►
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
Good
afternoon,
everyone
thank
you
for
attending
this
meeting
of
the
standing
house
committee
on
judiciary.
We
appreciate
your
willingness
to
come
here
this
afternoon.
For
those
that
may
not
know
we
had
a
one
of
our
members
lost
their
mother.
A
Visitation
was
today
we
would
not
have
been
able
to
get
all
of
the
agenda
in
if
we
had
stayed
on
our
regular
time,
so
we
elected
in
order
to
keep
things
flowing
to
do
it
upon
adjournment.
So
that's
why
we
are
doing
it
now,
as
always,
remember
to
mute
your
phones
or
put
them
on
airplane
mode
because
of
the
technology
in
the
room,
with
the
system
being
very
sensitive,
we
do
have
a
quorum
with
that.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
B
B
A
In
the
room,
thank
you.
We
have
three
bills
for
consideration
today.
The
first
one
is
going
to
be
presented
by
representative
pratt,
which
is
house
bill.
48..
I
will
tell
the
members
you
may
recall
we
had
this
in
the
interim
in
the
joint
committee
meeting
and
it
was
a
rose
out
of
an
incident
that
that
that
happened
in
his
in
his
district,
but
we've
heard
since
then
that
it's
happened
a
number
of
times
not
only
in
our
state
but
throughout
the
country,
and
so
that's
the
reason
we're
taking
this
bill.
A
Up
with
that,
I
will
turn
the
floor
over
to
representative
pratt.
I
will
say,
as
we
start,
though,
there
is
a
committee
sub.
We
have
a
motion
on
the
sub
by
representative
mccoy
in
a
second
by
representative
fisher,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye
aye
representative
pratt.
The
floor
is
yours.
Thank.
G
G
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
hitting
someone,
it's
all
about
making
a
false,
9-1-1
call,
which
actually
requires
usually
a
swat
team
to
come
out
there.
We
have
actually
worked.
You've
heard
it
in
the
interim.
We
actually
did
the
committee
sub
change
was
make
it
only
a
cl
class
d
felony
and
the
reason
we
need
to
make
it
a
felony
is
most
of
these
calls
come
from
out
of
state
and
they
cannot
go
across
state
lines
unless
it
is
a
felony
right.
Now,
it's
a
misdemeanor
with
a
twenty
five
dollar
fine.
H
I
G
Originally
talked
with
my
local
sheriff:
they
want
to
make
it
again
the
lowest
level
they
need
to
make
it
a
felony.
So
you
can
go
across
state
line
because
most
of
these
calls
come
in
from
across
state
lines.
We
actually
made
it
a
low
level
to
make
the
call
it
required
a
response
from
you
know:
swatting
swat
team
or
something
like
that.
Then
someone
got
hurt.
It
moved
up
a
level
if
someone
died,
it
moved
up
a
level.
After
consulting
with
my
attorney
friends,
they
said
you
just
need
to
make
it
low
level.
G
Felony
don't
go
the
other
route.
So
that's.
J
G
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
on
this
bill.
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
yet
again,
we're
here
to
make
a
crime
more
severe.
I'm
not
saying
this
is
bad.
This
is
probably
good,
but
it's
high
time
after
45
years
that
we
look
at
the
penal
code
in
its
entirety.
I
know
mr
chairman,
you
and
I've
talked
about
that.
I
know
that's
something
you
support
every
bit.
F
A
E
H
J
K
F
F
K
A
If
my
account's
correct
there
being
11,
yes
votes,
one
no
vote
and
one
pass
then
house
bill
48
will
pass
and
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
floor.
Thank
you,
representative
pratt
for
this
bill.
I
will
say
that
there
was
a
lot
of
work
that
went
into
this.
I
want
to
thank
josh
nacey,
who
is
with
us
today.
We
had
to
go
and
look
through
several
definitions
of
what
emergency
response
was
to
find
a
fit
that
we
believed
would
be
best
for
the
commonwealth.
