►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary (2-3-22)
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).
A
Now
we've
got
some.
I
know
we've
got
some
folks
attending
remotely
or
at
least
participating.
We
with
the
change
of
the
rules.
Votes
are
not
permitted
unless
you're
here
in
the
room,
even
people
who
are
attending
remotely
from
upstairs
can't
vote
unless
you're.
Here
I
learned
that
from
participating
in
a
meeting
a
week
ago
from
upstairs
and
couldn't
vote,
so
I
think
we've
got
a
quorum,
though
in
the
room,
mr
secretary,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
Here,
seeing
that
we
have
a
quorum,
we
are
authorized
to
do
business
again.
Welcome
to
the
fourth
meeting
of
the
senate,
standing
committee
and
judiciary,
I've
got
a
short
agenda.
We're
gonna
go
out
of
order.
I
know
you're
all
stunned
by
that.
I'm
gonna
take
up
the
first
bill
and
I'm
gonna
carry
it
on
behalf
of
senator
carpenter,
who
could
not
make
it
quite
in
time
this
morning,
he's
got
obligations
that
are
keeping
him
from
getting
here
just
in
time
for
the
committee
meeting,
but
we
had
talked
about
this
beforehand.
A
It's
a
pretty
straightforward
bill,
so
I'm
gonna
carry
it
for
him
here
in
the
committee,
and
this
is
senate
bill
101
for
members
who
haven't
seen
it
or
taking
a
look
at
it,
it's
very
straightforward
and
it
simply
prohibits
the
taking
of
photographs
by
first
responders
outside
of
their
official
capacity
as
first
responders.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
want
to
well
I'm
not
allowed
to
state
anymore.
A
C
Yes,
sir,
thank
you.
This
bill
maybe
appears
to
be
minor
to
some
people,
but
I
think
it's
a
great
bill
and
it
really
has
a
lot
of
practical
application.
C
I
know
over
the
years
there's
been,
I
know,
of
two
or
three
instances
where
this
has
happened
and
it's
been
hurtful
and
it's
caused
a
lot
of
problems
to
people
who
are
already
in
very
unfortunate
circumstances.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
and
for
doing
this.
A
Aye
bill
passes
on
an
eight
to
nothing
vote
senate
bill
101
passed
with
favorable
expression
from
the
committee.
Thank
you
to
senator
carpenter
for
filing
the
bill
and
for
the
the
quick
vote
there.
Everybody
all
right,
we're
going
to
take
up
senate
bill,
40
an
act
relating
to
the
rights
of
parents
sponsored
by
our
by
our
own
member
here,
senator
stephen
west.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members
committee
for
the
new
members
of
this
committee
senate
bill
40.
What
you
have
before
you
is
this
the
same
bill
that
we
passed
out
of
this
committee
last
year
and
a
version
of
this
bill
if
it
passes
today,
it'll
be
three
years
in
a
row.
This
is
passed
out
of
this
committee,
so
this
is
definitely
not
a
case
first
impression
for
this
committee
to
some
there's
many
lawyers
on
this
committee.
So
I
can.
I
can
make
this
statement
as
simply
as
possible,
as
I
can
state.
E
So
in
you
know,
first
amendment
analysis,
you've
got
low-level
mid-level
and
strict
scrutiny
and
in
strict
scrutiny,
mandates
that
there
must
be
a
compelling
state
interest
at
hand
and
that
any
legislation
must
be
nearly
tailored
to
meet
that
compelling
state
interest.
E
You
had
the
federal
government,
you
had
the
state
government,
but
the
ultimate
government,
the
ultimate
local
government,
was
the
family
and
parents,
and
that
parents
had
a
clearly
have
a
compelling
state
compelling
interest
in
the
care,
custody
and
control
of
their
children,
and
so
that's
that
was
not
only
known
in
early
colonial
times,
but
at
english
common
law
and
when
you
had
the
english
common
law
that
was
here,
we
have
what,
at
that
time,
the
founding
of
the
country.
We
had
reception
statutes
so
kentucky
when
it
was
founded.
E
Basically
through
reception
statute,
adopted
the
english
common
law,
and
so-
and
this
is
this-
has
long
been
held
in
in
the
main
supreme
court
cases.
Is
the
troxel
case
that
that
that
set
this
precedent.
So
this
the
reason
for
this
bill.
Another
reason
for
this
bill
is
that
we
see
across
the
country
attempts
to
for
the
state
and
others
to
delve
into
the
area
of
parental
rights.
E
A
I
don't
mean,
and
I
don't
believe
they
meant
to
cut
you
off
either.
Maybe
they
did
mean
to
cut
you
off
senator
that's.
A
But
we've
got
a
motion
a
second.
I
don't.
I'm
not
aware
of.
Thank
you.
Senator
burke's
got
a
question,
so
I'm
gonna
get
to
in
just
a
second,
but
I
don't
think
there's
anyone
in
the
room
who
wishes
to
speak
on
the
bill
and
I
don't
think
there's
anyone
remotely
that
has
signaled
a
desire
to
speak
on
the
bill.
So
senator
berg
go
ahead.
F
Thank
you
chairman,
and
thank
you,
sir,
my
basic
question
and
we
had
a
brief
discussion
ahead
of
time.
So
you
understand,
I
think
that
I'm
coming
from
you
know
the
other
side,
where
I've
had
personal
family
experiences,
where
a
child
needed
to
be
removed
from
a
home,
desperately
needed
to
be
removed
from
a
home
and
five
years,
five
years
at
talk.
So
I'm
reading,
like
section
seven
or
I
guess
section,
two
article
seven,
when
a
parent's
fundamental
rights
protected
by
this
section
are
violated.
