
going
to
have
to
going
to
have
to
take
the
information
and
prosecute.
I
think
somebody
from
from
pac
should
be
on
there
or
the
attorney
general.
E
The
attorney
general's
office
does
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
the
investigations
for
for
this
kind
of
activity
that
we're
talking
about
and
they're,
not
on
there,
the
public
defender,
aclu
or
some
organization,
it
does
say
it
can't
be
used
under
section
three.
E
I
guess
it's
section,
one
three
two
can't
be
used
to
identify
somebody
participating
in
constantly
constitutionally
protected
activities,
but
the
I
think,
the
big,
the
big
thing
that
I
think
we
we
should
have
is
this
this.
These
protocols
that
are
going
to
be
put
together
by
this
group
is
going
to
be
given
to
the
department
of
justice,
but
this
is
an
area
that
makes
most
people
on
the
right
and
the
left
extremely
uncomfortable.
Are
they
going
to
be
putting
cameras
on
on
on
lights,
on
on
street
lights?
E
Are
they
going
to
be
put
them
on
posts?
I
don't
think
they
are,
but
I
think
this
report
has
to
be
given
to
the
legislature
and
I
think
we
have
to
give
a
stamp
of
approval
before
we
allow
before
we
allow
any
any
protocols
or
policies
to
go
into
place.
So
I
don't
know
that-
and
maybe
maybe
it's
in
here-
that
I'm
not
reading
it.
E
But
it
seems
to
me
like
this
is
this
is
not
ready
for
prime
time
and
so
to
speak
because
we're
given
a
great
deal
of
authority
to
right
now
just
law
enforcement
agencies-
and
I
don't
know
that
we've
got
the
proper
controls
in
place
to
make
sure
that
that
they're,
not
inadvertently
or
in
some
way
violating
the
constitutional
rights
or
of
or
doing
an
investigation,
that's
improper,
not
that
they
would
intentionally
do
so.
But
I
don't
think
those
those
protections
are
in
place
in
this
bill.
So
it
seems
to
me
like
it's
not
ready.
D
Thank
you
chairman,
and
I
just
want
to
understand
this
bill-
would
create
a
working
group
to
study
the
issue
of
facial
recognition,
technology
usage
by
law
enforcement,
and
you
mentioned
human
trafficking.
Are
there
any
other
instances
that
it
would
be
used
in
or
is
it
every
instance
and
are
there
any
exceptions.
A
Well,
I
think
we
would
all
have
opposition
if
it
was
used
in
every
instance.
By
far,
I
did
want
to
point
out
to
answer
your
question
and
go
back
to
representative
nemas
on
page
two
of
the
bill,
starting
at
line
four,
which
is
section
one
three.
A
It
talks
about
on
or
before
january
1
2024,
the
working
group
established
pursuant
to
this
section,
shall
create
and
make
publicly
available
a
model
policy
by
use
for
law
enforcement
agencies,
and
I
think,
that's
important,
because
I
think
that
obviously
gets
us
back
to
the
situation
where
we're
back
in
session
number
one
thereafter.
A
Maybe
the
one
of
the
things
we
could
consider
in
the
in
the
in
the
amendment
would
be
to
push
that
back
a
little
bit
kind
of
like
we
did
with
the
child
support
bill
and
make
a
little
later
than
january,
1
of
2024,
so
that
if
we
need
to
make
some
changes
to
the
makeup
of
the
board
to
even
though
we
might
have
a
floor
amendment,
we
need
to
make
some
changes
or
to
address
those
other
public
concerns
we
can
do.
All
of
that.
A
I
think
that
the
idea
is
we
want
to
move,
but
we
want
to
move
with
deliberate
speed
so
that
we
don't
get
ourselves
in
an
inadvertent
or
unintended
consequence
of
violating
anybody's
rights
or
responsibilities
or
constitutional
rights.
So
I
certainly
will
take
that
up
with
the
sponsor
again,
I'm
sorry
that
he
can't
be
here
it's
one
of
those,
those
things
that
that
they're
convening-
and
we
have
after
today,
five
days
left.