A
Next,
we
have
a
bill
that
we've
heard
a
lot
about
in
the
interim
we've
heard
about
it
in
the
news
we've
heard
about
it
from
county
attorneys,
we're
going
to
talk
about
house
bill
154,
that's
sponsored
by
representative
flannery.
We
also
have
a
committee
substitute
on
this
bill
as
well.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
will
start
with
the
two
editions
that
were
made
in
the
committee
sub,
some
of
you,
some
of
the
committee
members
may
recall
that
this
topic
was
discussed
in
the
interim.
First
change
deals
with
some
discretionary
language
on
the
impoundment
of
license
plate
by
district
court
judges.
L
So
what
this
bill
does
it
allows
in
which
this
is
the
only
crime
in
kentucky
that
a
search
warrant
cannot
be
attained
at
this
time
upon
a
showing
of
probable
cause.
It
allows
a
search
warrant
to
be
issued
in
all
dui
cases.
Currently,
there
are
two
things
that
have
to
be
met
to
qualify.
There
has
to
be
either
a
death
or
a
physical
injury,
so
it
strikes
that
language
and
will
allow
it
upon
the
approval
of
a
judge.
L
I
believe
this
is
very
consistent
with
our
current
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence,
but
it
is
very
necessary
that
we
deal
with
this
issue
over
54
percent
of
dui
cases
involve
drugs
or
a
combination
of
drugs
and
alcohol.
Without
the
opportunity
for
our
prosecutors
to
have
these
tests,
it
makes
it
very
very
difficult
to
successfully
prosecute
these
cases.
I
do
have
some
stats
that
I
believe
will
show
you
just
how
important
it
is.
These
are
on
drug
driving
drug
driving
cases.
Only
in
2020
there
were
1873
collisions
in
this
state
on
drug
driving
alone.
L
That
doesn't
include
any
alcohol
related
duis
drug
driving
alone
in
2020
86
fatalities
and
in
2020
drug
driving.
Only
1086
injuries
on
our
roadways.
I
believe
this
is
a
good
step.
It
will
actually
put
kentucky
in
conformity
with
the
re,
with
the
overwhelming
majority
of
our
states.
Currently,
34
states
allow
this.
So
it's
not
a
a
big
deviation
from
what
other
states
are
doing
and
welcome
any
questions.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
blanton
representative
blanton
in
a
second
by
representative
nemus,
and
we
have
some
questions:
representative,
scott
and
then
heparin.
So.
I
Thank
you,
chairman
representative,
can
you
repeat
what
was
on
page
three?
I
don't
have
it
in
my
copy.
L
Okay,
it
believes
it
should
be
in
the
representative,
scott,
it's
not
in
the
printout
okay.
So
on
page
three,
there
was
an
issue
with
a
court
decision.
This
was
something
that
was
brought
to
my
attention
and
to
I
believe
the
committee
chair
by
the
county,
attorney's
association,
but
there's
been
an
argument.
L
It's
really,
in
my
judgment,
just
kind
of
a
modern
addition
to
this
bill,
but
that's
what
it
does.
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
I.
A
Also
want
to
indicate
that
I
was
just
told
by
our
assistant
that
this
was
sent
out
last
night
by
email
as
well,
for
whatever
reason
that
page
did
not
copy
in
the
machine.
Sometimes
that
happens,
but
this
email
was
sent
to
all
members
of
the
committee
last
evening,
and
I
just
wanted
everyone
to
be
aware
of
that.
A
I
L
Under
our
implied
consent
laws,
there's
there's
there's
already
consequences
for
a
refusal,
but
this
is
particularly
involves
blood
testing.
So
the
mccarthy
decision
stated
that
blood
not
not
breath
or
not
urine
testing.
If
there
is
a
refusal
on
a
blood
test
that
that
refusal
cannot
be
presented
to
a
jury
which
is
which
is
contrary
to
what
has
always
happened
so
this,
what
this
does?
It
allows
the
opportunity
if
a
law
enforcement
officer
believes
that
there's
probable
cause,
they
can
seek
a
warrant
for
that
blood
upon
the
approval
and
signature
of
a
judge.