F
A
parent
may
assert
that
violation
is
a
claim
or
defense
in
a
judicial
proceeding
and
may
obtain
appropriate
relief
against
the
governmental
entity,
and
my
concern,
you
know,
has
to
do
with
child
protective
services
and
how
are
the
individual
people
who
are
sent
out
to
a
home
to
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
or
not
a
child
is
in
a
safe
environment?
Is
this
going
to
have
a
chilling
effect
on
their.
F
Ability
to
do
what
they
think
needs
to
be
done.
Given
you
know
you
got
to
understand
from
my
perspective
frequently,
what
needs
to
be
done
hasn't
been
done
that
they're
not
as
protective
of
some
of
these
children
as
ideally
they
would
be
so
I
mean
if
I
was
a
social
worker
and
I
was
sent
out
to
home,
and
I
knew
that
if
I
violated
this
parent's
rights,
they
had
judicial
relief
against
me
and
I'm
already
on
the
you
know.
I
already
don't
know
what
to
do
with
this
case.
F
How
is
this
gonna
impact,
those
decisions?
That's
my
question.
E
It's
my
opinion
that
that
this
bill
does
not
impact
at
all
our
current
statutes,
as
they
pertain
to
child
abuse.
Neglect
simply
stated:
if
you
have
a
child
abuse
and
neglect
law,
there's
clearly
a
compelling
state
interest
to
prevent
child
abuse
and
neglect
so
you've
meet
that
standard
and
whatever
law
you
put
in
place
must
be
narrowly
tailored
to
meet
that
interest.
So
I
don't,
in
my
opinion,
I
I
don't
know
if
any
of
our
current
laws
would
go
against
really.
E
Will
be
any
effect
whatsoever
on
our
existing
child
abuse
neglect
laws.
I
think
the
problems
you're
referencing
are
probably
a
breakdown
of
our
current
system
and
really
has
nothing
to
do
with
it,
and
I'd
be
behind
you
100
to
the
effect
that
maybe
we
need
to
tighten
some
of
those
down
a
little
bit.
So
it's
my
opinion
that
this
this
bill
would
not
affect
those
whatsoever.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
senator
west,
so
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
bill
and
I
know
we've
had
several
discussions
on
this
before
and
I
agree
with
you
that
increasingly
state
entities
are
going
too
far
in
making
decisions
for
our
kids
and
the
concern
that
I've
had
with
this
bill.
It
has
been
the
same
all
along
and
I
I
can
remember
as
a
police
officer-
and
I
know,
teachers,
you
know
throughout
my
life
have
done
this
and
I
know
teachers.
G
They
continue
to
do
this,
but
you
know
sometimes
we
have
kids
that
come
from
families
where
they're
just
there
is
no
parental
guidance,
and
there
is
no
support
there
and
you
know
for
me,
as
as
a
young
child
if
people
within
my
community
had
not
stepped
in
and
provided
me
with
the
guidance
that
I
needed.
G
And
then,
if
you
have
a
parent
who
is
maybe
prone
to
to
file
civil
suit,
it
puts
it
puts
those
people
in
a
in
a
predic,
a
predicament
that
it's
kind
of
a
no-win
situation.
You
want
to
do
what's
best
for
the
kid,
but
you
put
yourself
at
risk
of
civil
liability.
E
Senator
senator
berg
brought
up
the
fact
at
the
end
of
bill.
There's
some
civil
penalty
possibilities,
civil
action
possibilities
as
a
as
a
very
basic
baseline,
no
matter
what
we
think
about
parents,
they
do
have
a
certain
level
of
constitutional
rights
and-
and-
and
that's
I'll
admit-
I
mean
it's
a
tight
road-
I
mean
I
know
where
you're
coming
from
as
it
as
it
stands.
Now.
E
I
don't
think
this
bill
changes
the
status
quo
too
much
as
it
pertains
to
an
outside
third
party
coming
in
and
stepping
in
as
a
mentor
and
and
trying
to
do
something
for
the
kid
they
you
know
they
can
get
into
trouble
now
if
they
they
go
too
far
in
infringing
upon
the
rights
of
parents.
Right
I
mean,
and
so
that
line
at
that
line
varies
from
case
to
case,
and
it's
it's
a
tricky.
E
It's
a
tricky
situation,
but
I
totally
understand
where
you're
coming
from
this
bill
would
be
a
lot
easier
if
all
parents
were
good
parents,
but
you
can't
let
the
pendulum
swing
the
other
way.
Either
I
mean
we,
we've
got
there's
a
balance
in
the
middle
and
this
my
bill
seeks
to
find
that
balance.
The
proper
balance
so.
G
I
I
wish,
may
I
continue
just
quickly
if
you've
got
a
question?
Yes,
sir
yeah,
I
just
wish
that
there
was
a
language
that
covered
that
specifically,
you
know
we
have
already
gotten
out
of
practice
as
a
society,
the
village
raising
the
child,
and
I
think
this
will
will
further
that
and
make
make
people
less
likely
to
get
involved.
G
And
you
know
these
are
the
kids
that
are
high
risk
that
that
community
needs
to
be
involved,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
haven't
been
able
to
support
this
bill
before
and
and
because
of
that
you
know,
I
know
I
don't
have
the
vote
in
this
committee,
but
I
just
I
can't
support
it
moving
forward.
G
I
think
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
push
those
who
would
tend
to
help
our
kids
away
from
helping
our
kids
and
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
thing,
though
I
do
understand
the
protections
that
you're
wanting
to
put
in
place.
