►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary 3/10/21
Description
This meeting ended it's stream prematurely. Most of the second half can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/E5tz-KhfUTk
The entire meeting was also covered by KET and can be found on their Legislature video page.
A
Welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
house
judiciary
committee,
I
apologize
we're
a
few
minutes,
late
everybody's
struggling
with
quorums,
based
on
the
meetings,
the
way
they
got
scheduled
with
this
being
a
non-legislative
day,
but
we're
going
to
make
it
happen.
So
with
that,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
role.
E
A
A
A
This
will
be
here
today
and
then
following
that
and
we've
allowed
them
45
minutes
and
then,
following
that,
we
will
have
president
stivers
with
senate
bill
4.
both
of
those
deal
with
the
no
knock
warrant
situation,
and
so
there's
some
overlap
there.
If
you
will
I've
explained
to
people
that
have
asked
they
ask,
why
are
you
calling
one
for
discussion
only
and
one
for
action
realistically,
in
the
limited
time
that
we
have
left
the
realism
of
it?
Is
this
house
bill?
A
21
is
not
out
of
committee,
yet
it
would
have
to
go
through
the
whole
process.
Senate
bill
4
has
cleared
the
senate,
but
I'm
sure
that
there's
going
to
be
some
questions
and
likely
some
floor
amendments
that
will
have
to
be
dealt
with,
so
that
is
going
to
be
the
process.
I've
explained
that
to
the
presenters,
including
representative,
scott
and
president
stivers,
so
with
that
we're
going
to
take
up
house
bill
551-
and
I
do
want
to
say
a
couple
of
things
very
early
on
with
this.
A
A
Unfortunately,
one
of
the
things
complaints
I've
heard
is
that
that
we
should
not
be
dealing
with
things
that
deal
with
courtroom
procedures,
but
I
will
say
candidly:
those
procedures
often
affect
other
parties
that
don't
necessarily
have
a
voice
through
the
court
system,
and
so
we
agreed
to
have
this
bill
heard.
We
there
is
a
committee
sub
and
I'll
ask
for
approval
on
that
in
just
a
moment,
but
it
changes
the
shall
to
may,
which
means
this
is
permissive
and
not
mandatory.
A
So
we
do
have
a
committee
sub.
Is
there
a
motion
on
the
sub
motion
to
make
sub?
It's
your
second
second?
Okay,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed
okay.
So
this
is
permissive.
We
do
have
people
lined
up
to
speak
and
some
of
them
are
in
person
and
some
of
them
are
by
zoom.
But
with
that
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
representative
freeland.
You
may
proceed.
A
Thank
you
and
judge
jameson.
I
will
qualify
this.
I
want
people
to
know
when
it
was
for
information.
Only
last
week
there
was
a
committee
sub,
but
because
we
didn't
call
it
for
action.
The
committee
sub
there
was
never
adopted.
The
committee
sub
that
would
have
been
presented
is
in
conflict
with
the
committee
sub.
That's
been
presented,
changing
the
shall
to
may,
which
is
why
that
committee
sub
is
not
being
called
today,
but
judge
jameson
may
refer
to
that
in
his
comments,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
was
clear.
D
D
I
have
since
received
communication
from
the
jailers
association
that
I
don't
know
if
they're
in
the
same
position
that
they
were
before,
but
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
they
were
in
support
of
the
committee
sub
that
was
intended
for
last
week.
How
those
are
different
is
the
original
bill
makes
it
all
mandatory.
D
The
proposed
sub
for
today
would
not
make
it
all
permissive,
the
that
was
discussed
with
all
of
those
organizations
that
I
just
named
and
that
that
was
not
their
chosen
option,
the
language
that
reflects
what
they
all
endorsed
and
approved
of
is
in
that
committee
sub.
That
was
intended
to
be
discussed
last
week.
D
You
know
you
see
these
guys
having
to
get
up
at
one
in
the
morning
or
and
drive
halfway
across
the
state
pick
up
an
inmate
at
a
you
know,
say:
eastern
kentucky,
prison,
etc,
drive
all
the
way
back
to
marshall
or
callaway
counties
for
an
arraignment
that
takes
less
than
a
minute
literally,
and
then
they
have
to
drive
them
all
the
way
back,
and
I
can
sit
here
for
an
hour
and
name
all
kinds
of
scenarios
that
I've
witnessed.