Thank
you.
A
H
Thank
you
chairman.
I
just
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
for
the
house
committee
sub
I've
been
working
with
my
district
judge,
judge
shumate
from
hardin
county
about
this.
She
brought
the
concern
to
me
with
the
license
plate.
That
has
been
an
issue,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
you
very
much
for
doing
that
and
helping
out
my
constituent
welcome.
D
Thank
you,
mr
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
representative.
We've
had
some
discussions
about
this
and
I
appreciate
your
efforts.
I
know
this
is
been
a
big
undertaking
for
you.
Why
can't
this
be
fixed
with
a
rule
of
evidence,
and
I
know
we've
talked
about
that,
but
is?
Is
this
something
that
cannot
be
fixed
by
a
rule
of
evidence
that
would
permit.
L
It's
my
understanding
and
I'll.
Let
representative
demas
address
this
if
he
believes
this
is
incorrect,
because
I
believe
this
is
topic
he
might
be
better
versed
in,
but
generally
there's
a
separation
of
powers
doctrine.
I
think
on
most
evidentiary
issues.
The
supreme
court
sets
that.
L
That's
my
understanding
of
that
and
if
I'm
incorrect
I
apologize,
but
so
I
it
is
an
evidentiary
issue.
I
think
this
is
a
in
the
round.
I
do
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
attorney
general
has
is
seeking
he's
filed
a
petition
for
cert
on
this
to
the
u.s
supreme
court
and,
and
that
has
been
joined.
It's
it's
a
bipartisan
effort.
It's
been
joined
by
multiple
states,
colorado,
alaska,
arizona,
the
district
of
columbia
has
joined
at
florida,
indiana
iowa
kansas.
A
I
would
also
point
out
that
part
of
the
reason
we
had
the
committee
sub
was
because
the
attorney
general's
office
was
concerned
that
the
original
language
might
make
their
petition
for
cert
moot,
and
we
did
not
want
to
inhibit
that,
because
if
the
court
takes
it
up
and
overturns
the
case
of
mccarthy,
then
we're
there's
really
no
need
for
this.
But
in
the
meantime
we
still
have
this
situation
pending
in
the
commonwealth.
With
that
representative
bratcher.
L
It
is
so
so
when
any
time
that
you
have
a
suspect
in
a
dui
case,
that
is
a
drug
driving
case
breath,
is
not
a
suitable
test.
We
don't
have
the
technology
to
use
any
sort
of
intoxilizer
or
some
sort
of
roadside
breathalyzer
instrument
to
try
to
measure
blood,
alcohol
content
or
or
should,
I
should
say,
some
sort
of
drug
content
in
in
a
suspect's
blood.
So
the
other
two
options
are
our
blood
and
urine.
L
L
I
mean
it
clearly
stated
in
that
decision
that
state
supreme
courts
state
trial
courts
should
not
interpret
their
decision
to
mean
all
the
evidentiary
issues
that
the
mccarthy
court,
our
state
supreme
court,
actually
decided.
So
that's
when
I
say
it's
a
misapplication,
I
mean
I
think
they
it's
really
in
conflict
with
what
birchfield
actually
said.
L
L
But
it's
mostly
mostly
an
issue,
and
even
the
birchfield
decision
is
that
that
came
out
of
north
dakota.
They
actually
had
a
crime
that
said
it
a
statutory
crime
that
stated
that
it's
a
crime
to
actually
refuse
a
test,
which
is
not
what
we
have.
It's
they're
just
consequences
with
your
implied
consent
and
your
your
privileges
of
being
able
to
have
a
license
in
those
issues.
So
it's
it's
really
not
consistent.
Even
with
our
statutory
framework.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
question
is
about
you
know
at
the
bottom
of
page
five,
where,
where
the
the
bulk
of
the
the
language
that
we're
getting
at
here
is
before
that
it
says
from
the
incident,
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
there's
not
any.
We
didn't
amend
any
of
the
definition
section.