So
with
that
I
will
turn
it
to
representative
blanton.
H
Just
a
a
few
quick
comments,
hoping
to
clarify
some
questions
and
concerns
that
I've
heard
raised.
So
I've
seen
the
demonstration
the
this
type
of
technology.
There
won't
be
new
cameras
put
up
trying
to
capture
it,
won't
be
going
in
using
driver's
license
pictures.
What
this
technology
would
do,
it
would
go
online
and
it
would
search
out
any
type
of
already
public
photographs
of
someone.
That's
on
the
internet,
that's
out
there,
whether
it's
from
a
facebook
or
a
twitter
or
advertisement
or
but
things
that's
already
in
the
public
domain.
H
It
won't
be
going
in
and
searching
documentations
that
are
considered
official
documentations,
and
I
would
remind
everyone.
This
would
only
be
a
tool.
It's
not
the
end.
All
that
says.
Oh,
this
is
enough
to
go
rest
away.
This
is
a
tool
that
they
can
utilize
in
their
investigation,
but
they
still
have
to
even
if
they
can
identify
somebody
follow
up
with
interviews
and
different
things
just
simply
by
making
the
identification
that's
not
enough,
they
have
to
follow
up
and
and
do
more
investigation.
A
I
will
note
that
the
drafter
here
is
in
the
room.
It's
matt
troublehorn.
He
does
a
wonderful
job
as
a
drafter
with
judiciary
and
he's
here.
So
I'm
sure
he's
hearing
all
of
the
comments
that
we're
taking
in
and
he
will
carry
those
back
to
chairman
westerfield.
I
also
received
a
text
from
somebody.
That's
watching
that's
closely
associated
with
this.
A
We
certainly
could
also
have
a
a
time
in
the
interim
where
we
can
have
a
presentation
on
this
for
the
interim
joint
committee
and
let
the
whole
judiciary
groups
together,
see
this
or
maybe
even
have
a
demonstration
as
we
move
towards
this.
This
piece
so
with
that
is
daniel,
representative
elliott.
Sorry.
C
C
What
weight
would
that
have
on
the
policy
that
would
eventually
be
adopted
across
the
state,
because
it's
here,
it's
indicating
on
page
two
section:
three,
that
they
would
make
available
a
model
policy
for
use
by
law
enforcement
agencies,
and
so-
and
you
may
not
be
able
to
answer
this,
mr
chairman,
but
if
the
if
the
group
itself
is
somewhat
deficient
in
the
membership,
as
I
think
some
of
our
members
have
pointed
out,
if
that
working
group
has
a
significant
weight
in
terms
of
the
recommendations
that
they're
making
across
the
state,
then
it
could
be
concerning.
C
If
we
don't
have
the
group
composed
of
the
correct
members
and
associations-
and
I
I
agree
with
representative
nemas,
it
seems
like
it's.
We
have
what
five
groups
here
and
so
I
I
will-
and
so
I
don't
know
that
that,
hopefully
you
know
we
can
get
that
corrected
in
a
floor
amendment.
But
I
don't
know
if
at
some
point
we
begin
to
disagree
on
who
should
be
involved
and
whether
it's
criminal
defense,
attorneys
and
the
aclu
and
and
so
forth.
C
A
I
will
also
make
one
comment:
I
may
defer
to
my
my
good
friend,
senator
johnny
l
turner,
that's
here,
because
he
sat
through
the
committee
meeting
in
the
senate,
and
so
he
might
be
able
to
give
a
better
light
on
that.
In
fact,
he
asked
me
today
if
I
wanted
him
to
speak
on
this
bill
at
all.
This
is
the
facial
recognition
bill.
A
We'll
call
yours
next,
but
we
are
talking
about
the
facial
recognition
bill
and
where
we
are
senator
turner
is
that
the
group
is
asked
why
the
state
police
weren't
part
of
the
work
group,
and
then
there
were
some
other
inquiries
about
other
groups.
