►
Description
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee - March 10, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
C
A
E
A
Hey,
thank
you
very
much.
What
this
does
is.
It
makes
some
changes
to
sex
offender,
evaluation
and
and
treatment
with
the
sex
defender
treatment
board,
and
so
it
basically
provides
puts
every
streams
like
streamlines
this
into.
A
Where
the
offenders
will
have
the
the
courts
that
everything
will
be
recognized
as
as,
if
you'll
excuse
me
one
minute
here
and
make
sure.
E
All
right,
c9
will
be
voting
on
house
bill
66
by
chairman
doggett,
all
those
in
favor
signify,
saying
aye,
all
opposed,
nay,
the
eyes
have
it
bill
passes
on
to
criminal
fools
simple
enough.
Thank
you.
I
thought
about
that.
Mr
chairman
and
members,
I
I
know
the
members
know
this,
but
for
the
body,
the
reason
I'm
cheering
chairman
doggett
asked
me
to
chair
today.
E
The
senior
member
which
it
surprises
me
that
I'm
the
senior
member
on
this
committee,
but
I
think
that
is
the
protocol
the
speaker
has
set
up-
is
that
the
chief,
the
senior
member
on
each
committee,
when
the
chairman
is
not
available
on
the
sub,
would
chair
so
chairman.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
honor
of
cheering
today.
I
know
everybody's
already
read
these
bills,
but
we're
moving
on
to
item
number
37
house
bill
901
by
chairman
doggett.
Do
you
air
a
motion?
A
You
very
much
this
this
bill
does
a
little.
It's
really
somewhat
of
a
cleanup
bill,
looks
at
certain
aspects
of
the
sex
offender
registry.
There's
four
parts
to
this.
It
reduces
some
of
these
make
some
changes
from
a
misdemeanor
to
e
felonies.
Just
for
the
fact,
some
of
these
should
be
citable
offenses.
To
streamline
some
of
the
ways
that
law
enforcement
and
registering
agencies
are
able
to
work
within
the
compounds
of
what
they
do
with
the
sex
offender
registry.
E
Mr
chairman,
any
questions
on
this
particular
piece
of
legislation.
Members.
I
know
you've
reviewed
it
before
committee,
but
any
questions
for
the
chairman,
seeing
none
will
be
voting
on
house
bill
901
to
go
to
full
criminal
justice,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
all
opposed,
nay,
the
eyes
have
it.
Thank
you
chairman.
You
move
on
to
full.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
We're
on
item
number
38.
E
again
by
chairman
doggett,
it's
house
bill.
1006..
Is
there
a
motion?
Your
second
motion
in
a
second
chairman,
if
you
can
just
grab
your
bill,
please
thank
you.
A
Very
much
what
this,
what
this
bill
does
is.
It
looks
at
the
tca
code.
37148
makes
some
minor
changes
of
verbiage
from
sexually
explicit
image,
of
a
minor
to
sex,
sexually,
explicit
image
of
a
minor
or
an
image
of
sexual
activity
involving
a
minor
there's.
A
Some
many
instances
that
brought
with
this
about
that
that
have
occurred,
but
we
are
just
updating
some
of
that
language
to
make
sure
that
when
videos
are,
should
not
be
shared
of
involving
sexual
activity
of
minors
through
something
that's
called
exposing
which
creates
harassment
and
some
other
issues.
But
that
is
what
we're
doing
with
this
piece
of
legislation.
E
Remembers
you've
heard
the
explanation:
do
we
have
any
questions
on
this
particular
piece
of
legislation
scene?
None
will
be
voting
on
house
bill
1006
by
chairman
delgad
to
go
to
full
criminal
justice
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
all
opposed,
nay,
the
eyes
have
it
moves
on
to
criminal
full.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
don't
think
I
broke
your
little
gavel
here.
I'm
gonna
pass
it
back.
A
A
Let's
see
I'm
gonna
look
members
we're
gonna,
take
up
we're
going
back
to
the
top
of
the
calendar.
There
item
number
one
item
number
one
house
bill
119
by
chairman
faison,
properly
motioned
and
second
you're
recognized.
F
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair
committee,
good
morning
to
you
all
this
is
this.
Bill
has
a
personal
emotional
attachment
for
me,
and
I
typically
don't
do
something
that
I'm
personally
attached
to
this
much
but
I'll.
Just
tell
you
a
quick
story.
When
I
was
14
years
old,
my
grandmother,
we
called
her
grandmama.
F
We
got
a
call
that
when
she
left
sunday
night
prayer
meeting
from
church,
she
turned
left
out
of
the
parking
lot
of
her
church
and
she
hit
an
oncoming
motorcycle,
and
we
were
all
wondering
why
in
the
world
would
she
have
turned
left
because
her
home
is
to
the
right,
and
there
was
no
reason
for
her
to
go
left
well.
Over
the
next
few
weeks
we
started
noticing
there
were
some
issues
with
her
and
my
grandmommy
was
diagnosed
with
alzheimer's
over
the
next
19
years.
My
family
personally
took
care
of
her.
F
That
has
issues
like
this
and
in
tennessee
we
have
a
thing
right
now
called
the
amber
alert.
If
there's
a
child
in
danger,
it
immediately
goes
out.
The
tbi
does
a
fantastic
job.
The
department
of
safety
does
a
fantastic
job,
putting
the
alert
out
through
this
whole
entire
state
that
there's
a
child
missing.
What
I'm
seeking
to
do
with
this
bill
is
create
a
silver
alert
for
our
senior
citizens,
that
would
the
tbi
department
of
safety
tdot
would
put
on
alert
that
there
is
a
senior
citizen
missing
and
that's
basically
what
the
bill
does.
A
F
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
or
a
second
on
this
all
right.
Thank
you
proceed
with
the
amendment.
Please.
F
A
If
I
will
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you
there,
we
had
a
motion
and
second
on
the
bill.
We
did
not
have
one
on
the
amendment.
Okay.
Sorry,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Sorry
about
that.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
representative.
G
F
Thank
you,
representative
lowell.
We
didn't
we,
we
haven't
brought
anything
up
about
drones
in
this
bill
and
I
guess
specifically,
if
it's
a
private
property
that
has
to
do
with
digital
images,
then
they
would
probably
still
have
to
go
through
the
proper
channels,
but
there's
nothing
in
this
bill
that
brings
up
drones.
B
D
Good
morning
good
morning,
how
would
this
affect
private
property
but
open
to
the
public.
F
So
that
that's
what
we're
speaking
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy,
that's
a
such
as
the
walmart
or
lows
that
is
considered
private
property,
but
it's
open
to
the
public.
So
we
already
have
addressed
in
the
code
and
in
the
open
fields,
doctrine
which
we've
talked
about
in
here.
That
is,
there's
no
expectation
of
privacy
there,
and
so
this
bill
would
not
cover
that.
H
Thank
you
and
thanks
chairman
faison.
I
guess
my
question
is:
I
had
the
opportunity
to
observe
a
human
trafficking,
sting
and,
of
course,
that
they
they're
they
come
into
a
hotel
room
where
they
of
a
holiday
inn
or
a
best,
western
or
whatever
and
they're.
You
know
expecting
to
meet
a
young
girl
there
and
it
seems
to
me
that's
not
open
fields
and
it
seems
to
me
they
would
have
a.
H
F
H
Without
permission,
without
a
warrant,
because
you
don't
want
to
tip
off
the
the
john
does,
who
are
coming
for
sex
with
an
underage
child,.
F
H
If,
mr,
if
I
was
a
if
I
was
a
defense
lawyer
and
a
good
defense
lawyer
like
leader
lamberth,
this
would
be
the
first
thing
that
I
would
hold
up
to
a
judge
and
then
you're
talking
about
an
obstacle
that
has
to
be
ruled
on
by
the
judge.
Whether
or
not
there
had
to
be
a.
H
F
Thank
you,
so
I
would
go
back
to.
We
do
have
a
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
in
america
we
have
the
fourth
amendment
and
and
representative
beck.
I
I
will
say
this
that
a
surveilled
society
is
not
a
free
society
and-
and
there
are
proper
chains
to
go
through
to
maintain
freedom
in
america,
and
so
I,
if
you're,
going
to
put
a
camera
inside
somebody's
room.
H
And
I
disagree
with
you
on
this
because
I
think
that
we
don't
need
to
put
an
impediment
between
our
law
enforcement
and
protecting
our
children
from
predators
who
who
want
to
have
sex
with
underage
children
and
any
means
necessary
to
catch.
These
people
is
what
we
need
to
do,
and
I
and
I,
and
I
know
this
would
be
an
impediment
on
trial
court
and
then
it's
going
to
have
to
be
appealed
up
to
see
if
see,
if
it's,
if,
if
it
holds
we're
going
to
let
criminals
lose
in.
In
my
humble
opinion,.
F
And
I
would
remind
the
committee
that
if,
if
there
is
a
sting
operation
going
on
law,
enforcement
already
has
a
good
idea
of
what's
of
what's
taken
place
and
putting
a
camera
in
a
place
that
you
have
a
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
such
as
a
hotel
room,
there's
got
to
be
better
ways,
you
could
do
a
listening
device,
you
can
do
stuff,
but
if
you
see
a
young
child
going
in,
are
you
going
to
wait
till
this
perpetrator
starts
to
do
something
to
this
young
child?
