►
Description
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee - April 7, 2021 - House Hearing Room 2
A
A
C
A
Yes,
ma'am
there's
an
amendment
on
this
amendment:
zero,
zero,
five,
five,
five!
Seven!
You
have
a
motion
on
the
amendment.
There's
a
second!
You
may
explain
that
amendment.
If
you
wish
to
proceed.
D
A
E
E
E
So
I
will
be
asking
to
roll
this
bill
to
your
last
calendar,
mr
chairman,
but
we
have
with
us
today
someone
from
the
state
of
utah
who's
flown
in
and
with
the
chairman's
permission,
I
would
ask
that
we
go
out
of
session
and
hear
from
judge
caselle
because
he
might
not
be
able
to
be
with
us
on
our
last
calendar,
which
might
be
a
you
know,
a
roving
date.
So
if
we
could.
A
Absolutely
any
objection
going
out
of
session,
seeing
none
we
are
out
of
session
and
if
your
guest
would
be
willing
to
come
forward,
you
could
either
stand
at
the
podium
where
the
chair,
lady
is
or
you
could
sit
at
a
chair
right
there,
chair,
lady
hazel.
Would
you
help
make
sure
he's
got
the
microphone
on
for
him?
If
you
will
introduce
yourself
and
the
organization
you're
with
and
you'll
have
four
minutes
for
testimony,
and
then
the
committee
has
any
questions
we'll
take
those
up.
Then.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
F
Chairman
doctor,
my
name
is
paul
casell,
I'm
a
law
professor
at
the
university
of
utah
college
of
law.
I'm
an
unpaid
policy
advisor
to
marcie's
law,
I'm
here
today,
because
I
support
victims
rights,
I'm
a
co-author
on
the
nation's.
Only
law,
school
textbook,
dealing
with
crime,
victims,
rights
and
I've
testified
all
over
the
country
in
support
of
crime
victims.
I
litigate
on
behalf
of
crime
victims
all
over
the
country,
such
as
victims
of
the
jeffrey
epstein
sex
trafficking
organization.
F
Let
me
jump
right
into
the
issue
here
of.
Why
do
you
need
a
new
amendment
to
your
constitution?
Improved
amendment
to
your
constitution,
the
voters,
of
course,
in
this
state
in
1998,
made
the
decision
to
protect
the
rights
of
victims
in
your
state
constitution
and
in
1998
you
had
what
I
think
it
was
fair
to
say
was
a
state
of
the
art
victims
rights
amendment
that
people
around
the
country
could
look
to
and
say
that's
what
we
want
in
our
state.
F
These
are
the
kinds
of
values
that
we
respect,
but
now
time
has
marched
on
and
we're.
You
know
what
23
years
later
and
we've
heard
from
crime
victims
here
in
tennessee
crime,
victims,
organizations
that
there
are
problems
with
your
existing
amendment,
and
we
just
heard
from
chairman
hazelwood
about
one
of
the
key
problems
that
your
amendment
currently
has.
There
is
no
standing,
no
bill
ability
for
crime
victims
to
enforce
their
rights,
and
so
that's
why
it
has
become
time
for
you
to
update
your
victims
rights
amendment
to
put
in
things
like
standing
for
crime
victims.
F
This
is
a
carefully
drafted
amendment.
I've
looked
through
it
there's
a
lot
of
language
here
that
is
unique
to
tennessee.
That
has
been
tailored,
as
I
understand
it,
through
extensive
negotiations
with
stakeholders
here
and
now.
As
I
understand
it,
the
only
questions
that
are
revolving
around
marcy's
are
what
frankly
seem
to
me
to
be
fairly
technical
issues,
but
nonetheless,
I
hear
some
opponents
are
saying:
the
sky
is
going
to
fall.
If
you
approve
this
amendment,
that
certainly
hasn't
been
the
experience
in
other
states
that
have
adopted
marsy's
law.
F
So
let
me
turn
to
some
of
the
specific
concerns
that
I've
heard
expressed.
One
is
well:
how
is
this
going
to
work
in
juvenile
cases
and
I'm
sort
of
surprised
to
hear
that
it's
an
issue
we've
had
juvenile
restitution
in
my
home
state
of
utah.
I
know
a
number
of
states
have
for
many
years,
and
I
guess
the
concern
is
that
if
you
require
full
restitution,
somehow
some
kid's
going
to
have
to
pay
a
million
dollars
which
isn't
realistic.
The
way
marsy's
law
works.
F
The
way
restitution
laws
work
all
over
the
country
is
that
the
judge
would
order
payment
of
some
amount,
but
then,
of
course,
a
payment
schedule
would
be
set
up
and
for
a
juvenile
that
would
be
very
modest.
We've
also
heard
concern
about.
Well,
this
is
going
to
apply
pre-indictment.
How
is
that
going
to
work?
The
way
that
would
work
is
the
way
it
works
in
many
other
states.
F
The
experience
in
other
states
is
that
the
cost
will
be
very
minimal.
The
only
real
incremental
cost
that
I
see
looking
through
this
very
narrow
and
very
carefully
drafted
amendment
is
notification
to
crime
victims
and,
of
course,
there
already
are
appar.
There
already
is
apparatus
for
providing
notice
to
crime
victims
in
the
state.
There
will
be
some
modest
expansion
that
is
required,
but
if
you
look
at
what's,
the
experience
has
been
in
other
states,
very
modest
increase
in
expenses.
F
If
any,
and
so
tennessee
has
an
opportunity
now
to
express
its
values
to
update
its
constitutional
amendment,
of
course,
this
wouldn't
go
on
the
ballot
here
in
tennessee
until
2026
and
talking
to
people
while
I've
been
here
in
tennessee,
I
haven't
heard
anyone
say
that
they
expect
the
voters
to
turn
this
down,
and
so
the
real
question
is
whether
you
are
going
to
give
the
voters
of
this
state
an
opportunity
to
decide
whether
marsy's
law
expresses
their
values,
the
values
of
this
state
or
not,
and
I
think
when
you
look
at
the
question
that
way,
the
answer
is
obvious.
F
F
G
Thank
you
chairman,
your
honor.
I
apologize.
I
had
stepped
out
for
a
moment,
but
I
was
listening
to
your
testimonies.
You
were
giving
it
and-
and
thank
you
I
wanted
to
go
through
a
couple
of
things
and
again.