That
is
something
that
occurs
regularly
in
our
courts.
D
D
I,
what
I
support
is
the
idea
of
eliminating
those
long
distance
trips
that
don't
result
in
in
anything
other
than
a
continuance
or
an
arraignment
or
something
that
is
going
to
last
more
than
just
a
couple
of
minutes
and
kentucky
case
law.
In
my
opinion,
it's
clear
that
confrontation
is
only
an
issue
if
there's
some
sort
of
evidentiary
hearing
occurring
or
a
trial,
so
anything
other
than
that.
There
are
examples
of
case
law
where
arraignments
were
held
virtually
or
at
a
distance,
and
that
was
held
to
be
absolutely
constitutional.
D
So
you
know
those
things
may
may
change.
Obviously,
all
that's
in
the
hands
of
the
supreme
court
as
they
desire
to
modify
those
things.
But
that's
that's
where
this
is
coming
from
is
there
is
a
circumstance,
a
situation
here
that
needs
addressing,
in
my
opinion,
and
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
individuals
that
that
share
that,
including
some
judges
and
it's
more
of
an
issue
of
devils
in
the
details.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
get
there?
D
So
it
only
applies
to
circuit
court,
so
district
court
under
that
version
would
be
all
permissive
and
it
has
some
lines
in
there
that
ensures
protections
of
defendants
rights.
A
lot
of
work
was
put
into
that
version
to
try
and
reflect
everybody's
concerns
to
the
extent
possible
again
you
know
it's.
It's
folks
disagree
on
things,
but
the
concept
of
you
know
saving
the
money
that
we're
talking
about.
I
don't
know
if
the
committee
members
got
to
see
the
corrections
impact
statement,
but
I
thought
this
really
told
the
story.
D
D
The
production
of
transporting
prisoners
to
court
would
increase
officer
safety,
reduce
overtime
costs
and
allow
for
reallocation
of
staffing
resources
and
here's
some
good
numbers
that
I
think
kind
of
drop
this
home
over
3
000
state
inmates
have
detainers
for
pending
charges.
This
is
in
state
custody,
with
43
percent
located
in
prisons
and
57,
located
in
jails
in
2019.
The
department
averaged
325
court
trips
per
month,
that's
just
for
inmates
serving
state
time.
D
So
that's
not
where
the
majority
of
your
movement
comes.
The
majority
of
your
movement
comes
from
individuals
that
are
in
a
accounting
elsewhere
that
have
new
pending
charges
in
your
just
jurisdiction.
This
is
a
cost
of
approximately
75
000
in
staffing
each
month,
not
including
other
transportation
related
costs
such
as
mileage,
gas,
etc.
Any
transport
outside
the
correctional
facility
poses
higher
risk
for
staff
safety.
Most
importantly,
the
reduction
of
inmate
transports
increases
public
safety.
D
So
that's
that
again
is
from
the
corrections
impact
statement
that
is
was
produced
as
a
result
of
this
bill.
So
with
that
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
I'm
not
necessarily
here
to
advocate
for
the
bill,
I'm
here
to
advocate
for
reducing
these
unnecessary
costs,
regardless
of
how
that's
done.
A
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairman
massey
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
shelly
hampton,
I'm
the
legislative
director
for
the
kentucky
association
of
counties.
Thank
you
to
representative
freeland
for
serving
as
the
primary
sponsor
of
this
proposal.
I
also
want
to
thank
chairman,
massey
and
representative
westrom
for
co-sponsoring
this
very
important
issue.
G
It's
an
important
piece.
This
bill
is
an
effort
on
the
part
of
county
officials
to
not
only
be
good
stewards
of
the
tax
dollars
they
are
entrusted
with,
but
also
to
stop
the
shifting
of
costs
from
the
state
down
to
its
partners
at
the
county,
who
provide
mandated
state
services
statewide,
but
often
with
no
accompanying
state
funds
to
cover
those
costs
in
the
interest
of
time.
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
what's
already
been
said.
G
While
the
world
begins
to
see
a
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel
through
covid.
There
have
been
some
valuable
lessons
and
some
positive
outcomes
as
a
result
of
adjusting
to
the
limitations
that
the
pandemic
has
set
upon.
All
of
us
utilizing
technology
in
this
instance
to
save
time
taxpayer
dollars
and
maintain
public
safety
is
one
of
the
silver
linings
on
an
otherwise
terrible
pandemic.