I
I
feel
like
there's
better
ways
to
handle
that.
A
Thank
you
next
on
our
list
is
vice
chairman
sexton.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chairman
faison,
we
had
a
bill
that
dealt
with
tw
twra
and
putting
surveillance
cameras
on
properties
without
the
permission
or
consent
of
the
landowner.
I
I
Owner
landowner
that
took
those
down-
and
I
think
I
don't
know
what
the
outcome
was,
but
I
understand
it
went
to
court
and
they
prosecuted
the
landowner
for
destroying
property,
not
sure
if
I've
got
all
my
facts
right.
My
question
is
this:
does
your
bill
deal
with
that
as
well?.
I
F
I
I
Without
permission,
and
I
know
just
a
couple
of
years
ago,
they
came
on
my
property
and
put
up
signs
to
try
to
see
if
they
were
bare
black
bear,
but
they
asked
my
permission
and
I
asked
them
if
they
would
give
me
the
findings
which
they
did
and
that's
perfectly
fine.
But
to
do
it
without
permission,
I
think,
is
violation
of
our
rights
and
I
want
I
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
covered
in
in
this
legislation.
I
D
I
guess
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
know
how
much
I
could
reveal
that
I
know
as
representative
beck
shared
with
our
involvement
in
the
fight
of
the
evil
of
human
trafficking,
and
so
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
enlighten
without
exposing
too
much.
D
D
When
these
things
go
down,
you
can't
have
agents
in
the
room
and
they
are
depending
on
a
camera
showing
the
other
agents
when
they
need
to
come
in
and
rescue
them.
So
I'm
really
struggling.
I'm
struggling
so
hard
with
this
because
I
believe
in
our
freedom,
but
I'm
I'm
telling
you
what
I
have
seen
and
learned
besides,
like
representative
beck,
has
said
about
protecting
our
children
and
I'm
not
insinuating
you're,
not
you're,
trying
to
harm
the
I'm.
Not.
D
D
It's
it's
just
concerning
to
me
with
what
I've
heard
from
people
back
home
and
what
I
know
here,
and
I
guess
I
do
have
one
question:
I've
jumped
on
different
subjects,
but
we
have
a
group
of
private
citizens
who
have
raised
their
own
money
to
have
the
license
plate.
Readers
cameras
put
up
at
every
entrance
on
every
main
entrance
to
our
county
and
in
conjunction
with
our
sheriff's
department.
D
D
Does
this
affect
that?
What
what
individuals
would
raise
money
for.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
We'll
start
the
first
part
representative
moody.
You
know
I
have
a
daughter,
who's,
beautiful
and
there's
a
special
place
in
hell
for
a
a
man
or
a
woman
to
sexually
pray
on
an
on
a
child.
F
There's
a
special
place
in
hell
and-
and
I
I
can't
imagine
that
I
would
leave
it
up
to
law
enforcement.
If
somebody
hurt
my
daughter,
I'm
just
going
to
be
perfectly
honest
with
you,
regardless.
If
they
go
through
the
hotel
or
not,
there
is
something
just
and
constitutional
that
they
would
have
to
go
to
a
judge
and
say
judge.
This
is
what
we
have.
This
is
the
sting
we're
operating.
Do
we
have
permission
to
be
able
to
do
this?
That's
what
this
bill
does.
F
Instead
of
you
just
arbitrarily
going
and
doing
this,
you
have
some
check.
That's
what
our
whole
governmental
foundation
was
set
up
on
checks
and
balances
with
the
three
branches
of
government,
and
this
just
says
from
the
law
enforcement
side
before
you
take
and
enter
a
person's
privacy,
you
have
somebody
you
answer
to.
It
doesn't
have
to
be.
Obviously
I
agree
with
you
that
the
hotel
owner
could
be
a
part
of
it
that
happened
in
pigeon
forge
several
years
ago.
I
was
very
keenly
aware
of
what
took
place.
F
Do
this
and
obviously
a
judge?
If
they're
I
mean
they
answer
to
the
people,
of
course
they
want
to
be
a
part
of
that.
So
that's
that's
the
first
part.
I
want
to
answer
that
and
then
the
second
part.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
putting
cameras
up
to
read,
license
plate
tags,
because
that's
something
that
people
wanted
to
do.
They
want
you
to
put
a
camera
there
to
do
this,
and
so
that
would
have
nothing
to
do
with
that
and
there's
no
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
as
you're
driving
down
the
road.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
sponsored,
I
think,
we've
I
think
we've
probably
deviated
some
from
your
intent,
so
I
do
have
a
question
and
it's
probably
for
legal,
but
if
so,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
I
do
have
a
question,
I
think
for
miss
and
sonia
excuse
me:
old
habits,
die
hard.
Pardon
me,
sorry,
miss
fogerty.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
and
thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
My
question
deals
since
we
have
talked
about
the
law
enforcement
aspect
of
this.
We've
talked
about
hotel
rooms.
If,
if
someone
were
to
rent
two
rooms
and
and
film
inside
one
of
those
rooms
that
would
not
be
impacted
by
this
legislation,
would
it.
J
J
J
Unless,
unless
they
are,
there
may
be
some
exceptions
that
if
there
is
the
government
is
renting
the
hotel
room
for
someone
else,
the
bill
does
exclude
any
judicially
recognized
exception
to
the
warrant
requirement
that
exists
at
the
time
of
the
electronic
surveillance.
So
that
is
another
except
there's.
The
exceptions
are
a
search
warrant
consent
and
a
judicially
recognized
exception
to
the
warrant
requirement.
J
H
J
Search
warrants
can
be
issued
for
persons
or
house
persons
and
effects,
so
it
could
also
include
a
building
an
office,
a
home.
J
H
J
I
that
would
be
I
would
I
don't
know,
I
don't
think,
that's
a
legal,
I
think,
there's
a
I
don't
think,
there's
a
legal
answer
to
that
question.
I
would
assume
that
law
enforcement
if
they're
doing
a
sting.
They
have
some
parameters
for
that
and
I'm
sorry.
I
don't
know
that.
There's
a
legal
answer
to
to
that
specific
question.
A
Representative
beck,
I'm
sure
we
do,
but
according
to
policies
and
procedures
of
the
committees,
we
would
not
be
able
to
hear
from
them
at
this
time
now
I
will
say
this:
we
do
have
members
who
have
requested
to
speak
today
from
the
da's
conference
and
when
some
point
during
this,
we
will
go
out
a
session
to
hear
from
them.
So
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions.
Then
great.
Thank.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
probably
is
a
question
for
legal,
and
I
just
need
some
confusion.
In
my
own
mind,
cleared
up.
I've
always
assumed
that
a
sting
or
video
surveillance
program
or
operation
had
to
have
a
judge
sign
off
on
that.
Am
I
not
correct
in
that
assumption.
K
J
There's
a
separate
statute
regarding
elect
regarding
wiretapping
and
law
enforcement
like
intercepting
phone
calls
and,
and
that
and
that
sort
of
thing
that's
a
separate
statute
that
that
does
require
an
electronic
surveillance
warrant,
a
wiretapping
warrant.
K
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
see
attorney
fogarty
made
reference
to
exigent
circumstances.
Can
you
explain
what
those
are
meant.
J
Accident
circumstances
are
things
that,
where
the
for
instance,
if
they
were
wanting
like
some
someone's
in
a
car-
and
they
could
get
away
from
from
you,
if
you
didn't,
if
the
police
officer
didn't
act
immediately,
it's
those
sort
of
things
circumstances
where,
if,
if
the
officer
doesn't
act
immediately,
the
evidence
could
be
destroyed
or
disappear
or
not
be
a
there's,
no
time
to
get
a
warrant
and
still
collect
the
evidence
that
they're
searching
for.
L
J
J
J
G
L
Okay
and
then,
when
I
said
in
this
present
form,
mr
chairman,
that
was
with
consideration
for
our
house
amendment
zero,
zero.
Four,
three,
eight,
three,
eight
seven.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
councillor.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
Thank
you,
representative
griffey
question
for
legal.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
apologize
for
being
late
and
missing.
Part
of
this
discussion
on
this
important
legislation
appreciate
the
sponsor
bringing
it.
My
question
is
this:
it's
my
understanding
that
the
fourth
amendment
is
protects
persons,
it's
an
individual
protection
of
a
person's
right
to
be
free
from
unreasonable
searches
and
seizures,
and
not
a
property
interest.
It
doesn't
protect
property
and
that
was
sort
of
the
whole
basis
of
the
fourth
amendment.
J
I
believe
you're
correct.
The
special
protections
accorded
by
the
fourth
amendment
are
to
people
in
their
persons
houses,
papers
and
effects.
The
courts
have
said
that
that
does
not
extend
beyond
the
cartilage,
for
example
of
the
house,
it
does
not
extend
to
open
fields,
and
so
yes,
the
united
states
supreme
court,
has
upheld.
H
Thank
you,
miss
fargoty.
H
Representative
griffey's
question
made
me
think
where,
as
it
stands
right
now
under
the
fourth
amendment,
if
we're
in
our
house,
our
cartilage
we're
protected
from
they
would
any
law
enforcement
would
have
to
get
a
search
warrant.
