►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary (1-27-22)
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
Getting
to
order
good
morning
welcome
everybody
to
our
third
senate
judiciary
meeting
anybody
have
any
guests
or
anyone.
They
want
to
recognize.
Yeah
senator
schroeder.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
know
we
have
at
least
two
circuit
judges
in
the
audience
judge
somebody
from
kenton,
county
and
judge
ward
from
campbell
county.
A
A
A
Here,
quick
change
to
the
agenda:
we're
only
going
to
take
up
senate
bill,
23.,
senator
brandon,
storms,
senate
bill
31
is
removed
from
the
agenda
at
his
request.
I
know
he's
continuing
to
take
feedback
and
have
conversations
with
folks
regarding
the
the
substance
of
that
bill,
which
I
appreciate,
it's
a
bill
that
he
filed
last
year
and
he's
been
working
actively
for
the
entire
time
since
last
february
march,
since
he
filed
that
bill
in
preparation
for
this
session.
A
So
I
appreciate
the
work
over
the
last
year,
he's
put
into
it
and
he's
continuing
to
demonstrate
his
diplomacy
in
working
with
those
that
have
questions
about
the
bill.
So
at
his
request,
it's
pulled
from
the
agenda
and
we're
going
to
take
up
senate
bill
23.,
while
senator
yates,
our
friend
and
colleague,
comes
up
to
talk
about
symbol
23,
which
is
very
complicated,
very
lengthy
and
a
meticulously
long
bill.
A
I
want
to
mention
what
our
new
rule
is.
I
teased
this
last
week
and
I'm
gonna
stick
to
this
as
best
I
can
from
now
on.
When
I
call
on
you,
you
don't
get
to
make
a
comment.
You
don't
get
to
make
a
remark.
A
A
A
As
you
all
know,
members
spends
a
lot
of
time
on
some
heavy
topics,
a
lot
of
emotion
and
passion
and
philosophical
positions
on
these
topics,
and
it
certainly
lends
itself
to
a
lot
of
discussion
and
I'm
not
trying
to
inhibit
that.
But
I
am
trying
to
make
sure
we
get
all
the
questions
answered
that
we
have
and
that
we
actually
stick
to
that
and
just
get
the
questions
answered,
that
we
have
again
I'll.
Let
you
explain
your
vote
for
a
minute
or
two,
not
the
full
three
minutes.
A
A
D
Chairman
colleagues,
members
committee,
our
circuit
court
judge,
is
here
with
us.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
this
bill
senate
bill
23.
As
the
chair
stated,
facetiously
not
real
complicated.
There
was
a
recent
supreme
court
decision
that
kind
of
laid
it
out
and
there
was
a
cle
that
was
held.
That
was
actually,
I
believe,
chaired
by
our
chair.
D
Where
judge
minton,
I'm
also
kind
of
addressed
some
issues
that
we
have
in
here,
but,
as
it
stated
right
now,
male
matter,
theft
of
male
matter
in
the
event
that
it's
delivered
by
the
united
states
postal
service
is
a
felony
there's
the
loophole
in
the
law.
At
the
time
we
passed
this
some
40
years
ago.
D
D
This
would
simply
add
in
which
other
people
other
states
have
done
originally,
is
that
it
would
add
in
online
16
that,
instead
of
limited
to
just
to
united
states
postal
service,
it
would
be
common
carrier
or
delivery
service.
Now,
how
many
of
you
have
had
constituent
concerns
with
porch
pirates
with
the
theft
on
your
porches?
D
It's
a
very
big
issue
in
louisville.
I'm
an
issue
to
the
point
that
I
worry
that
it
will
escalate.
I've
talked
about
people
who've
been
victimized
over
and
over
again
from
the
theft
on
the
front
porch
of
the
things,
whether
it's
medicine
or
other
things
have
been
delivered
or
items
that
are
important
to
them,
whatever
it
is,
how
they
may
act,
and
this
brings
it
into
all
the
same
compliance
I'll
tell
you
as
I
sit
here,
I'm
reading
it.
D
I've
never
been
one.
I
don't
think,
there's
any
other
bill
that
I
would
say,
take
what
I
would
otherwise
a
misdemeanor
and
say
I
think
we
should
make
it
a
felony,
and
I
don't
think
that's
what
I'm
doing
necessarily
here.
What
I'm
doing
is
taking
what
I
think
to
be
a
similar
crime.
That's
been
put
into
place
over
and
over
again
because
of
the
way
this
legislator
named
it
there's
a
loophole.
I
mean
because
of
that
lupo
people
are
not
being
prosecuted.
D
D
We
have
rings
that
go
in
place,
so
it's
not
just
the
individual
walking
by
looking
for
potential
bangs
on
your
porch
they've
been
documented,
they've
been
no,
they
know
where
they're
at
they
have
these
vans,
that
drop
off
numerous
individuals,
they
jump
out.