As
virtual
court
appearances
became
more
and
more
of
a
necessity.
G
It
has
reduced
time
away
from
performing
duties
in
the
sheriff's
office.
It
has
saved
time
for
deputy
jailers
who
are
able
to
keep
defendants
in
the
facility
instead
of
going
through
all
the
precautions
of
preparing
them
for
transport
out
and
then
back
again,
while
assisting
them
and
appearing
virtually
in
a
courtroom.
G
That
could
be
hundreds
of
miles
away.
Public
safety
and
costs
have
been
saved
in
sheriff's
offices
around
the
state
during
this
pandemic.
With
this
order
and
to
save
fiscal
court's
money
about
eliminating
these
trips
back
and
forth
again,
we
support
the
option
of
extending
this
practice
permanently
wherever
possible,
and
we
would
ask
for
your
support
and
lastly,
I
will
reiterate
that
the
following
groups
continue
to
support
this
effort:
the
kentucky
sheriff's
association,
the
commonwealth's
attorneys,
the
county
attorneys,
kentucky
jailers
association
and
the
magistrate's
commissioners
association.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Jerry
wagner
is
the
executive
director
of
the
kentucky
sheriff's
association.
He
is
at
the
national
sheriff's
association,
so
could
not
be
here
in
person
or
virtually
with
us,
but
he
did
ask
this
to
be
read.
He
said
the
kentucky
sheriff's
association
board
voted
to
support
house
bill
551
in
a
meeting
held
on
march,
2nd
recently,
there's
been
discussions
with
the
change
in
wording.
Changing
the
shout
to
may
and
may
appear
remotely
with
a
committee
substitute.
The
ksa
still
supports
h.b
551
with
language
changes,
as
the
ksa
believes.
E
A
Thank
you,
representative
freeland.
I
know
that
we
have
some
people
that
have
signed
up
to
speak
in
opposition.
So
if
you
could
vacate
for
the
moment
and
we'll
call
them
up,
we
have
damon
preston
from
the
dpa
office.
We
have
judge,
foster,
cutoff
and
judge
cunningham,
and
I
believe
that
I
was
gonna
call
mr
preston.
First,
if
he's
available,
is
he
in
person
or
zoom?
A
H
Thank
you,
I'm
gonna
be
quick,
because
I
know
others
want
to
speak
here.
I
I
would
sum
up
dpa's
position
on
this
bill
in
one
in
one
sentence
for
those
of
you
that
have
children
are
aware
of
what's
gone
on
in
schools
this
year.
If
you
believe
that
the
kids
of
kentucky
have
received
a
quality,
comprehensive
and
equivalent
education
over
the
camera
over
the
last
six
months,
then
you
should
be
for
this
bill.
H
Camera
court
is
quite
simply
not
regular
court.
The
experience
of
a
criminal
defendant
who
ability
to
understand
the
proceeding
should
be
the
paramount
should
be
a
paramount
concern
of
the
court
system
is
simply
not
present
over
the
camera.
I
appreciate
dpa
appreciates
the
language.
That's
in
the
committee
substitute
allowing
a
secure,
audio
connection
between
the
attorney
and
the
client
that
has
not
been
present
for
much
of
this
time
when
we're
trying
to
kind
of
making
up
the
rules
as
we
go.
H
In
addition
to
that,
when
the
client
is
watching
the
camera,
they
are
seeing
just
what's
on
the
camera.
Obviously
they're
not
seeing
the
prosecutor
they're
not
having
conversations
with
other
people
within
the
court
system,
they're
not
getting
the
full
feel
just
like
our
children
in
schools
are
experiencing
less
than
the
full
experience
of
school.
H
H
First
of
all,
I
would
say:
dpa
is
not
categorically
against
ever
appearing
on
camera,
but
I
believe
that
should
be
individualized
decided
in
specific
cases
with
specific
clients.
Sometimes
our
clients
are
going
to
want
to
appear
remotely
because
they
don't
want
to
go
through
the
trouble
of
this
transport,
but
that
should
be
decided
locally,
not
on
a
statewide
basis.
H
The
second
point
I
want
to
make
real
quickly
is
that
this
is
being
framed
as
a
cost
savings
bill,
but
it's
really
a
cost.