Correct.
G
J
Drones
are
covered
under
3913-609
separately,
there's
a
whole
separate
statute
that
addresses
drones
and
what
they
can
and
cannot
do.
I
haven't
read
any
united
states
supreme
court
case
addressing
drones.
Specifically,
I
could
have.
I
could
research
that
for
you,
if
you
want.
A
So
you
know
we
are
now
back
in
session
chairman
curcio,
you
were
on
line
of
questioning
at
the
time
we
went
out
of
session,
so
you
may.
A
Thank
you,
leader,
lamberth.
E
E
I
will
say
that
the
judicially
recognized
exception-
that's
in
this
bill
does
does
make
sure
that
law
enforcement
can
still
do
what
they're
doing
now,
but
in
the
one
instance
that
we
know
of
where
one
agency
put
a
camera
out
in
conjunction
with
a
federal
agency,
I
mean
it.
You
know
I've
reached
out
to
twa
about
that.
I
know
you
have
as
well.
Several
of
us
have,
and
this
is
not
their
procedure.
They
don't
do
this
on
a
regular
basis,
and
I
want
to
be
crystal
clear
if
you
don't
want
somebody
on
your
property.
E
Do
what
all
of
us
live
out
in
the
country.
Do
put
no
trespassing
signs
up.
If
you
don't
under
the
law,
anybody
a
private
citizen,
law
enforcement.
Anybody
can
wander
across
your
open
field
and
in
fact
they
can
move
into
it
if
they
want
to
by
adverse
possession,
they
can
even
own
your
property.
If
they
stay
there
long
enough,
so
I
mean,
if
you
don't
want
somebody
on
your
property,
put
up
a
no
trespassing
sign.
That's
what
protects
your
rights!
Otherwise
people
can
go
there.
E
That's
the
law,
that's
what
the
law
has
been
for
hundreds
of
years,
so
twa
does
not
go
on
people's
property
right
now
again.
There
is
one
case
that
out
there
that
we
know
about-
and
I
think
it's
been
sent
loud
and
clear
by
this
bill
in
another
bill-
that
we
don't
want
twi
any
other
law
enforcement
agency
going
on
someone
else's
property,
again
minus
exits
and
circumstance
or
open
field
or
something
that
is
a
judicially
recognized
exception.
We
don't
want
them
just
putting
a
camera
up
on
somebody's
property.
They
don't
do
that.
E
E
Hundreds
and
hundreds
of
hundreds
of
people
answered
that
ad,
but
they
came
to
a
room
where
the
again
it
was
rented
by
the
tbi
and
they
had
no
expectation
of
privacy
in
that
room.
They
went
to
somebody
else's
room
if
it
was
their
own
room.
This
bill
and
current
law
would
have
prevented
anybody
from
being
able
to
put
a
camera
in
your
room
or
somebody
else's.
If
it's
a
room
they
rented
unless
they
got
a
search
warrant
or
something
else.
So
this
this
bill
puts
into
law.
E
It
appears
to
me
what
is
already
judicially
protected,
but
I
think
it
makes
it
very
clear
that
the
legislature
is
saying
hey
what
the
current
court
cases
are.
What
the
current
law
is,
that's
going
to
be
in
the
law,
the
law
always
trumps,
rule
or
even
court
cases.
Quite
frankly,
I
mean
so
that's
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
out
there
that
I
mean
the
twi,
the
tbi
law
enforcement.
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
that
out
there
on
the
record.
I
feel
like
we've
danced
around
it
a
little
bit.
This
is
not
something
law
enforcement's
doing,
and
it's
something
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
doing
but
there's
exceptions
built
in
here
that
our
current
law
we
want
those
preserved.
So
thank
you
and
that's
just
my
comments
on
the
bill
and
I
do
support
it.
Thank
you
for
bringing
it
chairman.
K
I'm
sorry,
mr
chairman,
I
didn't
understand
what
you
said.
Could
I
circle
back
to
what
the
leader
said
earlier
in
his
comments
that
this
bill
seeks
to
protect
personal
property
rights
without
hindering
what
law
enforcement
is
currently
doing?
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record
again:
personal
property
rights
very
sacred.
To
me.
I
think
personal
property
rights
is
the
one
of
the
bedrocks
of
our
republic,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
heard
correctly.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
and
I
think
leader,
lambert
summed
up
what
I
wanted
to
say
very
well.
I
think
that
was
that
was
well
put,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear
that
it's
my
opinion
this
bill
does
nothing
to
hinder
law
enforcement
from
going
after
sexual
predators
of
our
children.
I
have
a
daughter
myself.
I
would
never
think
about
doing
anything
that
would
take
away
any
sort
of
protections
that
any
little
girl
a
little
boy
across
the
state
this
country
this
world
would
do,
and
I
don't
think
this
bill
does
that.
N
I
don't
think
this
bill
takes
away
any
tools
that
law
enforcement
has.
I
think
it
just
tightens
up
our
stance
on
hey.
We
want
to
protect
property,
we
believe
in
property
rights
and,
if
you're
going
to
come
in
and
do
something
and
if
you
have
time
get
a
warrant,
if
you
don't
look
to
see,
if
you
have
circumstances
to
do
so,
so
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
bringing
this
piece
of
legislation
I'm
going
to
be
supporting
it.
A
Thank
you.
Next
up
is
representative
russell.
A
All
right,
we're
still
on
the
amendment
question's
been
called
on
the
amendment.
A
Any
objection
to
the
question
on
the
amendment
placing
the
amendment
on
to
house
bill
43,
seeing
none
we're
voting
to
add
the
amendment.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
those
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail.
We
are
now
on
house
bill
43,
as
amended
before
we
proceed.
I
will
say
we
have
some
that
are
here
to
testify.
If,
if
we
can
go
out
of
session
at
this
point
to
hear
testimony
before
we
continue
to
debate
on
the
bill
as
amended,
we
are
now
out
of
session.
A
C
C
I
stand
here
and
I'm
here
today
representing
also
the
tennessee
bureau
of
investigation,
the
tennessee
sheriff's
association
and
the
tennessee
association
of
chiefs
of
police.
We
all
stand
in
opposition
to
this
bill
and
while
we
respectfully
appreciate
the
the
thought
behind
this
bill
that
that
has
been
enunciated,
we
believe
that
also
very
respectfully
that
legal
counsel
is
wrong
in
that
there
will
be
significant
issues.
C
The
easiest
way
for
me
to
show
this
to
you
is:
how
would
we
obtain
permission
from
a
property
owner
to
send
a
confidential
informant
to
make
a
drug
buy
into
the
drug
dealer's
house?
Are
they
going
to
give
us
permission
to
enter
their
house
when
you,
when
you
vote
for
this
bill,
you're
going
to
create
drug
safe
zones,
every
drug
dealer's
house
will
be
a
safe
zone
because
we're
not
going
to
get
their
permission
to
go
in.
Certainly
we
can
go
in
there.
C
C
We
cannot
the
way
we
do
search
warrants
is
we
make
buys,
and
then
we
take
the
evidence
from
those
buys
and
we
obtain
a
search
warrant
to
get
greater
amounts
of
drugs
so
in
in
our
opinion,
this
is
this
is
creating
a
safe
zone
and,
with
all
due
respect,
I
do
believe-
and
our
colleagues
do
believe-
that
this
in
fact
does
create
significant
hurdles
for
law
enforcement
in
the
human
trafficking
era
area,
because
every
place
that
the
person
has
to
go
every.
If
there's
any
communication,
it's
not
the
isolated
event.
C
When
somebody
in
a
hotel
is,
is
paid
off
or
is
in
on
it.
It
is
not
the
isolated
event.
I've
had
two
of
these
and
we
have
made
whichever
member
this
committee
brought.
It
up
is
absolutely
correct.
We
had
literally
thousands
of
responses
in
a
three-day
period.
I
want
to
say
we
had
about
13
000
responses.
C
Just
to
an
email
and
drop
zone
arrested,
24
people
who
came
to
have
sex
with
a
child,
we
may
very
well
be
able
to
get
that
evidence
in.
I
can't
read
the
future
and
I
certainly
can't
read
what
the
tennessee
judiciary
would
do
with
this.
Nor
can
I
read
what
some
federal
judge
will
do
with
this
because
understand
what
our
judges
do
with
this
doesn't
end.
C
This
discussion
and
tennessee
may
very
well
the
judiciary
and
tennessee
may
say
you
know
what
I
still
think
we're
fine,
but
do
you
trust
the
federal
judiciary
to
come
to
that
same
conclusion,
I
would
ask
you
and
I'll
answer
any
question
you
have.
Those
are
the
two
most
glaring
situations
where
this
occurs.
C
C
We
can't
go
and
and
find
somebody's
mission.
What
if
it's,
the
person
was
supposed
to
take
place
on
somebody's
house
where
the
deal
and
the
payment's
supposed
to
be
made?
You
think
the
person
who's
trying
to
take
the
contract
for
murder
is
going
to
allow
us
to
come
in
and
and
send
an
agent
in
there.
They
are
not.
C
You
are
creating
with
this
bill,
safe
zones
that
will
be
devastating
to
the
to
the
efforts
of
law
enforcement.