I
just
wish
we
could
separate
the
two
and
provide
some
protections
to
those
folks
who
truly
have
an
intent
to
help
kids.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
Senator
stivers.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
central
west,
I'd
like
to
kind
of
get
two
extremes
on
this
and
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
troxel
versus
troxel
was
out
of
the
state
of
washington
that
went
up
to
the
united
states
supreme
court.
H
Am
I
correct,
and
I
think
that
was
it
and
its
progeny
have
created
a
lot
of
case
law
in
many
states,
but
the
fact
situation
on
that,
if
I'm
not
badly
mistaken
at
one
time,
I
did
do
a
little
domestic
law
was
that
the
parents
being
the
troxels,
were
going
to
move
from
washington
to
maybe
like
colorado
or
new
mexico,
and
not
certain
about
the
states.
H
H
E
Yeah
and
it's
it's
to
senator
carroll's
point-
I
mean
his
his
scenario
he
brought
up.
This
is
just
talking
about
the
the
interpretation
of
laws.
E
E
All
it
says,
is
if,
if
the
state,
if
you're
going
to
pass
a
law
that
pertains
to
those
issues,
you've
got
to
have
a
compelling
state
interest
and
it
must
whatever
law,
that
is,
must
be
nearly
tailored
to
meet
those
objectives.
And
so
it's
like,
I
said
for
hundreds,
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
years.
E
Where,
in
your
fact
pattern,
maybe
that
grandparent's
custodial
right
all
of
a
sudden
trumps,
the
parents
custodial
right
in
some
situations
and
and
so
that
there's
a
pattern,
there's
a
there's,
a
fact:
pattern
where
that
may
be:
okay
for
the
grandparents
rights
to
trump,
the
parents
rights.
But
it's
got
to
flow
through
a
process
and
it's
got
to
meet
that
level
of
review.
So.
A
Seeing
none
we've
got
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
bill.
Mr
secretary,
please
call
the.
A
F
Thank
you,
I'm
going
to
vote
no,
and
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do
here,
and
I
appreciate
what
you're
trying
to
do
here,
because
I
do
think
that
parents,
rights
do
trump,
those
of
other
people
that
are
involved
in
a
child's
life
and
that
the
parents
do
have
both
the
right
and
the
responsibility.
F
I
also
think,
particularly
in
this
state,
at
this
time
when
we
are
dealing
with
you,
know
the
crisis
of
of
addiction
and
have
so
many
children
in
states
that
need
to
be
improved
in
in
not
the
states
like
kentucky,
but
in
a
in
a
position
that
need
to
be
improved.
I
think
this
could
have
a
chilling
effect
and
I'm
worried
about
it,
and
I
also
honestly
believe
that
these
rights
of
the
parents
are
already
encoded
in
law.
I
believe
they
exist
already
and
to
restate
them
is
not
necessary.
So
thank
you.
A
D
D
Society
needs
to
know
that
when
you
do
terminate
parental
rights,
and
all
of
us
need
to
look
at
this
recent
supreme
court
case,
it
just
came
down
in
the
new
summary
that
says
you
don't
even
have
to
terminate
parental
rights
anymore,
to
adopt
a
child.
D
D
D
Unless
we
take
a
great
deal
of
pain
that
help
those
parents
become
the
parents,
we
as
a
society
need
to
make
that
standard
and
we're
judging
them
on
a
standard
and
most
of
the
time
my
practice
has
been,
and
you
can
ask
all
the
large
practices
in
the
poor
areas.
It's
the
poor
people
that
don't
meet
that
standard
of
care.
That
government
expects
social
services
have
changed
their
standard
where
before
they
could
just
substantiate
some
social
workers
say
well.
I
substantiate
this
act
and
that's
a
basis
then
for
taking
children
away
from
a
parent.
D
This
will
put
the
test
on
the
government.
Now
they
have
changed
it
somewhat.
If
you
practice
this
every
day,
you
see
the
government
abuse
and
I
saw
it
from
my
first
second
year
practicing
law
and
I
appreciate
this
bill.
I
really
commend
you
and
I
hope
and
pray
that
this
whole
body
passes
it
for
the
benefit
of
the
children.
D
A
I
I
believe
that
puts
us
at
seven
to
one
bill
passes
with
favorable
expression.
Thank
you
senator
for
bringing
the
bill
yet
again
to
the
committee
and
it'll
be
on
the
floor.
A
A
A
A
I
will
not
call
for
the
vote
or
ask
for
motions
or
seconds
or
anything
like
that
members.
You
were
distributed
a
proposed
senate
substitute
two,
which
will
hopefully
be
before
the
committee
for
a
vote
at
some
future
date
and
I
believe
senator
storm's
going
to
talk
about
that
based
on
a
lot
of
the
the
meetings
he's
had
with
a
number
of
folks
calls
meetings
and
so
forth.
I
I
I
became
interested
in
this
issue
because
we
have
a
lot
of
individuals
in
kentucky
that
understand
that
we
have
a
kentucky
constitutional
section,
section
11
that
talks
about
a
speedy
trial
right
and
the
sixth
amendment
of
the
united
states
constitution
also
talks
about
a
speedy
trial
right.
The
issue
that's
developing
is
a
lot
of
individuals
are
being
detained
in
local
facilities,
costing
taxpayers
a
lot
of
money,
and
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
judges
are
having
input.
We
want
to
make
sure
prosecutors
are
having
input
into
some
of
these
issues.
I
So
we've
tried
to
work
through
a
committee
sub
to
take
in
these
considerations.
The
couple
things
I
want
to
point
out
in
this
bill
is
this:
is
a
conservative
bill?
It's
about
liberty,
it's
about
the
fact
that
we
have
a
constitutional
right
to
speedy
trial
in
both
the
united
states
constitution,
as
well
as
in
the
kentucky
constitution.