They
take
the
packages,
they
come
back
and
they
take
it
to
one
area
one
facility.
D
They
leave
them
in
the
hotel
room,
the
packages
that
are
15
20.
They
can't
resell,
they
don't
care
they
discard
and
they
go
on
to
the
next
city
and
they
come
back
in
next
year
or
whenever
it
is
we're
hoping
to
be
able
to
put
a
dent
in
it.
I'm
talking
to
my
local
law
enforcement
officers,
talk
to
the
president,
fop
and
they're
fully
in
support.
I
think
anytime,
I'm
going
to
ask
someone
to
to
enforce
the
law.
I
need
to
make
sure
they
can
do
so.
D
The
the
teamsters,
which
represent
a
lot
of
the
ups
drivers
and
things
they're
not
opposed
to
it,
nor
do
they
endorse
they,
just
they're
ambivalent
to
it.
At
this
point
committee
again,
I'm
just
trying
to
fix
what
I
think
would
otherwise
been
placed
in
the
law.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
senator
thank
you
for
bringing
this.
My
question
goes
to
line
number
15,
so
it
says
or
which
has
been
left
for
collection,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
currently
like
many
families,
I
guess
we
receive
packages,
and
so,
if
we
receive
a
package
from
amazon
from
the
amazon
driver
and
assuming
the
price
and
everything
is
under
the
felony
threshold.
Currently
that
would
be
a
misdemeanor.
However,
if
sometimes
as
amazon
uses
our
post
office,
we
see
them
drop
off
amazon
packages.
B
D
Yes,
senator
and
I
think
that's
the
problem,
the
law-
it
is
the
exact
similar
crime,
but
it's
treated
completely
different
depending
on
who
is
actually
the
delivery
service
and
then
the
reading
of
the
the
law
too,
it
necessarily
doesn't
have
to
be
in
the
mailbox
or
directly
adjacent
to
it.
There's
been
some
case
law
in
place
and
I
think
you're
familiar
with
out
of
fayette
as
well
and
then
all
the
way
through
the
supreme
court.
Who
said
that
you
know
the
porch
would
be
considered
under
the
statue.
A
B
I
I
vote
I
today
and
I
think
you
know
this
is
one
that
doesn't
seem
like
it
should
cause
me
any
pause,
but
as
you
and
I
discussed
it
has
in
the
past,
when
I
looked
at
this,
you
know
I,
like
you
and
mentioned
I
I'm
hesitant
to
start
making
misdemeanors
felonies
and
if
it's
a
you
know,
five
dollar
package
felony
can
seem
kind
of
steep
and
like
senator
schickel,
and
I
often
say
we
feel
like
our
crimes
really
need
to
be
taken
seriously
with
the
amount
of
time
people
serve
and
everything
else,
so
I'm
hesitant
to
just
bump
something
up
without
good
cost,
but
I
think
you've
displayed
there's.
B
There
is
a
good
cause
here,
and
I
appreciate
you
explaining
to
me
the
the
situation
with
the
rings
coming
into
louisville
and
you
know
needing
warrants
and
everything
else
on
when
you
can't
have
certain
things
with
misdemeanors
and
and
just
being
that
close
to
the
house.
I
think
that's
pretty
different
too
and
heightens
the
seriousness
for
me.
So
I
vote.
I
thank
you.
E
Senator
willer,
mr
chairman,
explain
my
vote.
Of
course
I
vote.
I
want
to
thank
senator
yates
for
bringing
this
bill
and
I
guess
I
look
at
it
a
little
bit
different
from
senator
schroeder,
while
I
obviously
don't
want
to
make
five
dollar
crimes
a
felony.
This
is
merely
bringing
up
modern
commerce
and
making
it
commensurate
with
theft
of
mail,
and
you
know-
and
I
think
when
we
all
see
these
news
stories
where,
where
crime
has
gotten
so
rampant
in
big
cities,
where
organized
gangs
are
even
robbing
trains,
I
mean
you
know.
E
We
thought
we
left
that
behind
in
the
19th
century
and
now
we're
seeing
that
once
again,
especially
in
our
metropolitan
areas,
I
mean
what
went
on
last
year
was
an
absolute
scandal
and
and
with
some
of
the
rioting
and
things,
and
so
we
have
to
bring
order
to
these
cities
again
and-
and
I
think
this
is
an
important
part
to
do-
that.
A
I
vote
I,
as
you
mentioned,
senator
it's
sort
of
an
anachronistic
bill
having
been
updated
or
created
in
1982.
A
lot
of
things
have
changed
since
1982
when
I
was
two
years
old,
so
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
bill
and
it
passes
with
favorable
expression
on
a
10-0
vote.