The
last
thing
I
would
say
to
you
is
this:
I
appreciate
very
much
what
the
representative
is
trying
to
get
to
or
what
the
sponsor
is
trying
to
get
to.
I
very
much
appreciate
that.
I
don't
think
any
of
us
in
law
enforcement
take
the
obligation
to
to
to
observe
the
fourth
amendment
strictly
lightly.
We
all
swear
an
oath
to
uphold
it.
A
Thank
you,
general.
Are
there
any
questions
for
our
guest
representative,
sexton.
I
I
If,
if
they're
selling
drugs-
and
you
want
for
the
purpose
to
determine
whether
or
not
they're
selling
drugs,
I
don't
see
how
this
legislation
would
keep
you
from
going
in
to
that
residence,
because
it's
it's
obvious
they've
got
something
for
sale
and
people
that's
got
some
money
is
willing
to
go
there
and
purchase
it.
So
you
know
you,
you
wouldn't
have
to
get
a
warrant
to
do
that.
I'll.
I'd
like
to
follow
up
chairman,
but
I'll
wait
for
his
response
on
that.
C
C
Secondly,
I
I
don't
agree
with
you
that
it
would
that
it
would
certainly
we
could
go
in,
but
the
evidence
would
be
suppressed
under
this
statute,
because
we
not
only
have
to
show
that
there
is
this
negotiation
going
on.
We
have
to
show
that
there's
actually
a
sale
that
takes
place.
C
C
If
it
comes
back
not
to
be
a
controlled
substance,
they
didn't
sell
a
drug
now,
and
I
again,
I
appreciate
what
you're
saying-
and
I
totally
understand
your
concerns
with
this
bill,
but
but
the
only
way
we
get
into
somebody's
residence
is
is
if
they
in,
if
this
person
goes
in
under
an
invitation
or
or
they
go
in
that
way,
a
drug
dealer,
a
drug
dealer
is
never
going
to
give
law
enforcement.
I
I
Don't
have
any
recourse
so
the
same
thing
that
you're
talking
about
that
would
inhibit
you
from
going
into
a
criminal
situation.
It
does
not
protect
a
law-abiding
citizen
from
law
enforcement.
They
have
that
right,
and
so
what
we're
doing
is
we're
trying
to
split
hairs
and
watch
over
our
freedoms
that
we
have
and
the
rights
that
we
have
to
on
a
dwelling
and
to
dwell
there
safely
without
being
impeded
upon
if
we
haven't
broken
any
laws.
So
it's
it's
a
fine
line
that
we're
walking
here,
but
I
don't
want
to
give
up
my
securities.
I
I
don't
want
to
give
up
my
freedom
for
my
securities
and
I
think
that's
that's
what
we're
doing
here,
we're
we're
trying
to
split
hair.
So
while
I
appreciate
everything
that
you
do
to
keep
us
safe
and
to
get
crime
off,
I
have
to
err
on
the
side
of
protecting
the
freedoms
that
we
have
to
own
property
and
be
secure
from
search
and
seizures.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
a
couple
things
I
want
to
clear
up
here:
try
to
figure
out
get
the
bottom
up
baby
number
one.
How
would
this
bill
preclude
police?
You
know
the
government
from
using
confidential
informants
who
are
not
governmental
employees
from
going
in
and
by
invitation
going
into
the
homes
of
these
drug
dealers
and
purchasing
the
drugs
and
coming
back
and
giving
them
to
the
government
to
use
to
prosecute
these
drug
dealers
right
and
number
two.
How
would
this
bill
preclude
a
dea?
N
Undercover
dea
agent
has
been
invited
into
a
home
or
went
somewhere
and
and
has
participated
in
a
voluntary
drug
transaction.
There
how's
this
bill
going
to
preclude
those
two
scenarios
because
number
one:
the
confidence
of
informant's,
not
a
government
employee
he's
not
paid
by
the
government,
he's
going
to
be
invited
into
the
home
or
wherever
they're
at
it's
going
to
be
negotiated,
place
of
transfer
of
the
product.
You
know
purchase
of
the
drugs
and
in
exchange
of
the
monies
and
then
same
thing
with
the
undercover
d.a.
N
C
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
The
invitation
is
one
that
is
induced
in
fraud.
C
What
what
this
bill
says
is
that
the
permission
that's
granted
law
enforcement.
I
can't
send,
for
example,
I
can't
place
a
confidential
information
in
somebody's
jail
cell
and
and
let
them
listen
to
to
watch
it
and
try
to
elicit
information
from
them.
When
I
send
somebody
in
regardless
of
whether
they
have
a
badge
they
work
for
us
they're,
going
at
my
behest,
they're
going
at
law,
enforcement's
behest
they're,
absolutely
a
member
of
law
enforcement
and
are
covered
by
the
fourth
amendment.
C
They
can
just
as
easily
violate
the
fourth
amendment,
as
everybody
else
can,
as
anybody
with
a
badge
can,
and
so
in
this
circumstance,
while
yes,
you're
correct,
the
invitation
would
certainly
be
there,
but
is
one
that
is
induced
in
fraud
that
it
that
will
be
an
issue
in
this,
because
you
are
creating
an
additional
you're
creating
as
an
additional
step
for
law
enforcement
and
I'm
sorry.
The
second
question
you
had
was
the
d,
the
usda
or
dea.
N
J
C
C
What's
called
a
poll
cam
to
to
find
out
who's
going
in
and
out
do
we
recognize
other
drug
dealers
going
in
and
out
under
this
bill
we
would
have
to
put
the
other
homeowners
that
live
around
this
drug
dealer
in
danger,
because
when
the
drug
dealer
saw
there
was
a
camera
up
there
or
when
they
were
indicted,
and
they
saw
that
cameras
placed
up.
They
would
know
that
their
neighbors
gave
permission.
C
We
a
neighbor
to
somebody
who's
in
a
gang
or
somebody.
That's
in
a
that's.
A
drug
dealer
is
not
going
to
give
us
permission
to
put
up
a
camera
even
to
stop
illegal
activity.
So
that's
one
where
the
placing
of
cameras
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
inside
of
a
room
or
has
nothing
to
do
with
going
into
some
place.
That's
one!
That's
totally
on
the
outside,
with
people
who
aren't
involved
in
criminal
activity
at
all,
but
probably
want
their
neighborhood
safer.
N
In
that
situation,
I
think
that
the
camera
would
have
to
be
placed
on
private
property,
so
these
poll
cams
are
generally
placed
on
electric
pulse
old,
electric
lines
and
cable
and
such
and
that
that's
not
private
property
and
that's
open
and
obvious.
I
mean
anybody
could
walk
by
and
look
to
see
what
that
that
camera's,
seeing
right
we're
talking
about
the
actual
camera
being
placed
on
a
on
a
private
person's
property,
not
not
on
the
telephone
pole.
It's
not,
I
think,
in
your
example.
That
would
have
been
the
case
right
about
that.
C
A
pole
cam
would
but
that's
not
the
only
way
we
use
cameras.
I
mean
that's
the
general
term
that
I
use,
but
we
don't
just
put
them
on
there
and
frequently-
and
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
this
because
frankly,
we've
never
had
to
litigate
it.
I'm
not
sure
that
something
that
belongs
to
at
t
or
bell,
or
somebody
like
that
is
not
private
property.
C
I
I
don't
know
that
a
telephone
pole
belongs
to
the
people
of
tennessee
and
his
public
property.
I
frankly
believe
that
it's
probably
the
property
of
bell
south
and
I
think
that
probably
some
of
the
private
utilities
that
operate
across
our
state
probably
own
their
their
lines.
I
don't
know
that
and
I'm
not
representing
that
to
you,
but
I
think
it's
something
given
your
question
that
we
think
we
should
talk
about.
Thank.
N
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
general
crumps,
good,
to
see
you
again.
If
you
could,
please
just
walk
the
committee
through
the
number
of
years
of
experience.
M
C
Typically,
what
would
happen
is
we
would
get
information
that
somebody
is
selling
drugs
out
of
a
particular
house.
Typically,
those
are
not
people.
Sometimes
there
are
people
who
have
seen
it.
Sometimes
there
are
people
who
have
heard
about
it,
but
it's
rare
that
we
get
somebody
who,
literally
at
that
moment,
comes
to
us
and
goes
hey.
C
If
you'll
come
right
now
you
can
do
this
now
we
might
be
able
to
get
a
search
warrant,
but
here's
the
problem
if
it
takes
us
two
hours
to
get
a
search
warrant
which
is
not
an
unreasonable
amount
of
time
to
get
a
search
warrant
in
those
two
hours
all
those
drugs
can
be
gone.
So
then,
if
we
do
manage
to
get
a
search
warrant
and
confidential
informant
goes
in,
there's
nothing
there
for
them
to
see.
C
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
general
crump,
and,
as
I
read
it
from
the
amendment
we
just
adopted,
it
says
a
law
enforcement
officer
shall
not
enter
private
property
for
the
purpose
of
engaging
in
electronic
surveillance
or
installing
electronic
surveillance
equipment.
General
crump.
Do
you
re?
Do
you
mean
to
read
that,
as
as
I
read
it
that
this
means
an
ci
who
may
have
a
criminal
charge
pending
or
something
trying
to
assist
law
enforcement
to
get
bigger
fish
up
the
chain?