So
there's
no
definitions
in
here
is
that
a
defined
term
in
another
place
in
the
statute
is
that
a
motor
vehicle
accident
is
that
a
single
car
accident
is
that
a
multi-vehicle
accident
where
there
is
a
victim.
L
I
I'm
not
aware
if
it
is
defined.
L
Yeah,
I
don't,
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
I
do
do
see
that
I'll
be
glad
to
look
in
that
and
that's
an
issue
that
I
believe
needs
to
be
addressed.
I'd
we'll
handle
that.
But
I
know
mr
chairman,
if
you're
familiar,
but
do
you
know
if
incident
is
described,
there's
defined
and
I
guess
my
question.
A
So
an
incident
obviously
can't
involve
a
single
car
or
multiple
vehicles.
I
think
when
they're
getting
an
incident,
what
it
means
is,
is
that
whatever
gave
rise
to
the
charges
being
levied
by
the
authorities
at
the
time
is
the
incident.
An
incident
in
some
cases
could
involve
a
motor
vehicle
which
goes
to
the
second
part
of
the
explanation.
So
we
will.
We
will
review
that
to
make
sure
it's
not
a
scrivener's
error,
but
I
believe
that
that's
the
intent
of
the
law.
A
F
F
A
Yes,
there
being
13,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
one
pass
house
bill
154,
as
amended
by
committee
substitute
for,
is
passed
and
we've
been
reported
with
favorable
expression.
Thank
you,
representative
flannery.
While
we're
changing
table
persons
here,
we
next
we'll
call
house
bill
269,
but
I
want
to
ask
if
representative
mosher
would
like
to
record
a
vote
and
house
bill.
48
is
amended
by
proposed
house
substitute
amendment
2.
A
You
representative,
thank
you
with
that.
We'll
move
on
to
house
bill
269
that's
going
to
be
presented
by
representative
mccoy,
and
I
will
note
for
the
members
that
this
has
been
brought
previously.
He
will
explain
that
here
momentarily,
but
it's
been
brought
previously.
I
believe
it's
passed
out
of
this
committee
and
passed
off
the
floor.
I
believe
it
just
has
not
been
held
in
the
senate
and
so
we're
back
again
today
and
with
that
I'll
turn
the
floor
over
to
representative
mccoy.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
you're,
absolutely
correct.
I
will
tell
you
this:
we
in
the
interim
met
with
the
senate
presidents
divers
and
whitney
westerfield
and
took
their
considerations
and
made
changes
to
the
bill.
Here's
the
change
they
needed
and
here's
what
it
does.
You
now
have
to
have
a
documented
history
and
diagnosis
from
a
mental
health
professional,
and
we
define
that
expressly
in
in
the
bill.
K
A
F
Mr
chairman
representative,
mccoy,
thank
you
for
being
here
father,
thank
you
for
being
here,
but
the
change,
I
think,
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me
that
we're
at
making,
because
if
you
don't
have
a
diagnosis
at
the
time
of
the
that
you
commit
the
crime.
But
it's
obvious
that
you
have
a
mental
illness
that
you
can
prove
after
the
fact
that
you've
had
for
a
long
time,
then
you
should
still
not
be
the
state
still
shouldn't
kill
you
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
are
not
diagnosed
before
they
commit
crimes
who
still
shouldn't
be
killed.
F
I'm
going
to
support
this
bill
because
I
think
it's
a
move
forward.
It's
nowhere
near
what
we
need,
even
in
the
area
of
mental
health,
but
with
respect
to
the
death
penalty
more
globally.
It's
fiscally
very
unsound
policy.
Over
about
almost
two-thirds
of
our
death
penalty.
Convictions
in
kentucky
are
overturned
on
appeal.
That
makes
absolutely
no
sense,
and
if
that
doesn't
show
you
the
potential
for
mistake
and
and
and
executing
the
wrong
person,
I
don't
know
what
does.
F
I
would
also
note
that
it
is
not
the
state's
role
under
any
circumstance
to
end
a
life
from
natural
conception
to
natural
death.
We
need
to
end
the
death
bone
in
kentucky.