That
might
need
to
be
part
of
this.
I
will
tell
everyone
because
of
my
quick
overlook
it.
A
The
report
is
not
to
come
back
until
january
1
of
2024,
so
we're
still
going
to
have
obviously
time
to
work
on
this,
not
on
the
interim,
but
this
will
be
a
a
process
that
will
go
over
the
next
24
months,
so
we'll
be
able
to
do
that,
but
senator
turner
not
to
put
you
on
the
spot
if
you're
not
comfortable
with
it.
I
understand,
but
you
did
indicate
that
you
might
be
able
to
shed
some
light
you,
you
sat
through
the
senate
committee
hearing
on
the
senate
bill
176.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
senator
turner
from
the
29th
district.
There
were
some
discussions
about
some
agencies
not
want
to
get
in
this
at
the
beginning,
because
it's
going
to
be
a
policy
looked
at
thing
and
I
believe
that
might
have
been
one
of
the
things
that
some
of
them
don't
want
to
get
burdened
up
at
the
beginning,
because
it's
going
to
take
effect
sometime
in
the
future.
I
A
We
one
of
the
questions
there
and
you
can
convey
this
back
to
chairman
westerfield,
it's
very
likely
more
likely
than
not
that
there
will
be
a
floor
amendment
to
address
some
of
the
groups
that
that
this
group
felt
would
be
appropriate
to
be
part
of
that
work.
Group.
Of
course
you
know.
I
know
that
I
don't
know
who's
been
talked
to
and
who
hasn't?
A
I
think
the
idea
is.
We
want
to
keep
this
moving,
but
we
want
to
do
it
at
a
deliberate
speed
to
make
sure
that
nobody's
rights
are
violated
to
make
sure
that
the
policies
are
in
place
that
this
committee
that
the
senate
judiciary
committee
can
see
the
work
that's
being
done
and
continue
to
move
this
forward.
I
Well,
as
my
experience
as
a
lawyer
on
that
judiciary
committee,
senator
westerfield
is
the
guy
that
reaches
out
to
everybody
and
all
the
bills
that
we
have.
He
really
reaches
out
to
the
organizations
and
I
don't
I
can't
sit
here
and
tell
you
all
the
organizations
he's
reached
out
to
so
I
wouldn't
think
there'd
be
any
problem
with
listing
those
and
he
may
have
reached
out
to
some
that
you
may
have
be
asking
about.
Also,
mr
chairman,.
D
D
E
E
Explain,
mr
chairman,
please
thank
you,
the
the
I
want
to
make
sure
that
what
we've
talked
about
is
not
just
the
kentucky
state
police
which
that's
important,
but
it's
also
the
public
defender
and
it's
also
aclu,
but
not
only
that
the
january
4
2024
date.
Yes,
it's
right.
It's
it's
another
session,
but
it's
right.
E
When
we
come
into
session,
I
think
we
need
to
be
able
to
review
the
policy
before
it
goes
over
to
effects
that
needs
to
be
delayed,
and
I
would
say
that
my
good
friend
the
representative
from
gentlemen
from
mcgoffin,
who
I
agree
with,
I
think
it's
probably
the
intent,
but
there's
I
don't
see
anything
in
this
bill
that
doesn't
that
prohibits
law
enforcement
from
looking
at
surveillance,
video
from
my
law
office
or
from
walmart,
and
we
know
if
there's
a
heinous
crime
law
enforcement
as
we
want
them
to
be,
is
going
to
be
very
aggressive
as
they
should
be.
E
But
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
know
the
policies
in
place.
Are
they
going
to
be
coming
to
my
law?
Firm
and
saying:
hey
you've
got
a
video
surveillance.
We,
let
me
see
it
and
there's
nothing
in
here.
That
says,
in
fact
it
says
to
the
contrary,
that
says
you
can't
use
that
information
to
to
get
to
probable
cause
in
and
of
itself.