G
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
here
today
appreciate
both
the
sponsor
and
the
effort
on
this,
which
I
think,
quite
frankly,
all
of
us
support
I'm
a
co-sponsor
on
it,
but
the
technical
aspects
of
it
are
important
to
get
right
sure,
and
so,
as
you
mentioned
the
timeline,
if
it's
six
years
until
it
would
get
on
the
ballot
we're
in
the
first
year
of
a
two-year,
you
know
session,
and
it
would
need
to
pass
this
session
and
next
session
as
well
before
making
the
ballot.
G
G
We
do
not
have
a
unified
court
system,
and
so
when
it
comes
to
juvenile
court
and
pre-indictment
our
general
sessions,
courts
are
local
courts
and
so
working
with
those
local
courts
to
ensure
that
this
actually
happens
is
a
little
more
difficult
in
this
state
than
it
is
in
some
of
the
other
states.
And
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
any
technical
changes
that
go
into
this
work
well
with
that
system
and
in
fact,
when
it
comes
to
the
resources
part
of
the
obstacle
to
get
this
right.
G
Because
I
think
that's
what
all
of
us
want.
I
know
that's
what
you
want
as
well
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
properly
funding,
not
only
the
state
aspect
of
this,
but
not
passing
along
any
unfunded
mandates
to
the
locals
and
so
a
lot
of
that
notification.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
implementing
this
well,
which
doesn't
all
have
to
go
into
this.
G
We've
been
behind
on
some
of
the
funding
for
years
on
providing
for
victim
services
on
providing
for
district
attorneys
and
victims
coordinators
and
we're
trying
to
catch
some
of
that
up,
and
so
we're
we're
handling
that
issue
as
well
as
putting
this
in,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
you
get
it
right,
and
so
thank
you
for
your
testimony
today.
F
And
one
thing
that
I
think
you
could
look
to
is
is
some
other
states.
I
realize
that
there
are
differences
here,
but
maybe
we
could
get
some
information
to
you.
For
example,
oklahoma
has
had
a
marcy's
law
now
since
when
was
it
2018.?
So
it's
been
on
the
books
a
couple
of
years
and
I
know
that
they
were
concerned
about
some
of
the
same
issues
that
you
were
highlighting
while
the
while
the
amendment
was
moving
forward,
but
my
understanding
is
they've
had
no
difficulty
whatsoever
in
terms
of
the
funding
and
the
implementation.
G
G
It
was
more,
I
think,
some
of
the
notification
issues
and
working
with
the
local
judges
that
are
again
locally,
hired
locally
paid
locally
elected
and
we
don't
normally
fund
the
bulk
of
what
they
do.
But
as
part
of
this,
I
think
that's
part
of
the
discussions
is
that
we
we
may
need
to
if
we're
going,
to
require
them
to
do
something
that
the
state
is
ordering
that's
in
the
constitution.
G
There
may
be
additional
funds
that
might
be
needed,
but
we
actually
do
some
restitution
now,
but
that
caps
out
most
of
the
time
at
19,
which
creates
some
issues.
Do
you
know
some
of
the
other
states
that
you've
worked
in?
How
do
they
it's
a
little
off
topic,
but
on
this
sure,
how
do
they
deal
with
juvenile
restitution
that
goes
well
beyond,
say
their
18th
or
19th
birthday,
once
they've
aged
out
of
that
juvenile
system.
F
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
professor
cosell,
for
being
here,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
efforts
on
behalf
of
victims
of
criminal
offenses.
My
background.
I've
been
assistant,
federal
public
defender
assistant
district
attorney
assistant
attorney,
general
prosecutor,
a
defense
attorney
for
about
30
years.
C
Now,
all
the
way
from
federal
court
in
memphis
to
general
sessions,
courts
in
memphis
circuit
courts
in
memphis,
and
then
general
sessions,
juvenile
and
circuit
courts
in
rural
west
tennessee
and
I've
read
through
the
language,
and
I
don't
have
any
problems
with
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
I
commend
you
for
the
efforts
and
I'm
going
to
support
this
efforts.
I
always
kind
of
wondered
if
we
would,
it
might
be
smart
if
we
created
something
like
a
pink
sheet
for
victims
and
that
pink
sheet
two
pages.
C
C
What
they
think
should
happen
with
the
case
and
those
pink
sheets
ought
to
travel
with
every
affidavit
of
complaint
criminal
indictment,
and
the
judge
would
be
required
to
review
those
before
accepting
a
plea
bargain.
The
d.a
should
be
reviewing
those
before
engaging
in
plea
negotiations
and
we
ought
to
have
give
the
victims
a
right,
certainly
to
come
in
before
there's
release
or
any
plea
agreement
is
reached.
So
I
commend
you
for
this
effort.
I'm
going
to
support
this
effort.
C
It
is
going
to
be
logistically
difficult,
there's
going
to
have
to
be
some
expenses
from
my
experience,
general
sessions
court
in
memphis,
there's
13
different
divisions.
Last
time
I
checked,
and
you
may
need
one
or
two
victim
coordinators
to
try
to
contact
everybody
that
wants
to
be
contacted
in
rural
west
tennessee
we're
going
to
need
at
least
one
person
for
each
general
sessions
court,
in
addition
to
our
circuit
court
people.
C
But
this
is
something
that
I
agree
with
you
that
voters
of
tennessee
should
have
the
say
so
whether
they
want
this
to
take
place
and
whether
they
want
us
to
expend
tax
dollars
on
this
effort,
I
think
it's
a
valuable
effort,
so
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
legislation.
I
appreciate
the
sponsor
bringing
this
legislation
and
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
So
thank
you
very
much.
If.
F
I
could
just
know
one
thing:
you
have
such
a
diverse
background,
they're,
both
prosecution
and
defense,
one
of
the
things
I've
heard
talking
to
crime,
victims
and
crime
victims.
Organizations
here
in
tennessee
is
they
say:
hey
we
just
want
to
be
treated
like
criminals
when
you
walk
into
one
of
those
busy
courts
in
memphis
the
criminal.
He
gets
all
sorts
of
notifications
and
nobody's
trying
to
take
that
away,
but
just
making
a
phone
call
to
the
victim
and
letting
them
know
what
goes
on.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
good
morning,
sir,
and
I
apologize,
I
missed
the
first
part
of
your
presentation,
the
issues
of
being
able
to
fine-tune.
I
know
you
said
it's
been
pretty
much.
The
same.
Thing's
been
implemented
elsewhere,
but
being
able
to
fine-tune
a
constitutional
amendment.
Tell
me
how
we
reconcile
that
versus
a
statute.
F
Sure
so
what
you
look
at
is
a
very
carefully
drafted
provision
here.