I
This
bill
pertains
only
to
those
individuals
that
are
unconvicted
and
presumed
innocent,
but
are
unable
to
make
a
cash
bond.
It
also
deals
with
issues
where
we
have
ish
kentucky
state
police
crime
lab
who
can't
test
forensic
information
or
evidence
dna
evidence.
So
there's
exclusions
there
that
we've
worked
with
different
organizations
about
individuals
who
have
competency
issues.
We've
tried
to
address
those
issues
where
that's
going
to
be
excluded.
We've
talked
about
situations
where
judges
have
discretion.
Judges
have
the
right
to
order
various
different
kinds
of
public
safety
protections
go
through
the
analysis.
I
The
only
requirement
is
that
they
impose
conditions
that
are
the
least
restrictive.
It
does
preserve
judicial
discretion
and
again,
we've
made
a
lot
of
different
concessions
trying
to
talk
with
all
the
different
stakeholders.
We've
heard
from
victims
of
crimes.
I
We've
tried
to
account
for
their
concerns.
We've
taken
consideration
from
the
different
organizations
that
have
made
appointments
with
me.
I've
done
zoom
meetings,
I've
done
in-person
meetings,
so
we've
tried
to
do
a
lot
of
things
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
good
bill
and
that
it's
a
bill.
That's
a
compromise
bill.
I
So
again,
there
is
a
committee
sub
a
couple
of
different
things.
Defendants
can
also
waive
the
right
to
a
speedy
trial.
We
have
that
clause
in
there
we
have
the
opportunity
for
prosecutors
and
defense
attorneys
to
talk
with
one
another
and
go
before
the
court
and
explain
to
the
court.
You
know
we
have
a
good
cause
situation.
That's
arisen
and
we'd
like
to
continue
this
matter
for
good
cause,
so
there's
various
different
things
we
try
to
put
in
here
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
good
public
policy
bill
going
forward.
J
Shelly,
hampton
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
kentucky
association
of
counties,
thank
you
for
letting
us
come
in
and
and
speak
to
the
the
merits
of
the
bill.
Of
course,
jail
costs
have
for
decades
been
an
issue
for
county
governments.
I
always
say
we're
kind
of
at
the
end
of
the
slide,
just
catching
what
comes
down
to
us?
We
have
zero
control
over
who
comes
into
our
facilities.
How
long
they
will
stay
there,
what
their
health
issues
might
be
mental
or
physical,
and
so
for
us.
J
J
I
Want
to
I'm
not
sure
if
I
mentioned
this,
but
this
bill
does
not
pertain
to
capital
offenses.
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
individuals
who
felt
like
this
bill
somehow
is
going
to
pertain
to
capital
offenses.
It
does
not
capital
offenses,
there's
a
kentucky
constitutional
structure
for
capital
offenses.
So
this
doesn't
deal
with
that
and
again,
we've
got
time
frames
in
here
90
days
for
misdemeanors
180
days
for
felonies,
and
then
those
can
also
be
extended
for
exceptions.
We've
we've
carved
out
in
the
bill.
A
All
right
I'm
going
to,
I
know
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
and
members.
Please
hold
us
real,
quick,
I'm
going
to
ask
if
courtney
baxter
oldham
county,
commonwealth's
attorney
there,
who
I
think
is
on
the
line
with
us
remotely.
I
wanted
to
give
her
an
opportunity
to
speak
and
judge
sumi
if
she
wanted
to
speak.
I
know
she's
on
the
line
too
courtney
miss
baxter
go
ahead.
You've
got
the
floor.
K
K
since
becoming
the
commonwealth's
attorney.
The
number
of
indictments
have
continued
to
rise
in
my
jurisdiction,
just
like
many
others.
They
have
nearly
doubled,
while
the
resources
available
to
the
court
system,
the
lab
law
enforcement
prosecutors
and
public
defenders
has
remained
relatively
stagnant,
which
poses
a
major
obstacle
in
implementing
the
proposals
contained
in
sb-31.
K
We
had
not
seen
the
current
version
until
this
morning
after
chairman
westerfield
forwarded
it
to
me,
while
some
of
the
concerns
have
been
addressed
in
the
current
version,
there
are
still
issues
with
this
bill.
Specifically,
the
requirement
to
have
a
hearing
in
48
hours,
upon
expiration
of
the
180
day,
will
put
a
strain
on
an
already
burdened
court
system,
especially
in
multi-county
jurisdictions
like
mine.
That
only
has
one
circuit
judge.
K
This
requirement
will
result
in
canceling
dockets
trials
and
other
scheduled
matters
in
order
to
conduct
hearings
causing
further
delay
to
those
already
scheduled
cases.
Now,
keep
in
mind
the
defendant's
risk
assessment
level
has
already
been
evaluated
by
pre-trial
services,
which
was
reviewed
by
a
judge
and
the
defendant
had
a
right
to
request
a
hearing
regarding
bond.
The
proposed
bill
requires
an
automatic
hearing
occur
on
the
same
issue
after
180
days.
K
K
Further,
the
number
of
witnesses
in
those
cases
includes
experts
which
oftentimes
schedules
are
already
booked
with
other
matters,
preventing
the
case
from
being
tried
in
that
time
frame.
As
it
stands
now
we
are
scheduling
cases
for
trial
in
the
fall
of
2023.
Our
trial
calendar
is
full
for
2022.
Due
to
the
covet
backlog.
K
The
bill
provides
priority
for
in-custody
defendants,
which
will
result
in
out-of-custody
defendants
cases
being
pushed
to
the
back
of
the
line
resulting
in
delay
for
victims
who
have
a
right
to
a
speedy
resolution
of
their
cases.