E
That's
in
section
one
three,
a
one
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
very,
very
serious
implications
here
for
our
constitutional
rights
and
our
citizens,
counselors
of
rights-
and
I
don't
think
we
should
allow
this
thing
to
go
into
effect
january
1st
2024
without
us,
seeing
the
final
product
to
approve
or
disapprove
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
to
get
it
moving.
E
Understanding,
there's
going
to
be
a
floor,
amendment
not
only
to
add
kentucky
state
police,
but
to
do
other
those
other
significant
things,
and
I
will
vote
no
and
and
fight
as
hard
against
it
on
the
floor
as
I
can,
if
we
don't
have
that
delay,
that's
extremely
important.
I
know
chairman
westerfield
is
one
of
the
people.
I
trust
more
than
anybody.
So
I
I
know
he's
thought
this
through,
but
those
are
my
thoughts.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
vote
yesterday.
Thank
you.
A
G
G
I
I
will
be
yesterday,
subject
to
the
amendment.
A
Yes,
there
being
14,
yes
votes,
one
no
vote
and
zero
passed
they'll
be
reported
with
april
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor.
I
will
personally
make
sure
that
I
get
with
chairman
westerfield
to
address
these
concerns
and
with
representative
blanton.
If
he
is
going
to
work
on
the
floor
amendment,
which
I
would
greatly
appreciate,
and
then
we
can
also
take
the
input
from
the
other
parties
that
have
participated
here
today.
The
next
bill,
we're
gonna
call,
is
senate
bill
245
and
we
were
able
to
get
senator
turner
here.
A
I
My
name
is
johnny
turner
and
I'm
the
senator
for
the
29th
district
in
harlan
and
a
number
of
counties
out
in
eastern
kentucky,
and
I
appreciate
you
all
allowing
me
to
be
here
to
present
this.
I
had
to
leave
voting
actually
to
come
to
to
get
this
and
they
said
they
would
call
me
if
I
had
to
come
back.
I
Mr
chairman
of
members
of
the
body,
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
are
familiar
with
what
they
call
epos
and
dbos,
but
they're
a
big
thing,
and
you
have
two
sections
now.
I
Four
437-40
was
the
original
epo
section
and
then
they
added
456,
which
is
the
one
for
basically
non-married
people,
but
has
the
same
limited
authority
for
issuing
emergency
protective
orders
than
in
domestic
violence
orders
after
that,
originally
back
in
my
day,
when
I
first
started
practicing,
you
had
to
go
get
a
temporary
thing
by
filing
a
petition
in
circuit
court,
the
epo
and
dvo
statutes,
specifically
the
epo.
When
you
first
take
an
epo,
it's
very
directive.
I
I
Just
when
it's
an
argument
or
something
and
takes
the
the
word
is
used
perpetrated
for
some
people,
but
it's
that
human
body
that
leaves
it's
a
human
person
that
leaves
they
can't
take
their
clothes,
can't
do
anything.
They're
normally
set
for
14
days
out
and
that's
in
the
existing
statute
for
a
hearing.
I
The
rules
also
provide
that
if
that
party
misses
the
jor,
the
judge
shouldn't
be
available
or
what
it'll
get
extended
for
14
days.
I'm
just
telling
the
process
and
I've
been
practicing
42
years,
and
so
I
saw
it
come
into
being
and
have
been
involved
in
it.
I
Then,
if
the
next
time
you
go
to
court,
there's
a
lawyer
involved
and
they
have
filed
a
divorce
petition.
Then
it
gets
transferred
to
the
we
don't
have
family
courts
in
our
districts
in
eastern
kentucky.
We
have
circuit
judges,
then
it
goes
to
family,
I'm
up
from
there
up
to
the
circuit
judge.
In
the
meantime,
you
have
I
had
a
case
where
two
boys
were
young
adults
and
their
teens
playing
basketball
at
a
tournament
tournament.
I
Their
mother
took
an
epo
and
their
daddy
couldn't
go
to
the
ball
game
and
they
were
very
disturbed
anyway
in
the
divorce
they
ended
up
going
living
with
the
daddy
that
kind
of
stuff
you
get
kids
at
hospitals,
accidents,
anything
or
so
many
emergencies
that
occur.