That
would
go
as
you
point
out
into
the
state
constitution.
Now
there
are
a
couple
of
areas
where,
for
example,
the
amendment
itself
envisions
additional
state
legislative
actions.
So,
for
example,
if
you
look
at
the
enforcement
provision,
which
is
one
of
the
key
pieces
here,
it
says
a
victim
may
assert
the
rights
enumerated
in
this
section,
not
as
a
party
but
in
the
manner
further
provided
by
the
general
assembly,
which
protects
the
victims
right
to
standing.
F
And
so
this
envisions,
first
of
all,
that
there
is
enforcement,
a
right
of
standing
by
the
victims
to
assert
their
rights.
But
then
it
also
envisions
an
additional
legislative
step
to
make
sure
that
if
there
are
questions
that
come
up
in
west
memphis
or
wherever
else,
it
might
be
that
those
can
be
resolved
through
a
legislative
action.
And
I
know
that
the
sponsor
of
this
particular
bill
has
committed
to
working
with
all
the
stakeholders.
There's
already
been
extensive
negotiations,
but
working
with
the
stakeholders
to
provide
an
appropriate
statute.
H
F
If
a
victim
walks
into
court
today
and
says,
wait
a
minute,
I
have
these
constitutional
rights
that
it's
difficult
for
that
victim
to
assert
those
rights
because
there's
nothing
in
the
constitution
guaranteeing
enforcement.
So
I
think
that's
what
we're
seeing
now
is
a
number
of
states
moving
forward
with
new
amendments
or
updated
amendments,
and
that's,
I
think,
the
posture
that
tennessee
is
in
now
and
should
be
in
now.
H
F
Right
unfavorably,
in
a
word,
I
think,
when
you
go
into
states
where
there
is
no
constitutional
protection
for
crime
victims,
what
you
discover
is
that
victims
literally
walking
into
the
door,
the
courtroom
are
second-class
citizens,
because
the
defendant
already
has
a
whole
host
of
federal
constitutional
rights
and
a
whole
host
of
state
constitutional
rights,
and
there
are
no
constitutional
rights
for
victims,
and
so
this
is
the
the
point.
I
know
that
the
the
that
has
been
made
by
the
bill
sponsor
a
number
of
times.
F
You
have
an
imbalance
if
there
is
no
constitutional
protection
for
constitutional
rights,
and
what
you
have
here
in
tennessee
is,
I
guess,
you've
gone
part
way
towards
redressing
that
balance.
You
have
state
constitutional
rights
for
crime
victims,
but
those
rights
are
not
enforceable.
Of
course,
defendants
here
in
tennessee
can
enforce
their
rights,
and
what
this
would
do
is
give
victims
that
same
opportunity
to
enforce
those
rights
as
well.
H
F
You
lack
what's
known
as
a
standing
provision
in
tennessee,
a
provision
that
says
victims
have
standing
to
walk
into
court
and
say
my
rights
are
being
violated.
Judge.
I
want
a
remedy.
I
want
you
to
enforce
those
rights.
The
victims
cannot
do
that
currently
in
the
state
of
tennessee
under
the
state
constitution,
because
there
is
no
ability
spelled
out
in
your
constitutional
amendment
to
enforce
the.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
my
good
friend
in
memphis
on
this.
Following
up
on
that,
the
remedy
that
we're
trying
to
address
and
give
victims,
would
we
based
on
my
experience,
would
we
would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
we
would
probably
be
able
to
address
90
of
the
complaints
of
victims
if
they
have
a
right
to
be
heard
by
the
judge
prior
to
acceptance
of
a
plea.
C
F
Sure,
I
I
you
know,
90
percent
you
know
give
or
take.
I
think,
you're
right
that
that's
one
of
the
key
points
in
the
criminal
justice
process.
As
you
well
know,
everyone
well
knows
negotiated
resolutions
plea
bargains
are
the
way
that
most
cases
end
and
victims
are
not
saying.
We
want
to
control
the
process.
Victims
want
a
voice,
not
a
veto,
and
so
they
want
and
what
what
this
marxist
law
provision
would
do
is
they
want
to
have
a
chance
to
talk
to
the
da
before
the
da
strikes
a
deal
and
say
look.
F
These
are
my
concerns.
I
need
some
restitution
here.
I
need
a
protective
order
there.
This
would
give
that
victim
an
opportunity
to
confer
with
the
prosecution,
and
I
would
from
what
I
hear
the
district
attorneys
in
this
state.
Oftentimes
do
a
very
good
job
in
handling
cases,
but
there
are
some
cases
here
and
elsewhere
where
the
victim
may
disagree
or
have
a
particular
concern,
and
this
would
make
it
clear
that
the
victim
has
the
right
to
go
to
the
judge
and
say
judge.
F
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions,
all
right
we're
going
to
go
back
in
session.
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
your
for
your
time
with
us
today
and
being
with
us.
Thank
you
for
taking
me
out
of
order.
I
appreciate
it.
Yes,
sir,
we're
back
in
session
chair
lady.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thanks
for
the
indulgence
of
having
our
faraway
witness
testified
here
for
us
this
morning.
I
just
would
like
to,
as
I
said,
I'm
going
to
ask
to
formally
roll
this
to
last
calendar,
but
I
want
to
go
on
record.
I
have
said
this
at
every
venue
where
this
discussion
has
taken
place.
We
have
six
years
to
get
this
passed
to
get
it
on
the
the
ballot
during
that
six
years.
E
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
cheer,
lady
hazelwood,
for
bringing
this
legislation.
I
would
think
it
might
be
helpful
if
we
could
get
the
da's
conference
and
the
sheriff's
office
together
and
get
them
to
bring
to
us
what
they
think
it
would
require
as
far
as
personnel
and
funding.
So
we
could
meet
the
requirements
of
mercy's
law
going
forward.
So
I
applaud
you
for
bringing
us
proposed
legislation,
I'm
going
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
D
You,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
committee
house,
bill.
382
does
a
couple
of
things
one!
Let
me
start
at
the
beginning,
I'll
be
very
brief.
But
a
few
years
ago
we
looked
at
the
tca
that
addressed
the
unlawful
photography
and
brought
it
kind
of
into
the
20th
century,
with
cell
phones
and
some
changes
that
that
we
had
not
had
in
the
provisions
before
so
we
updated
that
tca.
D
It
dealt
with
more
of
how
pictures
are
taken
as
far
as
upskirting
peepholes
and
some
of
these
kind
of
things
well
and
it's
worked
great,
but
we
have
seen
a
few
cases
that
have
been
overturned
by
the
supreme
court
and
that's
what
my
bill
does.