There
has
to
be
a
balancing
of
equities
a
case
that
is
already
on
the
trial
calendar
with
an
out-of-custody
defendant
will
have
to
be
rescheduled
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
bill
resulting
in
justice
delayed
for
those
defendants
and
the
victims
of
their
crime.
K
The
bill
contains
a
tolling
provision
regarding
delays
relating
to
the
lab.
However,
it
expires
in
2026.
Four
short
years
is
not
enough
time
to
remedy
the
issues
with
the
lab
that
has
been
woefully
underfunded.
As
long
as
I've
been
a
prosecutor
and
before
then,
until
the
lab
is
fully
funded.
To
address
these
issues,
these
problems
will
continue
to
delay
the
justice
system.
The
bill
does
not
address
the
additional
delays
associated
with
e-crimes
and
the
time
it
takes
to
process
that
evidence
as
well.
K
A
Thank
you,
ms
baxter.
I
want
to
thank
you
and
thank
your
team
and
thank
the
other
prosecutors
have
reached
out
to
a
lot
of
members
of
the
committee
to
senator
storm
and
that
and
the
work
you
all
do
every
day.
I
appreciate
it
and
I
appreciate
the
feedback,
and
I
certainly
and
I'm
glad
that
that
court
for
you
this
morning
was
switched
to
virtual
so
that
you
could
participate
in
the
hearing
today.
I
understand
that
that
you
had
a
little
change
up
there.
So
I'm
glad
it
worked
out
again.
A
L
Thank
you
so
much
senator
this
is
a
judge,
patricia
semi,
I'm
a
kent.
The
circuit
judge,
I'm
also
the
chief
circuit
judge
for
that
circuit,
as
well
as
president
of
the
circuit
judges
association
with
150
members,
and
while
I
speak
for
them
generally,
I
don't
speak
for
any
of
them,
particularly
and
it's
my
understanding
they
have
reached
out.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
this
opportunity,
and
I
want
to
take
thank
senator
storm
in
particular,
he's
been
very
open
to
conversations
sometimes
to
his
own
detriment.
L
We
really
appreciate
that
he's
taken
his
job
very
seriously,
and
we
appreciate
that
as
well.
I
I
did
get
a
copy
of
the
sub,
so
I'll
go
back
to
just
a
few
high
points
that
I
want
to
talk
about
in
terms
of
how
this
affects
the
judiciary.
The
first
piece
is
180
days
and
well.
Every
judge
circuit
judge,
especially
I
can't
speak
for
the
district,
but
I'm
sure
they
must
feel
the
same
way
wish
to
get
defendants
to
trial
as
quickly
as
possible
and
efficiently
as
possible.
L
The
problem
with
180
days
deals
with
the
diversity
of
schedules,
not
only
multi-counties,
but
in
my
county
we
have
my
trials
now
and
because
we're
pretty
current
are
being
set
out
four
and
a
half
months
out.
So
that
seems
like
oh
gee,
I'm
within
180
days.
The
problem
is,
if
I
have
a
glitch
like
you
have
in
the
weather
today,
I
get
to
start
all
over
again
and
I'm
at
180
days
whether
a
defendant
would
consider
that
good
cause
or
not.
I
don't
know,
but
it's
what
happens.
L
I
believe
also
today,
and
I
think
the
prosecution
can
speak
to
this,
but
we
had
to
take
down
the
grand
jury,
so
you
have
a
lot
of
60
day
motions
that
are
going
to
be
coming
in
today,
because
it's
grand
jury
day
and
those
have
not
been
hurt
and
we're
concerned
about
that
happening.
The
senator
did
address
that
with
the
48
hours
notice.
However,
the
48-hour
notice
speaks
to
a
real
due
process
issue
for
me,
as
a
judge
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
individuals
who
are
concerned
have
the
opportunity
to
be
present.
L
That's
not
only
the
witnesses
for
the
defendant,
but
the
witnesses
for
the
prosecution
and,
of
course,
under
the
constitution
to
the
victims
who
are
involved.
So
the
ripple
effect
too
with
regard
to
the
180
days,
is
this
I
set
about
25,
if
not
more,
I'm
just
minimizing
that,
because
I
don't
keep
my
calendar,
we
just
keep
it
moving.
L
If
I
have
two
serious
trials
set
on
the
same
day
and
one
of
them
is
anticipating
to
go
to
trial,
but
then
please,
I
cannot
get
other
council
prepared
because
most
of
them
are
preparing
over
the
weekend.
So
now
I'm
looking
at
a
180-day
issue
or
forcing
them
to
trial,
which,
if
the
defendant
agrees,
can
be
considered
good
cause
if
the
fed
defendant
does
not
agree,
puts
me
into
a
180
day
clear
and
convincing
hearing,
which
is,
as
you
know,
several
of
you
are
practitioners.
L
More
and
more
defendants
are
filing
their
own
motion
for
speedy
trial
in
the
face
of
what
their
defense
counsels
feels.
They
can
do
so.
I'm
now
at
that
hearing.
The
problem
with
the
hearing
for
me
is
not
having
the
hearing,
of
course,
but
making
sure
everybody
has
noticed
and
their
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
to
present
their
case.
My
next
biggest
issue
with
this,
because
I
know
everyone-
and
I
have
lots
of
this
bill-
is
chock
full
of
great
stuff
to
talk
about.
The
next
issue,
of
course,
deals
with
the
standard.
L
The
standard
for
speedy
trial,
as
we
know,
was
set
constitutionally
through
supreme
court
cases
and
that
standard
is
now
pulled
into
a
bond
issue.
So
my
bond
review
now
not
the
speedy
trial,
though
they're
tied
together.