M
The
big
drug
dealers,
rather
than
the
small
users
that
that
would
limit
law
enforcement
from
sending
in
some
person
who's
trying
to
collect
evidence
and
build
a
bigger
case
without
they'd
have
to
get
a
warrant
or
permission
from
the
person
that
owns
the
house
or
is
leasing
the
house?
That's
probably
the
one
engaging
in
the
criminal
activity.
C
Yes,
sir,
that
is
in
fact
our
belief,
and
I
would
say
this
related
to
that-
the
idea
of
permission
in
this
that,
if
you
can
imagine
law
enforcement
in
cleveland,
I'm
gonna-
I
don't
have
any
real
solid
number,
but
I
would
be
willing
to
bet
that
there
are
probably
2
500
private
businesses
to
5
000
private
businesses
and
within
the
city
limits
of
the
city
of
cleveland,
maybe
five
times
that
I
don't
really
have
an
idea.
C
But
that
means
every
year
we're
going
to
have
to
go
around
and
and
get
permission
before
we
can
go
into
their
private
property.
If
that
were
not
the
case,
and-
and
I
understand
there
may
be
some
argument
that
we
well,
we
don't
have
to
do
that.
Well,
if
that's
not
the
case,
then
why
is
this
amendment
adding
consent
to
it?
C
G
Thank
you
chairman
and
thank
you
general
crump
for
being
here,
and
I
appreciate
what
you
and
your
staff
does
for
my
district
you're
doing
an
outstanding
job.
I
want
to
clarify
something
you
told
representative
farmer
just
a
few
minutes
ago
and
these
confidential
informants
when
they
go
in
to
do
buys
or
whatever
they're
doing
did
you
say
that
they
go
in
acting
as
law
enforcement
officers.
C
Yes,
they
will
go
in,
they
are
going
in
specifically
for
a
law
enforcement
purpose,
that
is
to
gather
information,
and
they
are
deemed
to
be
if
they
violate
the
fourth
amendment.
It
still
results
in
suppression
or
exclusion
of
the
evidence.
The
fact
that
they
are
not
employed
in
some
confidential
informants
actually
are
employed.
There
are
paid
informants,
there
are
people
who
don't
have
any
criminal
record
that,
but
they
live
in
a
place
where
they
know
that
people
deal
drugs
or
they
do
whatever,
and
they
will
be
paid
by
law
enforcement
to
be
a
confidential
informant.
G
C
I
I
don't
think
so,
and
the
reason
is,
if
that
were
the
case,
there
would
be
no
place
for
the
rest
of
the
bill.
If
you're
going
to
rely
on
that
to
say
then
what's
the
purpose
of
the
rest
of
the
bill,
because
if
all
I
have
to
do
is
somehow
figure
out
a
way
to
put
a
body
camera
in
in
there
or
get
a
body
camera
inside
there
or
get
somebody
inside
the
hat,
I
don't
believe.
That's
it.
I
believe
what
they're
talking
about.
C
I
believe
what
the
what
the
well,
what
I
read
it
to
say
is,
for
example,
on
the
side
of
the
road.
If
a
law
enforcement
officer
is
on
private
or
on
the
side
of
the
road
on
private
property,
if
an
officer
has
a
body
cam
or
something
like
that
on,
and
it's
in
a
it's
in
a
citizen's
view
that
there's
a
camera
that
it's
all
right,
that
it
would
not
be
suppressed,
but
that
I
don't
think
you
can
read
it
that
way
or
there
wouldn't
be
a
need
for
the
first
part
of
the
bill.
G
H
C
Yes,
for
the
fruit
of
the
poisonous
tree
doctrine
says
that
if
you
imagine
it,
I
mean
it's
easier.
If
I
explain
it
to
you
in
links,
I
think
like
links
of
a
chain.
This
is
this
is
the
way
that
I
I've
explained
it
at
police
academies
in
the
past.
C
As
you
look
at
the
evidence
of
a
case,
and
let's
say
that
there
are
15
links,
15
pieces
of
evidence
in
the
case,
and
each
of
those
links
was
discovered
as
a
result
of
something
that
occurred
in
the
previous
link
if
five
links
in
there's
a
violation
of
the
fourth
amendment
resulting
in
the
suppression
of
that
fifth
link,
everything
that
comes
after
that
everything
that
comes
after
that
is,
in
fact
suppressed
as
well.
C
The
only
thing
you
can
use
is
one
through
four
five
through
15
cannot
be
seen
by
jury,
cannot
be
used,
cannot
be
referred
to
in
any
way
the
danger,
and
I'm.
I
appreciate
this
question
because
the
danger
is,
we
don't
know
that
surveillance
by
law
enforcement
outside
of,
for
example,
the
human
trafficking
room,
would
not
lead
to
suppression
based
upon
fruit
of
the
poisonous
tree.
C
C
I
think
it
is
the
basis
for
which
we
can't
be
certain
that
anything
other
than
something
with
an
absolute
search
warrant
could
ever
be
used
and
we
can't
get
a
search
warrant
on
the
front
end,
because
when
we
do
one
of
these
stings
they
don't
have.
My
name
is
steve
crump
and
I
live
at
such
and
such
and
my
I
didn't.
They
have
a
screen
name
and-
and
I
would
encourage
you
all
who,
if
you've
ever
seen
this
to
go
to
a
law
enforcement
seminar
where
they
open
one
of
these
icac
platforms
and
they'll.
C
Put
on
the
hey.
My
name
is
suzy:
I'm
14.
who's
this
and,
while
they're
giving
you
the
talk.
Literally,
thousands
of
instant
messages
are
lighting
up
behind
you
on
the
screen,
and
none
of
them
have
a
name.
None
of
them
have
identifying
information.
We
don't
frankly
even
know,
usually
when
somebody
comes
in,
we
don't.
C
H
And
that
was
an
interesting
point.
Tell
us
how
what's
a
process,
what
you
have
to
have
to
to
apply
for
a
search
warrant.
C
So
a
law
enforcement
officer
typically
would
do
this
by
gathering
whatever
facts
they
have
and
in
a
drug
case.
The
way
you
would
ascertain
that
the
drugs
are
actually
in
the
residence
is,
you
would
send
a
confidential
informant
in
who
would
then
come
back
to
you
and
the
way
that
you
prove
up
the
the
element
of
that
the
contraband
is
actually
in
the
actually
in
the
residence
or
the
building
or
where
it
is
to
be
searched.
Is
that
information
that
comes
from
the
confidential
foremen.
C
That's
then
written
into
an
affidavit
that
law
enforcement
signed,
saying
here's
my
basis
for
probable
cause.
It's
then
taken
to
a
judge
and
that
judge
signs
off
on
it
doesn't
sign
off
on
it.
But
if
they
sign
off
on
a
search
warrant,
then
the
officer
who
got
that
search
warrant,
the
affiant
typically
will
be
the
one
who
also
executes
that
search
warrant
along
with
others.
C
H
Lastly,
you
you
in
your
opening
statement,
you
said
that
if,
if
this
bill
is
passed,
we
have
no
idea
how
the
courts
are
going
to
interpret
it
both
state
and
federal.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
sir,
and.
C
But
I'm
sorry,
mr
chairman,
could
I
I
will
say
this?
Okay,
the
courts.
Look
at
your
words.
They
they
as
a
matter
of
jurisprudence,
assume
that
you
meant
to
do
something
and
they
assume
they
will
assume,
based
upon
the
record
that
we
have
now
created
that
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
limit
law
enforcement.
C
So
when
they
interpret
this
and
they
look
at
the
legislative
history
of
this-
and
they
say
well
what
what
were
they
trying
to
get
at
the
idea?
Is
they
want
us
to
strictly
scrutinize
the
the
efforts
of
law
enforcement
in
these
circumstances,
so
I
can't
tell
you
how
they
will
rule,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
the
level
of
scrutiny
that's
applied
to
each
will
be
extraordinarily
heightened,
because
the
legislature
has
specifically
spoken
on
this
and
has
specifically
created
a
legislative
record.
That
says
we
intend
to
limit
law
enforcement,
and
this
should
be
construed
narrowly.
C
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
general
crump,
general.
Let
me
propose
a
hypothetical
and
ask
you
if
you
think
that
this
hypothetical
is
that
far
off
for
some
real
world
situations
that
you
or
you
know
of
other
law
enforcement
that
have
run
across
I.
I
know
that
I've
seen
situations
similar
to
this
there's
information
developed
that
someone's
doing
some
human
human
trafficking
and
it
has
adult
men
having
sex
with
minors
10
year
old,
little
girls
and
stuff,
and
that's
you
got
reports
of
that.
That's
about
all!
M
You
got
and
you're
trying
to
develop
that
case
and
the
parent
or
some
other
caregiver
may
be
involved
with
this
stuff,
and
so
you
need
to
develop
evidence
to
get
a
case
to
develop
who
these
perpetrators
are.
So
you
might
send
somebody
posing
as
one
of
these
males
that
wants
to
engage
in
sex
with
little
girls
and
you
send
them
in
to
meet
with
this
person.
That's
setting
up
that
deal
and
you
wire
them
up
with
a
video
surveillance.
C
We
can't
assume
that
criminal
criminals
fill
whatever
void.