Is
it
addresses
a
few
of
the
loopholes
that
we
accidentally
left
out
when
we
redid
the
redid,
the
tca
we
have
put
the
word
in
there
for
sexual
gratification
and
we
are
dealing
more
with
what
the
pictures
are
taken
of
and
not
how
they're
taken.
D
So
if
your
wife's
in
walmart
or
your
daughter's
in
target
and
some
pervert
comes
up
and
takes
pictures
of
their
breasts-
and
he
takes
that
and
uses
it
for
sexual
gratification
passes
it
on
to
a
porn
site
on
internet
or
some
of
those
things,
this
would
put
the
provisions
in
there
to
help
be
able
to
prosecute
them
and
keep
that
prosecution
in
place.
That's
what
my
bill
does
I'll
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions
that
I
can.
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
apologize.
I
was
conferring
with
another
member.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
so
we
and
we've
talked
about
this
many
times,
but
if
we
pass
this
bill
and
I'm
walking
in
walmart
or
a
woman
is
walking
down
the
island
walmart
and
someone
takes
a
a
photograph
of
her.
I
D
D
I've
had
no
kickback
on
this
whatsoever
other
than
the
motion
picture
industry
out
of
california,
and
I
rolled
it
a
week
to
allow
them
to
get
an
amendment
to
put
on
this
bill
last
week,
and
they
come
to
me
this
week
and
says
what
they
wanted
to
put
in
the
bill
is
already
in
the
bill.
So
I
I
don't
know
anything
else
to
do.
I
I
understand
exactly
what
you're
trying
to
do.
I
I
and
I
I
have
as
I've
told
you
many
times.
I
have
a
great
deal
of
sympathy
for
the
stories
that
you've
told
I
just
don't
know.
This
is
a
very.
This
will
be
a
very,
very
difficult
legal
issue.
I
don't,
I
don't
understand
how
you
how
you
prove
it.
I
don't
understand.
D
Intimate
areas
to
me
would
be
of
your
breast
of
your
genitalia
of
your
anus.
You
know
those
type
things
not
the
whole
body.
A
A
Seeing
none
we're
now
voting
on
sending
house
bill
382
on
the
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
those
opposed
the
eyes
prevailed.
You
move
on
to
full
credit.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee.
We
are
gonna.
We're
gonna
skip
one
spot
here
just
here
to
to
pick
up
item
number
five
house
bill
1302
by
chair,
lady
littleton.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
bill
removes
the
statute
of
limitations
for
offenses
of
trafficking,
a
person
for
a
commercial
sex
act
committed
against
a
child
on
or
after
july,
the
1st
of
2021.
A
A
J
J
On
the
amendment,
thank
you
very
much,
and
this
bill
comes
to
us
from
the
tennessee
disability
coalition,
this
bill
house,
one
zero.
Six
two
will
create
clarity
in
the
definition
of
intellectual
disability
throughout
code
and,
more
specifically
in
the
tennessee
criminal
code
as
related
to
capital
punishment.
J
This
continues
to
reflect
the
constitutional
provisions
and
guidance
on
this
subject
matter
as
amended.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
we
have
worked
closely
with
the
attorney
general's
office,
our
district
attorney's
conference,
in
order
to
get
this
mandatory
language
that
would
apply
to
a
defendant
who
has
not
had
a
first
appeal
hearing
in
adjudicating
their
potential
intellectual
disability,
but
would
not
allow
a
subsequent
second
or
more
appeal
hearings
on
this
particular
issue.
Should
it
come
up,
mr
chairman
and
members,
so
that
is
a
brief
description
of
the
legislation.
A
Thank
you.
Any
questions
for
the
sponsor
on
this
amendment.
Question
has
been
called
on
the
amendment.
Any
objection
saying
no
we're
now
voting
on
adding
amendment
number
zero,
zero,
six,
five,
nine
on
the
house
bill
1062,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
as
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail.
You
adopt
we're
on
house
bill
1062
as
amended.
J
Thank
you
so
much.
This
has
truly
been
a
a
a
working
document.
This
committee
subcommittee
and
full
committee
and
and
folks
involved
at
every
level,
have
had
some
discussions
about
this.
I
want
to
thank
you,
chairman,
doug
and
chairman
curcio,
riverside
hardaway.
I
want
to
thank
our
speaker
again,
as
I
mentioned
general
slattery's
office,
our
district
attorney's
conference
and
and,
of
course,
the
the
disability
coalition
who
has
brought
this
legislation
to
me
and
to
the
forefront.
Today.
We've
been
working
in
this
in
this
space
for
many
years.
J
I
think
I
passed
some
legislation
several
years
ago
that
created
a
refined
definition
of
intellectual
disabilities
throughout
code,
and
this
is
an
area
where
we
need
to
continue
to
make
some
progress
and
clean
up
and
once
again
continuing
with
the
constitutional
provisions
set
forth
by
by
the
u.s
supreme
court.
We
we
maintain
the
integrity
there
as
well,
mr
chairman
and
member,
so
thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
We
we
do
have
someone
here
to
testify.
Would
you
rather
wait?
Okay,
members,
we're
gonna,
go
out
a
session,
we're
gonna,
hear
from
carol
westlake.
A
Okay,
yeah:
well,
you
will
tell
us
who
you
are,
who
you're
with
and
then
you'll
have
four
minutes
for
your
comments.
I'll
do.
K
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
tennessee
disability
coalition,
where
I
have
been
for
the
last
30
years,
which
is
kind
of
shocking.
To
me.
K
The
coalition
is
an
alliance
of
disability
groups
about
40
different
disability
groups
across
the
state
that
work
together
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we
are
looking
out
for
folks
with
disabilities
of
all
varieties
in
tennessee.
I
thank
you,
chairman,
doggett
and
members
of
the
committee
for
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
bill.
It's
something
that's
really
important
to
us.
We
are
grateful
to
representative
hawk
for
for
help,
helping
us
out
with
this
and
especially
grateful
to
the
da's
conference
into
the
ag's
office.
I'm
not
an
attorney.
K
I
don't
play
one
on
tv,
but
I've
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
attorneys
the
last
couple
of
months,
because
you
see
this
is
not
a
part
of
the
code
that
we
usually
hang
in.
Obviously,
but
I
will
tell
you
that
I
am
proud
that
in
1990
the
tennessee
general
assembly
recognized
the
need
to
protect
people
with
intellectual
disabilities
from
the
death
penalty.