My
bond
review
now
is
at
a
clear
and
convincing
standard,
which
again
means
that
I
need
testimony.
You
can't
reach
clear
and
convincing
just
by
reading
the
citation,
although
some
people
think
that
you
can.
L
You
can't
reach
clear
and
convincing
by
just
going
back
and
looking
at
all
the
webcams,
but
you
need
to
have
testimony
for
a
judge
to
feel
confident
that
they
are
reaching
your
clear
and
convincing
standard
and
and
and
that's
another
issue
altogether
in
terms
of
that
standard.
But
the
clear
and
convincing
standard
with
regard
to
bond
then
goes
to,
and
I
appreciate
again
senator
storms
putting
person
or
persons
in
here,
so
it
took
away
the
particularized
person.
L
So
now
we
I
think
we
can
talk
about
community
danger,
as
opposed
to
danger
to
a
particularized
person.
We
have
this
particularized,
imminent
physical
harm
to
and
so
particularize
eminent
physical
harm.
Well,
and
just
looking
at
that,
I
go
okay.
We
have
a
lot
of
cases
where
we
don't
have
particularized
series
of
physical
harm.
I
don't
know
that
you'd
find
it
in
a
trafficking
case.
I
don't
know,
find
you
you'd
find
it
in
a
wanton
endangerment
case.
L
I
don't
know
that
you'd
find
it
in
a
manufacturing
methamphetamine
case
and
so,
and
I
think
that
you
might
not
find
it
in
particular,
and
one
of
my
bigger
concerns-
and
I
always
leave
out
some
of
the
verbage
for
this
particular
one
use
of
an
electronic
communication
system
to
procure
a
minor
or
police
officer
posing
as
a
danger
to
one.
L
L
What
it
also
takes
out
of
my
review
is
a
review
I've
already
made
of
their
criminal
history
and
and
it
takes
out
flight
risk
and
I'm
thinking
if
I
have
a
serious
crime
and
I'm
coming
up
on
180
days,
I'm
going
to
try
to
make
sure
that
the
judge
only
has
certain
parameters
within
which
they
can
make,
and
senator
storm
has
been
very
open
and
listening
to
all
these
things-
and
I
appreciate
appreciative
of
it
but
statutorily
as
this
is
still
written.
My
fear
is
that
that
that
language
will
not
fit
some
of
the
needs.
L
L
And
I
think
that
says
much
of
what
I
wanted
to
get
out
without
holding
you
all
up
so
much
because
this
is
this
is
for
purposes
of
today,
a
review
of
the
of
the
bill
itself
and
discussion.
I
do
want
to
go
back
to
the
issue
with
regard
to
the
jails.
I've
talked
to
my
jailer
and
we
we've
come
down
so
much
since
covid
in
terms
of
those
individuals
that
we
are
making
sure
that
we
get
get
moving
through
the
system.
L
So
what
this
boils
down
to
are
those
individuals
who
have
serious
crime
who
are
back-to-back
trials
in
my
jurisdiction
and
and
sometimes
they
have
to
be
set
the
same.
If
I
was
to
set
each
serious
trial
on
a
separate
day,
I
would
never
be
able
to
have
a
civil
docket
because
they
would
all
have
to
be
set
separately
and
then,
if
they're
set
separately
and
someone
goes
down,
then
I
have
nothing
to
feed
back
into
my
trial
docket.
So
it
becomes
an
administrative
nightmare.
L
I
can't
say
a
whole
bunch
about
13
14
15
that
were
just
added,
because
I
haven't
had
time
to
really
time
them.
But
you
know
I
now
become
the
time
keeper
and
you
know
I
time
keep
a
lot,
but
it's
another
administrative
job
which
puts
someone
else's
what
I
think
responsibility
on
me,
which
is
to
make
sure
that
I
have
everyone
moving
forward,
which
again
is
not
a
problem.
I
do
it
all
the
time,
but
to
make
that
180
days,
I've
got
to
move
it
back
14
days.
L
I've
got
to
move
it
back
to
something
else,
and
so
it
does
become
a
calendaring
nightmare
and
I
think
I
kind
of
feel
that
way
about
13,
but
I've
not
been
able
to
parse
it
out
yet
so
really
appreciative
of
it
lots
more
to
say
about
this
bill,
but
I
I
know
this
is
for
discussion
only
and
I'm
available
for
questioning-
and
I
know
I
talk
fast
sorry
about
that.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
H
Judge.
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
I'm
a
bit
confused
by
something.
You
said
you
made
a
comment
that,
because
you
had
to
cancel
a
grand
jury
today,
you're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
60-day
motions.
The
60-day
motion
is
where
you've
been
held
in
custody.
No
indictment
has
been
returned
for
60
days.
You
can
move
for
a
dismissal.
L
I
agree,
senator
I'm
sorry,
I
was
just
using
it
as
an
example
and
that
example
was
probably
based
on
my
prior
understanding
before
some
of
the
substitutes
that
this
would
act
sort
of
like
that
100
that
60-day
motion.
So
so
I'm
sorry
to
confuse
you,
but
I
do
understand
the
difference
and
I
apologize
well.
H
A
Thank
you
judge.
Thank
you
president's
divers.
All
right.
Can
I
ask
a
question
I'll
I'll.
Add
you
to
the
list
there
senator
turner,
okay,
I
will
go
ahead
and
get
to
the
questions.
Members
again
get
to
the
question.
We've
got
about
12
minutes
to
go
and
that's
a
hard
stop.
Senator
wheeler.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
senator
storm
for
for
this
bill.