We
create
for
them,
predators,
fill
whatever
void,
is
available
and
will
change
their
hunting
habits
every
time
to
get
more
prey.
And-
and
so
we
can't
just
assume
that,
because
there's
this
wonderful
potential
exemption
in
here
that
in
any
way
that
will
ever
protect
another
child
because
they
will
simply
change
and
get
their
own
rooms.
I
C
I
am
certain
that
it
can
be,
I
mean
I
know
it
can
be
done
because
we've
read
about
it.
Nobody
in
my
experience
in
law
enforcement
in
my
district,
has
ever
applied
for
a
search
warrant
like
that
and
here's
the
reason
that
would
be
under
what's
called
a
typically
under,
what's
called
a
t3
wiretap
search
warrant,
the
idea
being
that
we
are.
We
are
capturing
electronic
communications
between
people,
because
that's
between
the
camera
that
takes
the
picture
and
the
screen
or
the
computer,
where
we're
intercepting
it.
C
There's
a
there's,
there's
wire
transfer-
or
I
guess
today
it
could
be
wireless.
But
the
idea
is
it's
an
electronic
communication
that
is
intensely
that
sort
of
thing
is
intensely
manpower
driven
to
run
a
t3.
You
typically
need
10
to
15
officers
dedicated
day
and
night
24
hours
a
day,
because
you
never
know
what
that's
going
to
do.
C
In
my
experience,
we've
never
had
the
need
of
that.
I'm
certain
there
may
be
districts
that
have,
I
can't
speak
to
them,
but
we've
never
applied
for
a
t3
or
any
other
search
warrant.
On
that
basis
we
have.
We
certainly
issue
subpoenas
for
cameras
on
private
property
if
they
have
their
own,
but
tbi
may
be
able
to,
but
I've
nev
they've
never
done
that
in
my
district.
If
they
can.
I
Have
you
ever
had
a
convenience
store
or
any
that
type
that
you've
asked
for
their
video
surveillance
that
they
wouldn't
give
that
to
you.
C
We
typically
issue
a
subpoena,
yes,
sir,
I
mean
we
can
issue
a
search
warrant
in
that
case,
but
the
difference
in
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
in
that
case
would
be
at
the
point
that
we're
going
to
that
camera.
We
already
know
a
crime's
been
committed
and
we
have
other
evidence
we're
seeking
additional
evidence
to
corroborate.
Typically
what
we
already
know,
and
it
may
be
for
identification,
it's
a
rare
occurrence,
but
yes,
we
have
been
denied
and
when
we
do,
we
have
judicial
means
to
get
that.
I
And
I
I
hesitate
to
share
this.
But
I
had
a
twra
officer
tell
me
that
I
couldn't
run
a
bill
that
their
agencies
was
responsible
for
that
and
they
managed
to
kill
the
bill
that
I
had
in
committee
and
never
once
came
to
me
didn't
ask
me
about
it,
but
they
went
to
the
committee
and
the
chairman
and
the
senate
and
everyone
now.
That
was
our
agency.
I
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
looking
for
some
clarifications.
L
C
No
sir
accident
circumstances
requires
the
same
articulable
bases
that
everything
else
does.
We
have
to
be
able
to
prove,
for
example,
that
we
absolutely
that
we
that
we
know
that
somebody
is
going
to
do
something
that
they
are
going
to
destroy
it
or
it's.
The
kind
of
material
that
can
be
can
be
easily
disposed
of.
C
That
typically
has
never
been
allowed
in
a
law
enforcement
contact
context
and
in
fact
there
is
a
there's,
a
rule
typically
adhered
to
by
law
enforcement,
that
a
search
warrant,
information
for
a
search
warrant
is
going
to
become
stale
after
a
very
short
period
of
time,
typically
not
exceeding
72
hours,
and
so
yes,
sir
certainly
exigent
circumstances
do
exist
and
accident
circumstances
would
certainly
be
carved
out,
but
none
of
the
none
of
the
the
typical
or
the
traditional
constitutional
description
of
exigent
circumstances,
as
enunciated
by
both
the
tennessee
and
the
united
states
court
systems,
would
not
qualify
for
the
events
that
I've
told
you
about
here.
C
Yes,
sir,
because
if
what
you're
doing
is
you're
simply
complete,
completing
a
contract,
there's
no
imminent
threat
to
anyone,
and
particularly
where
the
undercover
agent
may
very
well
be
the
person
that's
going
to
be
paid.
There
is
absolutely
no
threat
that
it's
going
to
happen
because
the
person
who's
supposed
to
be
paid
to
do
the
murder
is
actually
a
law
enforcement
officer.
That's
not
going
to
kill
anybody,
so
it
would
not
unders
again
under.
C
L
All
right
and
just
one
more,
you
spoke
to
the
confident
confidential
informer
being
an
agent
of
the
state
and
in
that
sense,
guided
by
or
restricted
by
the
same.
C
Yes,
sir,
and
in
fact
I
think
it
goes
farther
than
that,
for
example,
in
an
apartment
complex.
I
can't
ask
the
manager
of
that
apartment
complex
to
go
in
and
look
even
though
they're
not
a
criminal
they
and
they
might
have
the
right
to
go
in
there.
The
fourth
amendment
does
not
allow
me
to
send
somebody
into
somebody's
apartment
on
behalf
of
the
state,
because
I
can't
do
it
myself,
that's
not
just
the
confidential
informed.
C
That's
also
an
individual
citizen
who
may,
under
certain
circumstances,
have
the
right
to
do
it
now
if
they
go
in
on
a
normal
check
and
they
find
something
different
story,
because
they
were
there
without
state
involvement
without
state
prodding,
but
where
the
state
sets
the
scenario
and
the
state
puts
in
motion
the
events
and
the
state
locates
and
directs
the
person
who's
going
to
be
doing
the
search.
They
are
very
much
just
like
their
law
enforcement
officer.
L
Trying
to
determine
what
would
be
different
before
and
well
before
the
bill
has
passed,
which
is
now
and
after
the
bill
would
become
law,
and
my
legal
counsel
has
said
that
a
lot
of
the
circumstances
that
you
described
that
be
little
or
no
treatment
that
would
be
different
after
the
bill
became
law.
L
C
No
sir,
my
principal
argument
when
it
related
to
judges
is
that
we
don't
know
what
they're
going
to
do,
and
I
I
certainly
respect
the
council
that
you
got.
I
believe
it's
incorrect,
but
but
I
we
don't
know
how
any
judge
in
this
state-
and
we
can't
know
until
we
present
a
case
of
them-
they're
not
allowed
to
tell
us
what
they
think
of
it.
C
C
Once
appeals
are
exhausted
within
the
state
system,
the
federal
system,
then
under
federal,
habeas
corpus
law
or
some
other
federal
statute,
potentially
under
maybe
even
a
civil
action
or
1983
action,
allows
federal
courts
to
opine
and
have
frequently
the
sixth
circuit
has
frequently
overturned
tennessee
state
cases
that
have
gone
up.
The
line
to
the
tennessee
to
the
sixth
circuit
court
of
appeals
and
then
they've
sent
it
back
down
a
very
significant
two,
very
significant
shelby
county
murder.
Cases
were
overturned
by
the
sixth
circuit
and
sent
back.
One
was
dismissed
outright.
C
I
believe,
and
the
second
one
sent
back
for
a
retrial.
That's
relatively
recent.
We
can
take
no
solace.
We
can
take
no
comfort
in
the
fact
that
we
believe
our
tennessee
judges
might
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do.
The
judges
are
bound
by
what
is
on
the
page
and
what
has
been
said
by
the
general
assembly
in
this
in
this
hearing,
and
so
they
are
now
going
to
be
bound
by
the
idea
that
this
group
wants
to
significantly
limit
law
enforcement's
ability
to
use
these
means.
That
could
be
right.
That
could
be
wrong.
C
C
I
want
y'all
to
understand
something
I
every
day
my
whole
professional
life
is
built
around
the
oath
that
I
and
the
other
31
elected
da's
and
the
other
450
assistant
da's
that
work
in
our
offices
take
every
day
I
tell
law
enforcement
every
day.
You
don't
have
enough
for
a
search
warrant.
You
don't
have
enough
to
charge
somebody
I'm
certain
that
I
exonerate
more
people
on
a
monthly
basis
than
the
public
defender's
office.
Does
that
is
not
a
criticism
of
them.
It
is
simply.
C
I
understand
I
had
two
farmers
come
to
my
office
when
twia
came
across
their
baited
doug
fields
and
wrote
them
a
citation
and
the
baited
dove
field
was
forever
in
their
property,
and
I
people
I've
known
since
I
was
a
child,
and
I
so
I
understand
that.
I
understand
exactly
what
you're
hearing
I'm
not
going
to
comment
on
something
that
I
may
have
to
prosecute
at
some
point
in
time.
C
L
Last
question,
mr
chairman:
okay,
on
the
the
issue
of
you,
you
made
reference
to
the
courts,
considering
the
language
and
also
what
is
said
here
today,
the
legislative
intent.
C
Legislative
intent
is
very
significant
in
interpreting,
particularly
a
new
statute.
They
will
look
to
what
the
general
assembly
or
the
united
states
congress
was
trying
to
do.
They
assume
you
want
to
do
something
specific
or
you
would
not
have
spoken.