We
were
an
early
state
to
do
that,
and
I
think
that
we
should
be
really
proud
of
that.
It
was
based
on
an
understanding
that
people
with
intellectual
disabilities
have
special
vulnerabilities.
K
K
K
So
we
really
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everywhere
in
our
code,
we
had
an
updated
definition,
that's
widely
accepted
based
on
the
science
and
is
used
by
medical
professionals
and
also
comports,
with
the
both
the
tennessee
and
the
federal
and
the
state
supreme
court
tennessee
and
the
federal
supreme
courts.
K
K
Mental
retardation
was
abandoned
as
outdated
and
inappropriate,
and
it
was
replaced
with
intellectual
disability
and,
as
representative
hawk
said
a
couple
of
years
ago,
you
all
went
through
the
entire
code.
We
tried
to
help
with
that
and
replace
the
term
mental
retardation
with
the
term
intellectual
disability,
and
at
that
point
frankly,
we
didn't
catch
the
outdated
definition
in
title
39..
K
The
definition
of
intellectual
disability
has
been
updated
in
title
33
over
the
last
number
of
years,
but
it
was
not
updated
here,
so
we're
hoping
that
this
bill,
which
relies
on
the
dsm-5
and
the
aaid
these
sort
of
these
two
manuals
of
how
you
define
disability,
have
been
are
based
the
definitions
based
on
that
there
are
a
lot.
The
definition
is
a
lie
and
this
bill
is
aligned
with
title
33.
K
It's
aligned
with
the
special
education
laws
and
regulations,
vocational
rehabilitation,
all
those
places
in
our
in
our
code,
in
our
regulations
that
deal
with
intellectual
disability,
the
constitutional
protection
for
folks
with
intellectual
disabilities
really
applies
to
both
old
and
new
cases.
When
you're
taking
a
look
at
the
criminal
justice
system.
This
bill,
then
also
provides
a
procedural
path
for
a
small
number
of
individuals
with
intellectual
disabilities,
who
may
already
be
under
a
death
sentence
but
have
not
had
their
claim
heard
in
court,
so
it
would
be
fully
considered.
K
This
procedure
would
allow
someone
to
request
a
hearing
the
way
the
bill
is
currently
crafted
with
the
amendment,
but
the
courts
can
still
rule
whether
or
not
an
intellectual
disability
exists.
I
mean
that's
really
an
important
part
of
this
as
well.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
this
bill
doesn't
change
the
law
that
protects
people
with
disabilities
from
capital
punishment.
K
I
am
grateful
that
the
general
assembly
has
always
made
it
a
priority
to
protect
the
interests
of
tennesseans
with
disabilities,
and
I
hope
that
you
will
continue
to
do
that
here
today.
Thank
you.
Well,.
D
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
good
morning,
ma'am,
thank
you
for
being
here
and
your
organization.
H
Is
doing
good
work
and
I
certainly
appreciate
it.
My
sister
is
a
doctor
of
psychology,
so
quite
familiar
with
quite
a
bit
of
what
y'all
do
the
the
work
that
was
done
previously.
You
said
it
did
not
address
title
33.
K
It
it
did
title
33
was
the
definition
of
intellectual
disability
was
updated
in
title
33,
first
in
2000
and
then
again.
H
K
So
we
did,
we
did
address
the
terminology
in
title
39,
you
know
as
a
community
and
with
the
help
of
representative
hawk
a
number
of
years
ago,
but
frankly,
we
just
didn't
catch
the
definitional
piece
at
the
time,
the
code's
really
thick
and
for
us
non-lawyers,
who
are
trying
to
find
every
instance
that
needs
to
be
fixed.
It's
a
little
hard.
So.
H
All
right,
I
certainly
understand
that
I'm
a
non-lawyer
and
I'm
responsible
for
some
of
that
confusion
that
you
can't.
A
A
A
All
right
we're
back
in
session
representative
griffey,
was
on
our
list,
a
question
for
our
sponsor.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
for
sponsor
for
bringing
this
legislation
it's
my
understanding
that
what
this
would
do
as
far
as
changing
what
we
currently
require
under
tca
3913-203
under
current
law.
If
someone
wants
to
challenge
someone's
intellectual
disability,
they
have
to
do
it
at
the
trial
court
level,
and
so
the
the
trial
judge
gets
a
chance
to
hear
it
and
make
the
determination
what
this
would
do.
C
I,
I
appreciate
your
passion
on
this
issue
and
I
have
no
problem
adjusting
the
definition
of
intellectual
disability
to
reflect
current
norms
and
definitions
and
the
dms
and
four
and
so
forth,
but
I'm
opposed
to
changing
our
procedural
process
if
someone
has
an
intellectual
disability
so
that
they
should
avoid
the
death
penalty
that
needs
to
take
place
at
the
trial
court
level.
In
my
opinion,
thank
you.
J
Excuse
me,
the
attorney
general's
office
and
the
district
attorney's
office
on
this
particular
one.
So
this
is
this
is
an
opportunity
that
can
just
be
heard
one
time
it
is
not
a
second
third
or
unlimited
bite
at
the
apple
in
terms
of
this
particular
issue.
C
Is
it
not
required
that
the
intellectual
disability
challenge
has
to
be
brought
to
trial
court
level
and-
and
I
understand,
there's
situations
where
there's
questions
of
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel,
but
when
someone's
post
conviction
on
a
death
penalty
murder
charge,
there
are
always
challenges
to
says
that
the
initial
trial
council
is
ineffective
or
whatever
for
reason
there
may
be
situations
when
an
attorney
says,
look
there's
clearly
not
a
case
to
try
to
challenge
the
intellectual
disabilities
with
this
murder
charge
or
whatever.
But
when
it's
post
conviction
it
becomes
a
different
matter.
D
It
clearly
contemplates
that
that
is
raised
at
the
trial
court
level,
but
there
is
no
specific
language
that
states
it
must
be
raised
only
at
the
trial
court
level.
The
amendment
in
subsection
g
subdivision
g2
states
that
a
defendant
shall
not
file
a
motion
under
subdivision
g1.
If
the
issue
of
whether
the
defendant
has
an
intellectual
disability
has
been
previously
adjudicated
on
the
merits,
so
the
amendment
does
prohibit
anyone.
Who's
already
had
the
the
issue
adjudicated
on
the
merits
from
getting
a
second
bite
at
the
apple,
so
to
speak.