I
guess
a
question
I
had
and-
and
I
noticed
this
on
the
committee
substitute
versus
the
original
draft-
that
I
think
under
subsection
10,
where
the
judge
had
to
identify
particularized
risk
of
imminent
serious
physical
harm
to
a
reasonably
identifiable
person
or
person
other
than
himself
or
herself.
M
You
have
sort
of
broadened
that
language,
which
I
think
is
a
good
thing
in
your
opinion
with
this
bill,
allow
the
judge
to
make
a
finding
that
a
particular
person
or
person
that
it
posed
a
risk
to
the
society
at
large
and
therefore
they
would
be
able
to
hold
these
folks
beyond
the
180
days
and
in
situations
where
they
might
pose
a
a
serious
risk.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question,
senator
wheeler,
basically
that
that
was
a
concession
that
judge
sumi
had
raised
with
judge
lay
as
well
as
judge
ward
and
I've
also
spoken
with
the
commonwealth
attorney's
office
about
that
language,
and
so
that
was
a
compromise
that
I
felt
was
appropriate
to
allow
these
judges
discretion
and,
I
think,
you're
exactly
right.
In
your
analysis,
it
does
allow
the
court
to
have
that
hearing.
It
does
allow
the
court
to
make
a
finding.
I
I
think
it's
important
that,
if
we're
going
to
restrain
individuals,
constitutional
rights,
that
we
have
judicial
findings,
so
I
do
agree
with
your
assessment,
and
that
was
a
compromise
language
we
put
into
the
committee
sub.
For
that
reason,
thank
you.
Senator
thank.
A
You
senator
stivers
have
any
other
questions.
I
know
we
had
done
all
right.
E
Senator
west,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
got
a
question
for
judge,
sumi
or
or
mrs
baxter.
Whoever
wants
to
chime
in
clearly
you
don't
like
the
180
day
time
frame.
Is
there
any
time
frame
that
you
would
could
agree
to,
or
would
would
think
would
be
a
good
amount
of
time.
E
It
does
it
does
I've
in
I'm
coming
at
this.
I
was
ready
to
vote
yesterday
today
because
I've
got
a
constituent
of
mine
who's
been
in
jail
for
three
years
without
trial
and
that
county's
having
very
limited
a
limited
number
of
trials,
and
so
you
talk
about
funding.
This
legislature
put
a
great
deal
of
funding
into
the
crime
lab
and,
thank
goodness,
we're
going
into
pretty
good
budget
years.
So
there's
a
lot
of
asks
for
additional
funding.
E
But
having
said
that,
there's
the
constitution
doesn't
sleep
during
a
time
of
covet
or
during
a
time
of
low
funding,
so
in
the
burden
is
on
the
state
to
to
to
try
these
people
in
a
speedy
manner.
So
I
appreciate
the
bill
today.
I
thank
thank
the
sponsor.
That's
information
only,
but
just
one
more
thing
I
mean
we've
been
trying
to
do
judicial
redistricting
for
years.
E
C
Schickel,
thank
you,
and
I
too
want
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsor
for
being
so
gracious.
I
know
he's
put
up
a
lot
for
me,
the
last
probably
month,
and
so
thank
you
senator
first
of
all,
I'm
a
little
disappointed
in
caico,
because
I
was
talking
to
the
jailers
association
this
morning.
I
thought
it's
interesting
that
they're
not
opposed
or
they're
not
opposed
to
this
bill,
and
I
always
thought
that
caico,
you
know
had
all
its
associations
on
board
before
they
take
took
a
position
on
the
bill.
J
Right,
the
the
jailers
I
spoke
with
their
director,
they
are
neutral
on
the
bill,
they
have,
they
have
folks
that
are
for
it
and
they
have
folks
that
are
opposed
to
it,
and
so
they
are
neutral
on
them.
C
It
isn't:
okay,
but
and
that's
normal
procedure,
if
you
don't,
if
you
have
somebody
neutral,
okay,
the
second
question
I'd
like
to
address
to
either
the
commonwealth
attorney
or
the
judge
or
both
what
are
the
practical
implications
on
this
bill
on
public
safety.
Mr
chairman,
I
have
a
follow-up.
L
I
I
can
just
tell
you
what
I
view
from
when
I'm
setting
bond
and
I'm
looking
at
past
history
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
individual's
behavior
is
going
to
create
a
danger
to
the
community,
and
so,
if
I
have
someone
who's
got
a
trafficking
control
substance
first
degree.
Second,
offense
I've
already
have
someone
whose
behaviors
have
seriously
impacted
the
community,
and
so
if
this
person
is
then
released
and
they're
in
on
another
charge,
well
they've
already
had
the
charge.
L
Then
then
that
creates
concern,
and
and
certainly
in
some
instances
when
we
have
bond
review
and
modification
request.
We
look
at
it
to
see
how
serious
that
is
and
whether
the
individual
can
be
released
or
not.
So
we
have
ongoing
discussions
as
we
move
through
the
calendar
to
make
sure
that
people
are
and
the
facts
of
each
case
are
being
addressed,
and
I
ask
for
more
and
more
information
from
the
commonwealth
attorney
as
things
move
down
the
line
to
make
sure
that
I
am
not
holding
somebody
without
enough
proof
on
their
part.
L
I
don't
know
whether
it
reaches
the
standard
of
clear
and
convincing,
but
we
look
at
it
very
with
much
scrutiny
to
make
sure
someone's
not
being
held
not
just
for
the
cost,
but
for
the
safety
of
the
community
and
so
traffic
can
control.
Substance
is
an
easy
one,
because
it's
out
there
all
the
time,
but
you
know
there
are
some
more
serious
things
that
would
cause
release.