This
is
a
step
forward,
so
I'm
supporting
it,
but
the
state
shouldn't
be
killing
any
human
being
from
natural
conception
to
natural
life.
I'm
going
to
support
this
bill,
but
we've
got
a
long
way
to
go.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
H
H
I
mean
I'll
just
echo
what
representative
nima
said
that
the
the
more
changes
you
make
to
this
and
I
understand
why
you're
making
them
to
to
make
it
more
palatable
for
for
others,
but
there's
a
lot
more
circumstances
out
there
where
this
could
be
applied
and
and
someone
could
not
fall
into
these
words
that
we're
putting
out
and
and
still
be
be
worthy
of
of
some
sort
of
lesser
sentence.
H
I
suppose
so
I'm
I'm
supporting
of
this-
I'm
supporting
this
today
too
completely,
but
it's
gotten
a
lot
wonkier
with
all
the
different
changes
that
you've
made.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
representative
mccoy.
I'm
a
co-sponsor
on
this
obviously
support
it
hypothetically.
If
someone
has
committed
a
crime
and
they
have
not
been
diagnosed
with
one
of
these
illnesses
at
the
time
that
they
commit
the
crime,
but
then
at
some
point
after
they're
diagnosed.
K
K
H
D
Circumstances,
this
is
an
area
where
I
agree
with
you
that
that
we
shouldn't
apply
it.
I
think
there
are
instances,
at
least
in
my
mind
where
we
still
need
to
apply
the
death
penalty.
So
that's
where
we
disagree,
but
this
is
an
area
that
I
think
we
can
agree
on
even
go
further.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
Thank
you,
chairman
representative
mccoy.
I
would
like
to
expand
on
the
question
that
rep
cantrell
was
asking,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
the
people
who
are
watching
at
home
understand
because
they're
not
here
to
play
the
game,
so
I
don't
know
that
they
really
understand
what's
happening
here.
Can
you
explain
why
only
those
four
disorders.
K
Yes,
ma'am
these
first
of
all,
we
feel
like
these
are
a
good
first
step
and-
and
I
think,
as
representative
cantrell
said,
there
might
be
a
lot
more
that
could
be
added
to
the
list,
but
in
order
to
get
support
for
the
bill
enough
to
get
it
across
the
finish
line.
I
hope
I
mean
the
house
this
committee
in
the
house
got
it
got
it
out,
we're
going
to
take
a
baby
step,
we're
going
to
start
with
these
and
let's
see
how
that
goes.
I
I
really
appreciate
that
explanation
and
the
world
is
not
going
to
end
over
this.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairman.
C
C
C
I
think
that
there
are
certain
crimes
that
everybody
in
this
room,
no
matter
what
you
say
now
would
say:
yes,
I
believe
in
the
death
penalty,
the
mind
can
only
go
so
far
until
you
find
that
that
yes
vote,
you
said
that
this
is
just
a
first
step.
I
hope
it's
generally.
The
first
step,
you
know,
12
people
on
a
jury
have
to
agree
before
someone
is
put
to
death.
Just
think
how
horrible
that
crime
must
be
to
your
loved
ones.
C
C
How
many
times
would
if
somebody's
getting
ready
to
commit
a
horrible
crime
with
the
self-defense
clause,
say
yeah,
you
can
take
that
person's
life.
Well,
you
weren't.
There,
when
that
happened,
but
two
years
later,
you're
there
and
you
can
vote
for
the
death
penalty.
So
I'm
gonna
vote.
Yes,
because
I
do
like
this
portion
of
it
but
to
put
a
death
penalty
on
trial.
We
need
a
whole
new
discussion
in
my
opinion,
mr
chair,
thank
you.
H
E
I
I
So
my
issue
is
that,
if
we
are
honest,
the
system
under
which
we
operate
is
structurally
unsound
and
it's
full
of
inequities,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
must
abolish
the
death
penalty.
I
appreciate
your
response
representative,
because
this
is
a
first
step.
We
have
a
lot
more
steps
to
take,
so
this
will
be
my
only
yes
vote
today.