C
D
J
J
The
crux
of
the
issue
revolves
around
refining
and
modernizing
the
definition
of
intellectual
disability
throughout
tennessee
code
happens
to
fall
in
this
section
of
the
criminal
code.
Additionally,
in
order
to
make
individuals
comfortable
with
this
legislation,
both
at
the
district
attorney's
conference
and
the
attorney
general's
office.
In
order
to
accomplish
that
comfort
level
for
those
we
have
put
in
the
subs.
J
H
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
the
sponsor.
Seeing
none
any
objection
to
the
question
saying
no
we're
now
voting
on
sending
house
bill
1062
as
amended
on
full
criminal.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
those
opposed.
No,
the
eyes
prevailed
if
you
wish
to
be
recorded
as
a
no,
please
see
the
clerk.
Thank.
A
B
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you
members.
I
would
like
to
ask
committee
mem,
chairman
and
committee
for
a
roll
call
vote
on
this.
Please,
okay,.
B
House
bill
1546
is
basically
what
I
call
my
protecting
private
citizens
act.
Of
course
it's
called
freedom
from
unwarranted
surveillance
act
of
2021.
B
and
it
prohibits
law
enforcement
agency
from
using
drones
without
first
obtaining
a
search
warrant
from
a
judge,
except
in
certain
circumstances
the
list,
the
those
certain
circumstances
are
listed
in
the
bill.
On
page
three
under
section
two
things
like
to
prevent
imminent
danger
to
life
motor
vehicle
accidents
scene
of
a
fire
investigation.
B
B
A
B
I
apologize,
I
should
have
made
mention
of
that
as
well.
Yes
and
the
amendment
it
had
to
fix
it
basically
wasn't
the
actual
bill
itself.
It
just
had
to
fix
when
it
came
from
legal.
They
missed
us
a
statement
where
they
missed.
Oh,
they
missed.
They
had
to
put
language
in
in
section
one
where
it
says,
but
only
to
the
extent
that
such
federal
enactments
regulate
the
operation
of
drones
for
other
than
law
enforcement
purposes,
so
they
realized
that
they
had
some
language
exempted
and
that's
what
the
amendment
did.
B
B
I
actually-
and
I'm
sure
you
know
this,
but
china
has
has
it
up
on
us
with
their
surveillance
they
can.
Actually,
you
can
actually
be
in
a
meeting
in
your
home.
I've
read
up
on
this,
and
these
little
phones
here
can
find
out
how
many
are
in
your
home.
How
many
are
there
what
you're
talking
about,
and
it's
just
it's
pretty
scary,
so
with
technology,
it's
a
blessing,
but
there's
also
a
bittersweet
part
of
it
as
well,
and
this
bill
just
seeks
to
do
what
our
constitution
says.
A
Thank
you
later,
lemmeth.
G
G
Something
there's
other
criminal
activity
out
there,
that's
being
captured
by
this
drone
inadvertently,
they
didn't
mean
for
it
to,
but
they
saw
a
body
in
a
field
or
something
else
that
that
evidence
can't
come
into
court
and
that
to
me
is
not
just
to
the
victims
of
whatever
crime
it
might
have
captured.
There's
got
to
be
a
better
way
to
go
about
that.
Just
in
my
opinion,
I
think
the
goal
here
is
good,
but
to
say
that
that
evidence
just
can't
ever
be
used.
G
That
was
captured
in
plain
view
by
you
know
again,
it's
it's
a
drone,
but
it
could
have
been
a
balloon
or
a
plane
or
a
helicopter,
or
you
know
some.
You
know
anything
that
was
capturing
that
in
plain
view
and
then
there's
a
civil
penalty.
Here
I
mean
where,
if
a
law
enforcement
officer
is
doing
their
job
and
they're
flying
a
drone,
and
they
might
even
realize
that
they
caught
something
else
in
the
camera,
this
is
going
to
allow
someone
to
sue
that
officer
and
get
treble
damages.
G
I
mean
triple
whatever
their
attorney's
fees
are
to
me.
This
just
seems
like
a
little
much
to
try
to
resolve
the
problem
that
you're
addressing,
but
the
goal
is
good,
but
it's
just
some
of
the
details
of
this
and
that
may
have
been
in
the
drafting
or
something
else
and
others
a
moment
here.
But
it
didn't
really
address
that.
G
But
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
were
going
to
afford
this
today,
I
was
kind
of
hoping
that
it
would
not,
and
we
had
a
chance
to
talk
some
more.
So
I'm
with
you
on
the
effort,
it's
just
the
details
of
this
and
go
a
little
farther
than
what
I'm
comfortable
with.
So
that's
just
my
thoughts
on
it.
Madam
chairman,
thank
you.
B
Thank
you
chairman
and
thank
you,
representative
lamberth
we're
good
buddies,
but
we
already
have
things
in
place
and
again
this
bill
is
not
to
to
handcuff
for
lack
of
better
words
are
in
law
enforcement,
but
it
does
if
and
I'm
not
a
law
enforcement.
I'm
certainly
not
a
lawyer,
but
I
do
know,
there's
already
things
in
place
for
you
to
go
after
if
they
see
something
in
the
backyard
but
but
the
same
procedures
are
done.
What?
If
what?
B
B
They
get
just
do
their
job.
You
know
our
law
enforcement,
they
do
a
great
job,
so
they
already
know
that
you
have
to
have
a
a
warrant
period.
That's
what
our
fourth
amendment
does.
I
think
we
just
start
watering
down
and
bring
examples,
and
we
tend
to
break
down
the
wall
of
a
fourth
amendment
which
is
very
important,
especially
in
the
light
of
technology
and
where
it
is
moving
today.
B
G
And
and
again
chairman,
I
I
agree
with
everything
you
said,
except
for
the
fact
that
you
that
you
don't
have
to
have
a
warrant
when
something
is
out
in
plain
view,
I
mean
if
someone
kills
someone
and
leaves
their
body
in
a
field
that
is
open
to
view
from
any
plane,
that's
flying
over,
that's
on
them
for
leaving
that
evidence
of
their
horrendous
crime.
In
just
plain
view,
it's
not.
G
I
mean
whether
it's
a
drone
or
anything
else
that
captures
that,
if,
if
it's
out
in
just
the
open,
then
it's
a
warrant
is
not
needed,
and
so
to
punish
law
enforcement
officers
with
a
lawsuit
that
they're
going
to
have
to
pay
three
times
whatever
the
attorney's
fees
are.
It
just
invites
you
know,
lawsuits
against
good
officers
that
are
just
trying
to
do
their
job.