Shifting
bill
dpa
will
be
required
to
employ
additional
attorneys,
because
in
a
lot
of
these
hearings,
we
will
need
to
have
an
attorney
both
at
the
jail
to
have
a
truly
private
conversation
with
the
client
and
in
the
courtroom
to
negotiate
a
case
or
to
appear
in
person.
H
This
is
going
to
require
additional
resources
for
dpa.
It's
going
to
require
additional
travel,
because
while
there
may
only
be
one
minute
at
the
podium
in
the
courtroom,
when
a
client
is
transported
over
a
distance
to
the
courtroom,
we
maximize
that
time.
We
may
be
sharing
discovery
with
the
client.
We
may
be
having
a
conversation
about
the
evidence
against
them.
We
may
be
talking
about
a
deal.
That's
on
the
table.
H
H
This
bill
is
all
about
viewing
the
court
system
as
a
purely
transactional
experience
that
essentially
we're
selling
a
car
and
we're
just
trying
to
work
out
a
deal,
but
there's
so
much
more.
That
goes
into
an
in-person
court
appearance
we've
been
willing
to
go
along
during
covet
because
it's
better
than
no
court
at
all,
but
this
bill
would
put
into
the
law
an
ongoing
process
for
camera
court.
That
really
should
be
thought
out
more
with
more
deliberation
than
is
possible
here
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks
of
the
session.
H
This
should
be
decided
by
the
court
of
justice
through
a
conversation
with
all
the
stakeholders,
including
the
sheriffs,
including
the
jailers
and
other
groups
that
have
come
out
and
supporting
this
bill.
The
last
thing
I
would
say-
and
others
may
comment
on
this
as
well-
is
there
there
is
specific
language,
I'm
not
going
to
break
it
down
here,
but
there's
specifically
language
in
this
committee
sub
that
really
doesn't
work.
H
Changing
xiaomi
seems
like
a
simple
change,
but
it's
unclear
what
may
even
means
who
who
has
the
right?
If
can
it
does
this
mean
a
judge
can't
order
an
in-person
court,
because
there's
a
right
that
the
jail
could
assert
that
it
may
occur
virtually
may
is
not
as
clean
a
language
as
you
would
think,
because
there's
multiple
players
here
and
who
gets
to
enforce
the
may
is
is
a
is
a
question.
There
are
some
other
issues
like
that.
H
That
really
should
be
discussed
more
so,
for
these
reasons,
dpa
is
deeply
concerned
about
this
bill.
We
would
ask
that
it
be
held
for
discussions
in
the
interim
in
the
legislature
if,
if
desired,
but
I
think
more
appropriately
within
the
court
of
justice.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I'll
answer.
Any
questions.
A
A
We've
got
about
seven
or
eight
more
minutes,
and
then
we
have
to
move
on,
but
I
know
we're
going
to
lose
a
couple
of
members
too
that
have
to
go
present
other
bills
and
I
believe
we
also
have
representative
petry
that
is
in
another
committee
meeting.
So
we're
going
to
be
as
mindful
of
those
votes
as
we
can,
but
please
proceed
as
quickly
as
you
can.
F
Good
afternoon,
I'm
chairman
massey
and
members
of
the
committee-
thank
you
for
having
us
here.
I'm
foster
cutoff,
I'm
a
district
judge
in
christian
county,
and
I
happen
to
be
the
president
of
the
kentucky
district
judges
association.
So
I'm
here
speaking
on
behalf
of
my
compatriots
in
district
court,
I
want
you
all
to
know
that
speaking
technically
against
this
bill
does
not
make
us
against
saving
money,
and
it
does
not
make
us
against
deputy
or
officer
safety
or
health.
F
The
permissive
language
is
great,
I
guess
in
the
sense-
and
that
tells
me
I
don't
have
to
do
it.
If
I
don't
want
to
do
it,
it
also
tells
me
I
don't
know
why
we're
doing
this.
If
it's
completely
permissive,
I
do
feel,
and
our
association
feels
that
this
is
best
to
come
from
the
supreme
court
via
a
court
rule
judge
jameson,
noted
all
of
the
associations
that
spoke
in
favor.
F
A
F
Maybe
speak
closer
I'll
speak
a
little
closer
justice.
Michelle
keller
is
in
charge
of
the
criminal
rules
committee
and
she
has
indicated
and
said
she
will
talk
about
this
in
the
interim.
Get
her
committee
together
to
discuss
a
court
rule
and
I'll
tell
you.