Nobody
plans
on
and
the
district
judge,
the
family
judge
or
the
circuit
judge
or
district
judge,
whoever
issues
it
cannot
modify
it
from
that
existing
epo.
I
This
language
directs
basically
for
the
judge
to
consider
at
the
first
epo,
which
is
good
for
two
weeks
before
they
have
to
extend
it
to
take
into
consideration
the
fact
that
one
provision
says
that
the
person
who
is
being
taken
out,
the
police
officer
can
assist
them
getting
their
clothes
and
whatever
or
if
they've
got
two
vehicles.
He'd
get
the
car
keys
to
take
that
vehicle,
so
he
don't
lose
his
job
from
work.
The
other
one
is
says
like
in
harlan
county.
You
live
so
close
that
you
could
go
about
500
feet.
I
If
you
just
drive
down
the
street,
you
go
to
walmart
you
go
anywhere.
You
won't
be
within
500
feet
of
each
other.
You
go
in
the
courthouse,
you're
violating
that,
and
this
bill
provides
the
judge
at
the
request
of
the
petitioner,
nothing
restraining.
The
petitioner
at
the
request
can
consider
that,
and
that
is
in
my
opinion,
should
have
been
done
a
long
time
ago.
I
tried
to
do
it
in
2000
or
2001
when
I
was
down
here
in
the
representative,
but
it
didn't
get
done.
I
Then,
when
I
served
as
representative-
and
this
is
not
objectionable
to
domestic
violence,
people
westfield
senator
restful
and
myself
have
contacted
everybody.
I
It's
other
things
that
occur
in
my
district.
Anyway,
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
abusive
spouses,
it's
and
sometimes
it's
a
lady
hitting
the
man,
but
anyway
I
was
in
another
courthouse.
Didn't
know
this.
Many
years
ago
before
I
came
down
here
in
2000
as
a
representative
in
99
is
a
to
representative.
Like
you
all,
are
this
young
man
was
entering
court?
He
testified
that
I
was
listening
to
him,
telling
his
story
to
the
judge
that
the
wife
got
an
epo
in
him.
I
He
moved
five
miles
away
to
his
mother's
and
the
driveway
was
100
feet
long.
So
they
let
her
bring
the
kids
to
the
driveway
entrance.
His
mother
walked
down
to
get
him
and
the
kids
were
walking
up
and
the
wife
got
very
language
that
he
didn't
respect
or
nobody
did.
She
was
cursing
and
he
just
said:
would
you
please
quit
and
leave?
I
I
was
listening
to
this
in
court,
not
in
court.
Now
the
circuit
judge
that
was
before
at
that
time
asked
him.
Did
you
say
that
he
said
judge?
I
just
did
that.
He
said
that's
a
violation
of
the
statute
and
I've
got
to
give
you
time
in
jail,
I'm
going
to
send
you
to
30
days
in
jail.
The
man
said
well
judge,
I'm
a
coal
miner.
I
lose
my
job,
he
said.
Well,
that's
your
fault.
The
law
says
I
have
to.
I
have
to
punish
you.
I
I
then,
as
a
lawyer,
stepped
in
and
said,
judge.
Well,
you
don't
have
to
consume
joe.
You
can
give
him
weekends
in
jail
and
probate,
some
of
it
and
don't
make
him
lose
his
pay.
These
kids
will
get
up
beyond
welfare
everybody's
going
to
be
hurt
worse
than
they
should
be,
and
he
did
then
modify
that
and
that's
the
purpose
of
this
bill
being
filed.
This
whole
purpose
of
it
and
it
fits
both
for.
A
B
B
F
D
G
A
Yes,
there
being
15,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
zero
pass.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor.
We
have
one
other
bill
to
take
into
consideration.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
assist
in
this
one.
Senator
turner
you're
welcome
to,
if
not
I'll,
I'll,
try
to
present
it
through
for
senator
wheeler.