G
Just
again,
I
feel
like
it
goes
too
far,
but
the
effort
is
a
good
effort,
so
I
just
again
wanted
to
bring
up
a
couple
of
things
in
here
that
seemed
like
might
have
gone
beyond
your
intent
it.
It
appears
that
that
is
your
intent,
and
so
I
can't
support
the
the
actual
bill
as
written.
But
again
I
support
the
effort
of
trying
to
restrict
you
know
I
wouldn't
want
a
drone
ever
to
be
taking
pictures.
You
know
where
plainview
would
not
be
accessible
to
just
anybody
else.
G
Like
you
know,
in
a
window
or
in
a
garage
or
examples
and
what
we
talked
about
the
other
day,
I
don't
want
them
to
go
beyond
where
you
know.
Regular
technology
would
be
able
to
already,
but
to
just
say
if
they're,
just
flying
or
anything
else
could
be
flying
that
evidence
can't
come
in
and
then
the
officer
could
be
sued
again
just
a
little
further.
Thank
you.
B
B
I
know
they
might
see
this
as
a
they're,
not
in
favor
of
it,
but
again
it's
for
the
citizens.
I
don't
know
what
else
I
don't
know
what
else
to
say.
I
I
Thank
thank
you
for
that
indulgence.
Mr
chairman,
I
realize
I
was
out
of
order,
but
yes,
sir
we've
had
several
bills
this
year
that
were
brought
to
continue
the
good
work
that
representative
coley
did,
while
he
was
in
this
body,
especially
protecting
children
and
and
other
victims
of
very
violent
heinous
crimes
and
one
that
was,
in
fact,
even
named
after
him,
dealing
with
rape
kits,
and
so
I
just
want
to.
I
A
You
back
on
business
here,
representative
griffey,.
C
C
The
supreme
court
is
held
that
the
fourth
amendment
protects
persons
not
places,
and
it's
where
a
person
has
an
expectation
of
privacy,
and
that
typically
applies
to
your
home.
C
Your
person,
your
briefcase
things
like
that,
and
they
have
drawn
a
distinction
when
things
happen
out
in
public
plain
view,
open
fields,
because
a
person
generally
doesn't
expect
their
privacy
to
be
involved,
is
saying
and
out
in
the
field
or
something
like
that
and
that's
why
they've
said
you
know
it's:
okay,
for
a
helicopter
to
fly
over
property
and
if
the
law
enforcement
sees
a
crime,
they
can,
you
know,
prosecute
the
person
and
if
they've
got
video
from
the
helicopter,
something
like
that,
they
can
use
that
because
you
don't
have
an
expectation
of
privacy
out
in
public
just
like
if
you're
driving
down
the
road
and
you
swear
over
and
hit
somebody
with
your
car,
you
don't
have
expectation
privacy,
everybody
can
see
where
you're,
where
you're
going.
C
We
ran
into
a
problem
with
technology
when
they
came
up
with
the
tracking
devices
and
some
law
enforcement
wanted
to
track
a
drug,
dealer's
car,
and
so
they
put
a
tracking
device
on
the
drug,
dealer's
car
and
tracked
him,
and
they
wanted
to
use
that
evidence
in
a
trial
and
the
supreme
court
said
no,
that's
really
an
unreasonable
search
because
they
look
at
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
to
determine
what's
a
reasonable
search
or
not,
and
that's
what
all
searches
are
based
on
with
this
legislation.
C
What
I'm
concerned
is
we're
going
to
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water.
What
what
happens?
If
we
have
a
protest
in
nashville
and
you
have
side
streets
and
so
forth,
you
can't
have
a
helicopter
up
there
looking
at
everything,
but
during
this
protest
some
of
the
protesters
decide
to
attack
some
of
the
other
protesters
and
suppose
they
take
a
baseball
bat
or
something
like
that
and
crack
someone
over
the
head
and
kills
them.
C
And
if
we,
if
law
enforcement,
doesn't
have
ability
to
put
a
drone
in
the
air
for
public
safety
purposes,
just
protect
everybody,
they
may
have.
Video
of
that
person
got
cracked
over
the
head
with
the
baseball
bat
and
the
guy
bleeding
and
dying
in
the
street,
and
they
can
identify
the
person
who
did
it
with
the
video
from
the
drone.
If
law
enforcement
officer
isn't
able
to
use
that
evidence,
I
guess
he
walks
away
from
with
a
from
a
murder
a
murderer
walks
free
this
I
get
it.
C
We
need
to
protect
our
privacy
and
I'm
supportive
of
that,
but
this
bill
goes
way
beyond
what
I
think
is
necessary
and
we
we've
passed
drone
legislation
already,
there's
restrictions
on
drone
use,
and
I
support
that.
I'm
just
afraid
that
this
is
this
goes
too
far.
I
can't
support
this,
as
is,
and
I
wish
we
would
all
sit
down
and
and
let's
negotiate
some
reasonable
exceptions
or
use.
C
C
Every
time
law
enforcement
can't
develop
a
full
probable
cause
case
for
a
search
warrant,
but
if
they
wanted
to
come
up
with
reasonable
suspicion
why
they
think
they
should
be
able
to
fly
a
drone
over
somebody's
property,
see
if
they've
got
a
meth
lab
out
there
in
the
field,
or
something
like
that,
I
think
maybe
we
ought
to
do
a
lesser
level
to
the
law.
Enforcement
can
go
to
to
independent
judges,
say
judge.
We
don't
have
enough
for
a
search
warrant,
but
what
we'd,
like
we've,
got
some
reasonable
suspicion.
C
Here
we
at
least
like
to
fly
our
drone
over
there
and
see
if
this
person
is
an
innocent
person
or
whether
this
person
is,
you
know
up
to
nefarious
acts
and
let
the
judge
say
yay
or
nay.
I
think
that's,
maybe
the
best
approach
so
that
we
protect
innocent
citizens
from
overzealous
law
enforcement
at
the
same
time,
give
some
balance
so
that
if
someone
is
out
there
committing
some
criminal
offense
law
enforcement
officers
have
a
tool
and
ability
to
go
to
an
independent
judge
and
say
judge.
C
We
think
something's
going
on
here,
we'd
like
to
look
into
it
and
let
the
judge
make
that
call,
because
they
do
that
every
day
day
in
and
day
out
throughout
the
state
of
tennessee.
So
I
wish
we
would
come
together
again,
there's
other
bills
that
are
trying
to
address
the
same
situation.
Twra
the
camera
trail
cameras.