I
mean
virtual
court.
It
works
for
some
things
it
we
do
it
all
the
time,
but
mr
preston's
correct
it's
not
always
the
same
as
real
court.
F
F
F
So
we
think,
as
the
district
judges
association
and
I
think,
aoc
in
general
court
of
justice
that
speaking
about
this
in
the
interim
would
be
best.
There
are
lots
of
things
to
discuss.
There
are
things
that
can
be
built
on
and
continued,
but
there
are
many
things
that
need
to
go
a
different
way.
So
I
will
pass
the
mic.
I
Mr
chairman,
hopefully
I
can
do
this
in
a
minute
two
minutes
or
less
I'd
like
to
thank
the
members
of
the
committee
for
letting
us
be
here
today
and
speak
and
chairman.
I
particularly
want
to
thank
you
for
reaching
out
and
communicating
with
us
about
this
measure.
I
also
want
to
thank
all
of
our
partners
who
are
sitting
behind
us
who
are
also
our
friends
in
the
jailers
association
and
caico
and
the
sheriff's
association.
I
I
I
We
have
not
been
asked
to
provide
a
fiscal
note
on
this
bill.
We
have
incurred
some
pretty
significant
costs
through
the
pandemic
to
try
to
make
this
change
as
quickly
as
we
have,
but
we
do
have
future
annual
anticipated
cost
ongoing
of
about
1.7
million
dollars.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
as
damon
preston
said.
I
Sometimes
it's
cost
shifting
and
it
is
all
of
our
taxpayer
dollars
that
we're
trying
to
save.
As
judge
cutoff
said,
I
personally
am
frankly
a
large
fan
of
remote
proceedings
and
doing
as
much
as
we
can
remotely.
I
think
we're
seeing
cost
savings
in
our
statewide
programs
as
well
in
terms
of
travel,
but
I
think,
with
respect
to
the
developing
case
law
across
the
country
right
now
on
whether
sentencings
can
be
done
remotely
whether
revocation
hearings
can
be
done
remotely.
This
is
all
still
very
fluid.
J
Time
good
afternoon,
I'm
charlie
cunningham,
I'm
a
circuit
judge
in
jefferson
county.
I
am
the
president
currently
of
the
kentucky
circuit
judges
association,
which
has
all
of
our
circuit
and
family
court
judges,
essentially
as
its
membership.
I'm
not
going
to.
I
put
my
thoughts
in
writing,
so
if
anybody
wants
to
read
them
they're
there,
because
I
know
you're
short
on
time,
I
did
not,
however,
want
to
have
a
situation
where
a
circuit
judge
spoke
in
favor
of
the
bill,
and
you
didn't
hear
someone
speak
in
opposition.
J
J
We
are
anxious
to
participate
in
discussions
to
balance
everybody's
responsibilities
to
to
fix
things
and
make
it
better,
but
with
all
due
respect,
this
is
this
is
too
rushed
and
too
blunt
an
effort,
and
we
would
respectfully
suggest
that
you
should
not
vote
for
it.
Next
session
there'll
probably
be
some
legislation
that
would
be
appropriate.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
know
we
have
one
other
person
that
was
on
zoom.
I
think
ernie,
philip
lawson,
unless
mr
lawson,
it
can
be
ultra
brief
because
we
we
have
got
to
move
on.
If
it's
anything,
that's
already
been
said,
you
can
indicate
that.
But
if
you
have
anything
to
add
in
a
minute
or
less,
please
feel
free.
C
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee.
I
I
echo
a
lot
of
what's
been
said.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
committee
and
the
chairman
know
that
you
know
from
kcdl's
perspective.
We
think
zoom
court
has
a
place,
but
you
know
going
about.
Defining
that
place
is
a
very
fragile.
You
know
process
and
a
very
fragile
way
of
defining
it.
So
we
echo
what
mr
president
said
what
the
judges
have
said
and
we
think
best
process
would
be.
Let's
get
into
the
interim.
A
C
F
F
We're
we're
doing
it
now
and
I
will
tell
you
most
of
my
judges
want
to
keep
doing
this
to
an
extent
it
benefits
attorneys.
It
benefits
some
defendants
depending
on
the
situation,
but
there
are
lots
of
different
court
appearances
that
would
go
much
better,
really
would
take
care
of
the
defendant's
rights
better
if
they
were.