This
is
senate
bill
80,
and
you
have
that
in
front
of
you.
It's
not
a
very
complicated
bill.
This.
A
We'll
see
if
the
explanations
brings
up
any
memory
of
this,
he
had
a
constituent
in
his
district
that
it
had
passed
a
young
lady,
I
believe-
and
there
was
a
issue
concerning
genetic
testing,
I'm
very
familiar
with
that.
Okay,
so
let
me
finish
this
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you,
and
so
with
regards
to
that,
you
can
see
on
page
2
of
that
bill
that
it
talks
about.
Specifically,
I'm
going
to
turn
to
line
21..
A
What
was
happening
is
because,
if
somebody
has
a
genetic
condition,
there
may
be
preventative
measures
that
other
family
members
could
take,
of
which
they
are
unaware
if
they
can
identify
this
genetic
connection.
So
he
has
brought
this
bill
with
respect
to
that
to
make
sure
that,
hopefully,
we
can
prevent
through
the
medical
science
we
have
today
deaths
of
others
if
it's
related
to
a
genetic
trait.
But
with
that
I'll
turn
the
floor
over
to
senator
turner.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
member
of
the
body.
It
was
a
very
sad
situation
where
it
was
a
young.
I
think
18
year
old
girl
that
just
passed
away
suddenly
and
there
was
no
cause
of
death.
I
So
the
family
then
went
through
the
process
of
wanting
to
know
what
caused
this
young
child
to
die
and
it
was
determined.
It
was
something
genetically
that
could
have
been
found,
but
it
never
gave
any
signs
or
symptoms
to
the
child,
but
it
was
one
that
could
get
passed
on
and
other
members
of
the
family
could
have
it.
I
I
Was
brought
to
the
attention-
and
nobody
was
aware
of
this
fact-
that
the
autopsy
wouldn't
be
performed
by
the
frankfurt
office.
So
that
was
the
purpose
of
the
build
and
it
actually
came
to
fruition,
because
another
child
in
that
family
was
found
to
have
that
problem.
But
it
was
corrected
prior
to
her
demise.
A
There
any
questions
I
did.
I
did
miss
one
thing.
I
I
on
section
three,
which
is
gonna
turn
it
over
the
last
page.
It
says
this
act
may
be
cited
as
the
micah
micah
chantelle
fletcher
law
and
I
believe,
that's
the
name
of
the
individual
that
we've
kind
of
discussed.
So
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
the
attention
on
behalf
of
senator
wheeler,
that
before
this
committee
with
that.
E
Yeah,
I
don't
know
exactly
what
genetic
testing
is.
Is
that
an
autopsy?
And-
and
that's
that's
my
one
question?
It
also
says
that
if
the
medical
examiner
doesn't
does
not
determine
the
cause
of
death,
the
office,
the
kentucky
state
medical
examiner,
shall
conduct.
I
don't
know
if
it
doesn't
violate
mine,
but
are
there
any
religions
that
have
that
they're,
not
that
they
would
have
a
problem
with
somebody
conducting
an
autopsy
on
their
body?
E
So
it
seems
to
me
that
it
would
be
better
if
it
were
shall
upon
request
of
the
family
conduct,
because
this
would
not
allow
the
family
to
even
object
to
it.
So
it
seems.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
religions
that
have
those
problems,
but
I
think
it
would
all
be
resolved,
especially
with
the
hypothetical
that
you
just
not
hypothetical,
with
the
situation
that
you
identified.
E
If
it
said
the
state
medical
examiner
shall,
upon
the
request
of
the
family,
conduct
genetic
tests
on
the
deceased
person,
because
this
doesn't
give
anybody
the
opportunity
to
object,
and
so
I
don't.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
those
questions,
but
I
don't
want
to
require
this
kind
of
if
it
would
be
traumatic,
traumatic
to
a
family
reque.
That
is
now
required
for
the
for
the
medical
examiner
to
do
that.
Genetic
testing,
which
I
understand
is
an
autopsy.