And,
of
course,
someone
who
was
using
electronic
communications
for
minors
is
always
serious,
because
there's
no
way
once
somebody
is
released,
you
can
control
access
to
electronics.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
as
you
stated
to
me
in
your
lengthy
memo,
judge,
and
I
believe
the
rest
of
the
committee
did
get
copies
of
it:
the
right
to
a
spree
trial,
of
course,
well-established
law,
and
it's
well
established
in
kentucky
case
law.
So
for
me
the
question
is
not
that
whether
someone
deserves
a
speedy
trial.
We
all
know
that
they
do
it's
who
makes
those
decisions
and
how
those
laws
are
interpreted.
C
L
If
I
look
at
the
case
and
there's
something
before
me
and
I
find
out
that
there
is
a
delay
and
it's
a
delay
by
the
prosecution
just
for
delay
and
if
there
are
those
things
that
they've
not
been
prompt
with
looking
at
their
cases,
because
it's
really
the
prosecutor's
obligation
to
be
prepared,
yeah,
we
move
forward,
and
you
know
much
of
the
problems
occur,
as
I
think
the
prosecutors
here
can
tell
you
is:
if
we're
not
getting
the
testing
done,
then
the
defendant
is
concerned
about
exculpatory
proof
on
their
own
part
and
so
they're,
not
as
opposed
to
it
for
those
reasons
so
yeah
I've.
L
If,
if
the
question
is,
is
I
force
people
to
trial
before
the
answer
is
yes,
you
know,
because
it's
really
important
that
you
know
that
someone's
constitutional
rights
to
a
trial
were
enforced,
so
we're
not
we're
not
upset
or
disheartened
by
this
timing
other
than
the
fact
that
administratively,
and
for
many
other
reasons,
including
evidentiary
reasons,
it's
very
difficult
to
meet
and
match.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
the
hard
work
this
senator's
put
into
this
bill
and
I'm
going
to
support
it.
I
have
a
question
for
the
judge.
D
Can
you
give
us
that
if
you
can't
give
it
to
us
today,
hopefully
in
court,
could
you
supply
that
too
of
the
committee,
so
we'll
have
some
understanding
and
try
to
use
that
as
a
basis
for
most
courts
of
saying,
then
these
constitutional
rights
of
the
defendant
are
getting
this
many
days
and
the
civil
rights
of
the
civil
people
are
getting
this
many
days
per
year,
so
we
will
have
some
understanding
and
maybe
funding
and
everything
else
can
I
I
can.
I.
L
L
D
I
would
appreciate
that
for
the
last
year
or
how
many
months
you
could
give
it
to
us
so
we'd
have
some
analysis
to
make
and
maybe
help
the
system
move
forward,
because
I
appreciate
everybody
that
respects
the
constitution
and
pushes
to
get
constitutional
rights
done
thanks.
B
I
B
It
seems
like
a
lot
of
people
aren't
aware
of
the
sub
or
the
changes
that
the
sub
makes.
So
I
was
wondering
I
know
we
don't
want
to
vote
on
the
underlying
bill,
but
would
it
make
sense
to
adopt
the
sub
just
so
it
could
be
posted
on
the
lrc
website.
So
when
people
are
reading
the
bill,
then
they
would
actually
have
the
right
bill
to
me.
A
Let
me
check
with
staff-
I
don't
know
if
just
adopting
it
without
reporting
the
bill
would
result
in
it
being
on
the
lrc
website.
I
don't
know
that
it
would
be
there
and
do
you
know
the
answer
to
that
yeah
and
let's
just
do
this.
If
you've
got
a
question,
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
adding
it
to
the
committee
materials
if
we
can
do
that
on
the
website.
So
let's
make
that
request.
M
A
Think
it's
a
fine
request,
I'm
happy
to
make
that
so
we'll
put
that
on
the
meeting
materials
on
the
judiciary
page.
We
do
that
during
the
interim
we
put
materials
up
there
in
advance
of
the
meeting
happy
to
do
that
with
the
committee
sub.
I
sent
it
out
by
reply
to
one
of
the
commonwealth's
attorneys
this
morning
and
I
think
their
entire
listserv
was
in
the
reply
field,
so
they
all
have
it
I'm
happy
to
send
it
to
anybody
else
if
you
can't
find
it
online,
but
I
think
it's
a
fine
request.
A
Did
you
have
anything
else
about
the
bill
and
thank
you
senator
schroeder.
I
appreciate
that
senator
storm
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
last
word.
You've
got
about
no
minutes
left
so
take
take
about
a
minute
and
and
close
us
up.
We're
obviously
going
to
come
back
to
the
bill
and
it's
generated
a
lot
of
discussion.
So
please
close
us
out.
I
I'd
just
like
to
end
on
the
fact
that
kentucky
has
a
constitutional
provision,
section
11
I'd,
ask
everybody
to
look
at
and
it
talks
about
a
right
to
a
speedy
trial.
The
problem
is,
it
goes
back
to
the
question
that
was
posed
by
senator
schickel.
Kentucky's
law
currently
requires
a
defendant
to
ask
to
invoke
that
right.
Invoke
that
right.
So
if
it's
a
right
that
we
have
to
right
to
go
to
church
the
right
to
free
speech,
we
shouldn't
have
to
ask
to
invoke
that
right.
I
If
I
want
to
go
to
church
on
sunday,
I
should
have
the
right
to
do
it.
So
I'm
asking
the
the
committee
to
consider
putting
this
right
that
we
have
in
the
constitution
as
a
right
that
does
not
have
necessarily
be
invoked
by
a
motion
that
then
requires
a
hearing
for
a
judge
to
preside
over
to
determine
whether
or
not
someone's
right
to
a
speedy
trial
should
be
granted.