You
speak
through
your
acts,
and
so
they
will
look
at
if
there
is,
for
example,
if
they
want
to
know
what
y'all
were
talking
about,
that
you
wanted
to
limit
in
terms
of
private
property.
If
there's
no
description,
they'll
go
back
to
the
legislative
intent
and
they
will
impose
on
the
law.
C
First
calendar
of
next
session-
I
I
just
I
don't.
Let
me
say
this-
I
I
don't
think
it's.
I
don't
think
it's
an
easy
question
to
say:
what's
going
to
make
it
better
because
then
you
really
are
getting
into
to
the
minutia
you're
getting
into
things.
C
I
just
think
the
premise
of
the
bill
is
absolutely
on
point
with
what
everything
in
our
constitution
stands
for,
but
that
doesn't
always
mean
it's
the
right
thing,
and
it
doesn't
mean
something
we
we
have
to
do.
The
fact
that
it
may
fall
when
the
parameters
of
what
we
consider
to
be
constitutional
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
we
have
to
restrict
law
enforcement
that
way
what
law
enforcement
does
every
day
they
get
sued
all
the
time
they
get
sued.
All
the
time
my
dtf
gets
sued
all
the
time
that
they
are.
C
We
are
now
the
subject
of
board
of
professional
responsibility,
complaints
when
we
violate
somebody's
constitutional
rights
when
we
violate
when
one
of
my
assistant
da's
violates
somebody's
constitutional
rights,
potentially
they're
going
to
find
themselves
in
front
of
the
board
of
professional
responsibility.
So
before
we
do
this,
there
are
ramifications
outside
of
that
that
I
think,
are
incredibly
important
and
I,
with
all
due
respect
my
friend,
I
just
don't
think
that
this
bill
can
be
fixed.
A
Thank
you
have
representative
sexton
again.
I
I
Government
should
not
have
the
right
to
do
that.
They
told
us
where
we
could
go
when
we
could
go
if
we
could
go
and
that
we
would
be
fined
or
locked
up
if
we
didn't
so
government
has
gotten
too
large,
too
big
and
too
authoritarian,
and
I
think
that
this
bill
brings
them
in
a
little
bit
of
all
the
work
that
you
do
to
protect
us.
God
bless
you,
but
there's
a
lot
of
work.
I
A
We
are
now
back
in
session.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
chairman,
for
phasing
you.
F
Recognized
committee,
if
you'll
give
me
two
minutes,
let
me
give
you
some
intent.
I'd
like
to
start
out
by
first
saying
that
my
family
is
a
huge
fan
of
law
enforcement.
All
law
enforcement
in
tennessee,
whether
it's
the
twa
local
police
and
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
our
da's.
My
d.a
at
home
is
one
of
my
closest
friends
and
I
love
him.
That's
my
16
year
old
son
right
there,
I've
told
them
if
you're
ever
stopped
by
a
police,
you
respect
them
whatever
they
say
you
do
it,
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
them
number
one.
F
I
back!
The
blue
and
my
family
backs
the
blue,
but
committee.
You
need
to
understand
something
about
me.
I
also
back
the
u.s
constitution
and
the
safety
thereof
in
his
speech.
He
said
I'm
worried
about
the
future.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
I'm
worried
about
the
future
too.
What
was
totally
unacceptable
and
shunned
15
years
ago
in
society
is
widely
accepted
and
celebrated.
F
Today
we
change
our
emotions
and
our
thoughts
constantly
and
who
knows
what
will
happen
15
years
from
now
and
what
will
be
illegal,
so
I
will
say
this:
he
brought
up
all
the
stuff
about
a
guy
going
into
for
a
drug
bust.
My
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
be
so
limited.
I
actually
put
this
in
the
bill
so
limited
that
this
is,
if
you
fix
a
device
and
put
it
on
somebody's
private
property,
you
have
to
have
a
warrant.
I
actually
have
in
the
bill
and
representative
russell
brought
it
up.
F
If
you
come
down
to
section
c,
this
section
does
not
limit
the
admissibility
or
gathering
of
evidence
obtained
from
privately
controlled
monitoring
devices
or
equipment,
worn
by
law
enforcement
officers
or
installed
on
law
enforcement
motor
vehicles.
The
entire
thing
you
just
heard
all
the
scenarios
don't
match.
What's
going
on
in
this
bill,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
this
bill,
the
intent
of
this
bill,
is
to
stop
law
enforcement
from
putting
on
a
camera
to
take
pictures
from
a
person's
private
property
unless
they
go
through
an
elected
official.
That's
all
the
tenth.
F
This
is,
and
we've
limited
other
things
to
keep.
What
the
scenarios
you
heard
from
the
gentleman
from
henry
county
and
from
our
my
good
friend
the
d.a
we've
we've
taken
care
of
that
in
this
bill,
so
I
believe
we're
doing
right,
we're
staying
on
point
with
the
fourth
amendment
and
recognizing
that
people's
private
property.
They
have
a
right
of
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
where
they
live.
A
Thank
you
very
much
representative
griffey.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
chairman
faizon
for
bringing
the
legislation.
M
I
I
I
beg
to
differ
with
you
on
on
your
intent
and
legal
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
a
judge
isn't
even
going
to
look
to
legislative
intent
if
the
statute,
if
the
words
can
be
interpreted
fairly
within
their
meaning
on
its
face
and
the
amendment
we
adopted
says,
law
enforcement
shall
not
enter
private
property
for
the
purposes
of
engaging
in
electronic
surveillance
or
installing
electronic
surveillance
equipment
to
search
for
or
collect
evidence
or
obtained
information.
M
Unless
you
got
a
warrant
or
an
exception
or
whatever
confidential
informants
are
agents
of
law
enforcement,
they
wear
electronic
recording
devices,
electronic
listening
listening
devices-
the
exception
you
pointed
out,
says
this-
does
not
limit
the
admissibility
of
gathering
evidence
obtained
from
one
a
privately
controlled
monitoring
device.
Electronic
surveillance,
video
audio
are
not
privately
controlled.
These
are
going
to
be
controlled
by
law
enforcement.
The
other
exception
is
equipment,
worn
by
law
enforcement
officers
or
installed
on
law
enforcement.
Motor
vehicles,
law
enforcement
officers
are
not
cis,
they're
agents
of
the
government.
So
this
this
bill.
M
If
we
pass
it
you're
going
to
let
the
drug
dealers
and
the
human
traffickers
get
away
with
committing
offenses
period,
so
I'm
going
to
have
to
vote
against
our
respect.
Look
there's
ways
to
fix
this
problem
with
twra
and
the
cameras,
and
that's
my
understanding.
It
wasn't
even
tlbra.
It
was
the
federal
wildlife
officials
that
do
and
they
follow
their
own
set
of
rules,
but
there's
ways
to
fix
that
and
we
kind
of
took
a
stab
at
it
with
the
drone
law,
the
legal
reference.
M
So
if
we
want
to
try
to
limit
intrusive,
electronic
surveillance,
like
the
supreme
court
has
brought
up
with
regarding
attaching
electronic
monitoring
devices
to
vehicles
and
so
forth,
there's
ways
to
address
that,
but
this
bill
is
going
to
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bathwater.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
chairman.
A
A
O
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
committee,
this
amendment
I'll
read
the
amendment
and
then
we
can
start
debate.
This
is
a
constitutional
amendment.
H.J.R
140.,
the
general
assembly
shall
make
no
law
to
authorize
rape,
human
trafficking,
prostitution
or
the
recreational
use
of
any
substance
that
has
been
identified
in
the
schedules
issued
by
the
united
states
department
of
justice,
the
united
states,
drug
enforcement
agency,
pursuant
to
federal
control,
sustenance
act
that
exists
on
january,
1st
2020.
O
O
Excuse
me
the
the
horrific
crimes
that
are
a
result
of
that
this
constitutional
amendment
would
put
in
place
that
we
we
never
let
that
slippery
slope
evolve
anymore
in
this
state
and
as
far
as
the
the
drug
use
part,
I
know
many
members
of
this
caucus
and
throughout
tennessee
are
exploring
the
aspects
of
medical
substances
and
for
my
district
and
my
home
that
that
conversation
can
never
be
had
until
we
put
a
stop
gap
in
place
and
members.
This
would
do
this.
O
O
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
If
the
sponsor
could
go
back
to
his
reference
to
medical.
L
Marijuana,
I
think
that's
what
you
may
have
been
referring
to.
Are
you
how
this
impacts
the
possibilities
of
that
happening,
becoming
legal.
O
O
O
A
A
Next
item
on
our
calendar
is
house
bill,
1338
motion
and
second,
you
are
recognized.
Thank.
O
You
chairman
members
of
committee,
this
legislation
is
a
little
bit
lengthy,
but
what
this
does
is
it.
It
makes
aggravated
burglary
and
excess,
especially
aggravated
burglary,
a
violent
offense,
a
person
rather
than
a
crime
of
against
property.
A
H
Thank
you
sponsor.
Will
this
affect
community
corrections
in
any
shape,
form
or
fashion
that
you
know
of.