I
Well
it
the
the
examiner,
can
do
it,
they
can
do
an
autopsy
and
section
three
reads:
if
the
office
of
the
kentucky
state
medical
examiner
determines
the
cause
of
death
of
the
disease
based
on
the
results
of
genetic
testing,
the
coroner
shall
enter
the
information
on
the
deceased
personal
death
certificate
for
the
signature,
and
this
only
applies
whenever
the
examination
by
the
regular
act
of
doing
the
the
post-mortem
examination
by
the
office
can't
find
a
determination.
Then
there
did
you
use
the
genetic
testing
to
see.
J
Well,
I
mean
in
terms
of
of
whether
or
not
the
medical
exam
is
performed.
I
think
that's
probably
where
the
consultation
with
the
family
happens
not
with
the
further
genetic
testing,
so
the
family
would
have
it
it's
my
understanding
that
the
family
would
have
authority
to
either
request
or
deny
an
autopsy.
J
Initially,
I
I
don't
know
I
mean
perhaps
in
consultation
with
the
family.
I
I
mean
because
if,
if
someone
has
genetic
counseling,
you
always
consult
with
the
family
in
a
living
person,
I
don't
know
how
it's
handled
in
with
the
deceased
person.
Mr.
E
Chairman,
I
I
would
feel
better
if
that
were
spelled
out
in
section
two
senators.
What
was
I'm
is
where
I'm
referring
to
it
says
is
a
postmortem
and
maybe
representative
moser
knows
this
is
a
post-modern
examination.
Post-Mortem
examination.
Is
that
always
an
autopsy?
I
don't
know
I
it
doesn't
seem.
E
Okay,
I
would
feel
a
lot
better
if
we
put
a
little
bit
of
the
family's
request
in
the
in
here,
but
we.
A
And
I
think,
if
you
look
at
on
page
two
same
section,
section
2,
section,
2,
sub
2,
on
line
15,
that
paragraph
except
in
skeletal
and
decomposing
human
remains
in
cases
of
a
deceased
person
under
40
years
of
age,
where
a
postmortem
examination
is
performed
by
the
office
of
the
kentucky
medical
examiner
under
the
authority
of
the
county
coroner
and
the
state
medical
examiner
does
not
determine
a
cause
of
death.
The
office
of
the
kentucky
medical
examiner
shall
conduct
genetic
tests,
it
doesn't
say
they
should
conduct
an
autopsy.
D
Thank
you,
as
I
was
sitting
here
talking
with
representative
carney,
I'm
going
to
say
we
both
have
a
question
and
let
her
follow
up.
If
there's
anything
else,
but
in
section
one
subsection
three,
it
says
genetic
tests,
meaning
tests
of
genetic
markers
for
cardiac,
I'm
not
going
to
pronounce
that
syndromes.
D
I
guess
my
first
question
is:
wouldn't
there
be
other
genetic
testing
that
someone
could
do
so
I
hate
to
just
limit
it.
I
would
like
to
use
that
as
an
example,
rather
than
the
only
genetic
test
that
we
could
make
available
and
then
yeah
I
mean
that's
really
it.
I
guess
I
would
like
to
see
a
change
in
that
in
there
just
so
we're
not
limiting
it
to
just
the
cardiac
if
there
could
be
more
included
in
that.
A
D
Just
a
quick
follow-up,
I
was
also
curious-
and
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
if
we
do
expand
the
genetic
testing
you
know
if
some
are
currently
under
this
bill.
If,
if
the
genetic
test
comes
up
with
some
other
condition,
are
they
not
allowed
to
disclose
that
condition?
Because
it's
only
referring
to
that?
You
know
that
syndromes
that
are
listed
here
so.
A
D
Nemes,
I'm
not
in
healthcare
but
like
I
know
that
you
can
go
to
the
doctor
to
get
to
get
genetic
tests
to
see
like
if
you're
more
adaptable,
to
get
breast
cancer
or
different
things
like
that.
So
I'd
assume
that
would
be
genetic
testing
is
very
common.
J
I
I
can
comment.