O
Well,
I
think
it's
important
to
solidify
in
the
state
that-
and
that
may
not
be
the
right
word,
but
there
are
certain
crimes
that
are
held
at
higher
regard
as
far
as
the
that
the
impact
on
society
and
people-
and
we
we
hold
our-
as
I
heard
all
of
you
recently
debate
our
property
and
high
standard
in
this
in
this
state,
especially
our
homes
and
those
properties
we
own
so
for
a
person
to
to
come
under
your
property
and
burglarize
or
enter
with
a
weapon
for
that
to
somehow
not
be
held
in
a
serious
manner.
O
H
O
Thank
you
chairman.
This
is
a
extensive,
not
a
rewrite,
but
this
this
adds
this
across
almost
every
every
section
of
tca
where,
where
this
will
include
that
this
is
a
crime
against
person,
not
property,
so
it
very
well
may
have
impact
on
that
aspect.
H
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
leader.
Lambreth
previous
question.
Question
has
been
called
any
objection.
Seeing
none
we're
now
voting
on
sending
house
bill,
13
38
to
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Those
opposed,
no,
the
eyes
prevailed.
Moves
on
the
full
criminal!
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Chairman
next
item
on
the
calendar
number
five
house
bill
585
by
chairman
terry,
have
a
motion
in
a
second
there's,
an
amendment
traveling
with
this
zero
zero.
Four,
three
zero.
Three.
Do
you
wish
to
proceed
with
that
amendment?
I
do
not.
B
No,
that
was
an
amendment
that
was
given
to
me
suggested
to
me
by
the
sheriff's
association,
but
it
increases
the
fiscal
note.
So
I
don't
want
to
put
that
on
the
board.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
so
we'll
be
on
house
bill.
585
you've,
you
recognized.
B
Thank
you,
chairman
committee,
harassment
in
the
state
is
defined
in
tennessee
code
3917308
and
it
carries
a
class
a
misdemeanor.
This
legislation
increases
the
penalty
for
harassment
of
a
first
responder
to
a
classy
felony
this.
So
when
you
harass
an
individual,
you
infringe
on
that
individual's
liberty
when
one
knowingly
harasses
a
first
responder,
those
actions
have
repercussions
beyond
just
the
individual
liberty
of
that
responder,
as
it
could
impact
the
recruitment
and
retention
of
the
first
responders
to
protect
our
communities,
thus
impacting
the
liberty
of
the
entire
community
and
those
individuals.
So,
with
that
explanation,.
A
A
D
House
bill
zero,
one
five
three:
we
ran
this
this
bill
last
year
and
and
covid
got
it
so
for
those
that
weren't
on
there
here
to
hear
the
explanation.
D
But
under
this
legislation
the
law
enforcement
agencies
could
purchase
other
equipment
that
they
may
need
so
long
as
the
judge
orders
it-
and
I
do
have
a
list
of
some
of
the
potential
things
they
could
could
purchase.
If
you
want
me
to
go
into
it,
I
know
we're
under
a
time
constraint,
but
I'll
be
happy
to
ask
you
for
your
vote.
A
Thank
you
sponsor
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
leader
lamberth
previous
question.
Question
has
been
called
any
objection.
Seeing
none
we're
now
voting
on
house
bill
153
to
move
on
to
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
those
opposed,
no,
the
eyes
prevailed.
Moving
on
the
criminal.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
We're
on
item
number
nine
house
bill
1180
by
chairman
moody,
probably
motion.
Second,
you
are
recognized.
D
Thank
you
very
much
for
this.
This
bill
adds
human
trafficking
under
the
definition
of
predatory
offenses
in
code
3913-523
and
the
sending
sentencing
requirements
it
mandates.
A
Thank
you
for
the
explanation.
Any
questions
for
our
sponsor
question
has
been
called
any
objection,
seeing
none.
We
are
now
voting
on
sending
house
bill
1180
on
the
full
criminal
and
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
those
opposed.
No.
The
ice
prevail.
You
move
on
the
full
criminal.
Thank
you
members.
We
are
running
we're
running
low
on
time.
A
We
have
some
folks
who
have
came
a
great
distance
to
testify
on
one
of
the
bills.
Here
by
a
member
of
our
committee
item
number
31
on
your
calendar.
We
house
bill
zero,
zero,
zero
one
by
representative
hardaway.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
would
appreciate
it
if
we
could
go
out
to
session
and
hear
from
attorney
kelly
henry.
A
Okay,
thank
you
without
objection,
we'll
go
out
of
session,
madam,
if
you
will,
you
can
sit
there
stand
at
the
podium,
introduce
yourself
organization
that
you're
with,
and
you
will
have
four
minutes
for
testimony
and
then
we'll
have
questions
if,
if
time
permits
from
the
committee.
P
P
What
I
would
say
to
you
is
that
the
amendment
to
section
a
essentially
just
requires
the
statute
to
follow
these
two
books,
the
american
association
for
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities
and
the
diagnostics
and
statistical
manual.
These
are
the
definitions
of
intellectual
disability
that
the
us
supreme
court
requires
every
state
to
apply
when
considering
whether
or
not
an
individual
is
ineligible
for
execution.
P
Gentlemen
and
ladies,
I
will
tell
you
that
this
statute
is
very
tightly
crafted
and
in
a
way
that
will
save
tennessee
taxpayers
money
and
in
a
way
that
will
move
capital
cases
more
quickly
for
individuals
who
come
before
a
judge
in
tennessee.
If
the
current
law
stands
and
they
are
in
fact,
intellectually
disabled
under
these
two
statutes,
you're
looking
at
cases
being
reversed,
sometimes
10,
15
years
down
the
line
at
great
expense
to
the
state,
as
well
as
a
great
cost
to
the
victims,
family
members.
This
will
clear
that
up
and
take
that
argument
away.
P
P
It
is
very
tight,
and
I
I'm
telling
you
that,
as
somebody
who
does
post
conviction,
work
and
who's
now
going
on
the
record,
and
this
will
be
used
against
my
clients
in
the
future-
they
have
one
year
one
year
in
which
to
bring
a
claim
under
the
statute
and
they
have
the
the
defendant.
Has
the
responsibility
to
bring
that
evidence
forward
and
a
trial
judge
in
the
state
of
tennessee
would
be
the
judge
to
decide
the
prosecution
would
have
an
opportunity
to
test
that
evidence
and
an
opportunity
to
appeal
that
decision.
P
This
will
simply
clean
up
a
problem
that
exists
in
the
statute.
It
will
not
open
any
doors,
it
is
very
tight.
It
does
not
allow
a
a
floodgate
of
litigation,
and
I
can
promise
you
that,
as
somebody
who
knows
every
single
person
on
tennessee
death
row
right
now,
and
so
with
that-
I
know
that
your
time
is
very
tight.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
also
would
urge
you
to
look
at
the
testimony.
I'm
sorry
of
jim
ellis,
mr
ellis,
actually
wrote
the
original
statute
that
we
passed
in
tennessee.
P
He
argued
the
case
of
atkins
versus
virginia,
and
he
also
tells
you
that
our
current
statute
is
unconstitutional
and
he
supports
this
bill
now.
He,
of
course,
has
the
most
experience
in
this
area
and,
of
course,
but
for
covid
would
be
here
personally
so
again.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
I
will
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
attorney
henry
for
being
here.
There
are
a
couple
of
points
that
I
want
to
emphasize.
A
Representative,
are
you
wanting
to
speak
with
her
on
this?
Yes,.
L
P
Yes,
sir,
and
one
thing
that
I've
neglected
to
mention
is
that
the
bill
house
bill
1
has
an
age
cutoff
of
18
years
of
age.
That
is
actually
a
variant
from
the
diagnostics
and
statistical
manual
which
doesn't
have
an
age
cut
off.
It
just
says,
during
the
developmental
period
and
during
the
developmental
period
under
current
science,
would
include
individuals
up
to
the
age
of
25,
and
so
in
order
to
address
that
concern.
This
bill
actually
has
the
age
cutoff
of
18
so
that
it
doesn't
broaden
those
categories
from
what
we
already
had
in
the
bill.
P
The
reason
for
that
is
because
the
united
states
supreme
court
requires
the
consideration
of
both
the
american
association
of
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities
definition
as
well
as
the
dsm,
and,
in
fact
those
who
practice
in
this
area
know
that
the
dsm
actually
typically
follows
the
definition
of
the
aaidd,
because
all
the
aaidd
does
is
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities.
So
they
really
are
the
leader
in
this
area.
P
If
we
only
have
one
particular
organization,
then
we
run
into
problems
with
defense
lawyers
being
able
to
come
in
and
say
well,
you
didn't
use
both
definitions,
trial,
judge
when
you
were
considering
my
claim,
so
I'm
going
to
use
that
as
a
basis
to
attack
so
by
using
both
definitions,
you're
really
making
sure
that
you're
insulating
the
challenges
to
the
constitutionality
of
the
statute
moving
forward.
So
that
really
does
prevent
additional
appeals.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Thank
you
to
the
sponsor.
We
are
going
to
go
back
in
session,
we're
back
in
session
members.
We
are
out
of
time.
So
what
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
roll
this
bill
to
the
heel
of
today's
calendar
and
then,
if
you
will
look
at
item
number
21
on
your
calendar
house,
bill
1089
that
is
going
to
be
taken
off
of
notice.
A
All
remaining
bills
that
were
on
today's
calendar
will
be
rolled
to
next
week's
calendar.