I
I
mean
this.
This
would
have
to
be
the
definition
of
the
genetic
test,
wouldn't
necessarily,
I
don't
think
include,
braca
or
or
any
cancer
markers,
because
that
would
not
be
a
sudden
cause
of
death.
You
would
have
to
define
the
genetic
testing
it
would
have.
I
mean
if
you
want
to
be
specific,
it
could
get
complicated
to
do
this.
I
you
know,
I
mean
it's
going
to
have
to
relate
to
us
a
sudden
cause
of
death.
A
There
was
a
fiscal
impact
statement
in
this
attached
with
the
bill.
I
do
think
the
recommendations
that
have
come
forward
are
good.
I
was
told
that
in
the
senate
committee
they
did
have
an
expert
that
testified
before
that
committee.
They
went
through
all
of
these
detailed
markers
and
all
those
kind
of
things
that
we're
discussing
here
today
and,
of
course
that
might
have
answered
some
of
the
questions
that
this
committee
has.
A
I
I
think
the
dollar
figure
that
that
expert
gave
was
about
300,
mr
chairman,
so
it
was
not
an
expensive
testing
procedure
and
in
response
to
another
question
that
was
brought
up,
if
there's
a
test
done
because
of
some
kind
of
accident
that
that
will
could
play
a
part
if,
if
the
accident
started
something,
and
then
there
was
no
other
reason
that
the
accident
shouldn't
have
caused
it,
but
they
died.
There's
many
ways
that
this
thing
could
apply.
I
K
As
you
indicated
that
300
dollars
per
test
just
for
this
cardiac
arrhythmia
test
for
the
sudden
death
type
of
situation,
if
we
start
adding
other
conditions
on
this,
we
really
don't
know
what
the
fiscal
impact
would
be.
So
I'd
caution
against
us,
adding
any
other
tests
until
we
find
out
what
the
cost
would
be.
I
It's
my
remembrance,
mr
chairman,
that
the
the
facility
that's
responsible
for
this,
said
that
there
wouldn't
be
a
problem
financially.
I
think
that's
what
I
heard
in
in
the
commentary
between
central
wheeler
and
the
gentleman
that
came
as
the
expert,
but.
K
I
H
J
Yeah
not
to
not
to
drake
draw
this
out,
but-
and
I
didn't
hear
the
senate
testimony,
but
I'm
guessing
that
the
the
medical
expert
who
came
and
spoke
to
this
probably
identified
the
cardiac
arrhythmogenic
as
the
most
common
reason
for
sudden
death
in
someone
under
40..
I
I
mean
we
can
consult
with
an
expert
if
we
want,
but
I
I
am
not
an
expert
in
genetics,
but
I'm
guessing
that.
That's
what
what
this
is
about.
I
A
We
appreciate
your
testimony
here
today.
That's
very
helpful
with
that.
Are
we
okay,
madam
secretary,
we're
running
low
on
battery
I'm
told
so,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
H
B
F
Explain
my
vote.
I'm
going
to
vote
yes,
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
these
past
couple
bills.
We
haven't
had
all
the
answers,
but
I
think
we've.
A
lot
of
us
in
here
have
reached
a
consensus
on
what
some
of
the
problems
with
a
couple
of
these
bills
are
and
to
use
representative
nemesis
term
they're,
not
quite
ready
for
prime
time,
but
I
really
appreciate
how
collaborative
this
conversation
has
been
even
at
this
sort
of
later
hour
in
the
day,
and
I
really
hope
some
of
these
bills
get
worked
on.
Thank
you.
K
D
Yes
and
quickly
explain
my
vote.
I
really
have
enjoyed.
I
echo
representative
cantrell's
comments.
It's
I
was
just
sitting
here
thinking
it's
been
a
fun
committee
just
being
able
to
go
back
and
forth
talking
about
issues
working
amongst
ourselves
with
both
republicans
and
democrats.
I
think
it
shows
ket
that
we
are
a
family
here
most
days,
and
so
thank
you
for
that.