C
Those
are
all
part
and
parcel
of
this
same
sort
of
conflict,
we're
having
to
protect
privacy
and
innocent
persons
and
people
coming
onto
their
property,
but
we
at
the
same
time
we
need
to
make
sure
we
can
protect
law
enforcement.
So
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
I'd,
love
to
work
with
you
and
see
if
we
can
come
up
with
a
maybe
intermediate
level
solution,
but
I
can't
support
it.
As
is,
and
thank
you
for
your
good
friends.
Thank
you.
Yes,.
B
Appreciate
that,
thank
you
look
this
bill
is,
is
waving
the
flag
here
we
better
do
something,
because
I
mean
I
I
was
in
other
committees
with
cameras.
I
am
not
a
camera
fan.
B
I
know
that
it's
used
to
prevent
crimes
or
whatever,
but
the
same
time
you
take
in
all
the
legal,
innocent
citizens
and
our
our
stuff
is
exposed
to
find
the
bad
guys.
So,
as
you
know,
I'm
not
a
camera
person,
and
that's
been
my
my
persistent
history
down
here.
So
something
like
this
is
just
as
invasive
I'd
be
out
in
my
backyard
and
a
drone
going
over
my
property
and
it's
flashing
up
there,
and
I
don't
know
who
it
is.
A
Well,
we
still
have
representative
sexton.
If
you
have
any
comments
that
you
would
like
to
make.
L
L
My
position
is:
there's
no
perfect
solution
to
anything
that
we
do
if
we
moran.
If
we
fail.
If
our
law
enforcement
fails
to
mirandize
someone
and
they
have
testimony
or
they
have
evidence,
they
can't
use
that,
even
though
they
know
that
something's
happened
so
there's
many
other
cases
that
we
know
that
can't
be
used,
even
though
they
see
or
have
the
evidence
it
can't
be
used.
So
there's
no
perfect
solution.
L
So,
if
I'm
on
air
I'm
going
to
air
on
the
side
of
protecting
my
liberties
and
protecting
privacy,
and
for
that
reason
there
may
be
issues
in
the
bill
that
need
to
be.
I
haven't
studied
it
that
well,
that
might
need
to
be
worked
out.
I
don't
know-
and
I
trust
representative
weaver,
that
she
knows
that
if,
if
you
think-
and
I'm
just
going
to
ask
a
question
here,
representative
weaver,
if
you
think
that
there's
something
there
that
could
be
tightened
up
a
little
bit,
then
maybe
you
want
to
give
way
to
do
that.
L
If
you
don't
think,
there's
anything
there
then
then
go
with
the
bill,
as
is-
and
I
know
that
your
wealth
committee-
but
I
certainly
trust
you
and-
and
I
know
I
know
where
your
position
is-
and
I
support
it-
a
thousand
percent.
I
think,
if
we
air,
we
have
to
err
on
the
side
of
liberty
and
protecting
our
rights.
Of
course
we
have
this
thing
called
law
that
we
have
to.
You
know
protect
as
well,
so
I'm
not
really
making
a
statement.
L
B
Thank
you,
representative
and
chairman.
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do.
I
am,
I
am
very
passionate
about
our
constitution,
very
passionate
about
preserving
it.
That's
what
we
do
here
most
of
the
time
we
are
watching
on
the
wall
and
we
push
back
at
any
influence
that
comes
to
take
our
rights
away
from
us.
B
And
it's
always.
How
do
you
say
that
culture
is
upstream
from
politics?
We've
got
to
definitely
do
something
about
this,
so,
okay
I'll.
Do
that
then.
Well.
B
A
A
Item
number
seven
house
bill:
1143,
representative
grill's,
not
here
we're
gonna
roll
him
to
the
heel
of
today's
calendar.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
committee.
I
do
want
to
also
recognize
if
I
can
real
quick,
my
predecessor
sitting
behind
me,
so
I
just
wanted
to
you
know
kind
of
did
that
earlier,
but
I
just
thought
it
was
prudent
that
I'd
go
ahead
and
say
that
what
this
build.
I
3
it
states
in
the
language,
especially.
D
I
welcome
any
questions.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
for
bringing
this
bill.
This
was
a
bill
that
I
had
last
year
and
I
appreciate
you
carrying
this
and
members.
This
truly
references,
a
crime
that
does
not
exist.
So
that's
that's
all
we're
doing
here
is
that
especially
aggravated
rape
of
a
child
is
is
not
a
is
not
a
crime
in
our
code,
but
but
we
reference
that
crime.
So
that's,
that's
all
we're
doing
here,
just
cleaning
up
that
language.
Thank
you.
A
G
Lamberth,
thank
you
chairman
and
to
remember.
I
have
two
things:
one
serious
and
one
not
as
much,
but
on
a
serious
note
I
mean
this
opens
up
a
massive
set
of
captions,
and
can
you
give
us
your
word
that
if
somewhere
down
the
road,
somebody
were
trying
to
amend
this
bill
that
it
would
come
back
to
this
committee?
G
So
I
there's
sorry
sorry
go
ahead.
No
there
there
are.
If
you
look
at
the
caption
on
this,
several
of
us
actually
thought
this
might
have
been
a
caption
bill,
and
I
know
chairman
kershaw
has
cleared
that
up
made
sure
this
really
is
what
it
does,
but
it
opens
up.
I
mean
title
4,
16,
33,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40,
49
and
70..
G
At
some
point,
I'm
concerned
somebody
may
try
to
hijack
your
bill
with
something
else
entirely,
and
so
just
if
that
were
to
happen
just
if
you
would
join
us
in
making
sure
that
it
would
come
back
to
this
committee,
because
if,
if
all
you
intend
to
do
is
this
change,
that's
great
and
it
will
clarify
something
of
the
code,
but
nothing
else
needs
to
be
added
later.
Is
that
fair
enough?
I
understand
now.
Yes,
that's
that!
G
Yes,
okay,
then
sure-
and
you
know
on
a
less
serious
note,
but
I
did
notice
that
former
representative
coley
moved
from
that
side
of
the
room
to
set
directly
behind
you
to
keep
a
very,
very
close
eye
on
you.
While
you
were
presenting
this
bill-
and
if
he's
got
your
back,
I
can't
possibly
vote
against
it.
I
mean
I,
I
can't
look
right
at
representative
coley
and
vote
against
anything.
G
D
A
M
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman
of
the
committee,
I'm
going
to
I'll
join
everyone
else
in
recognizing
and
former
representative
coley.
M
M
Okay,
457
is
a
pretty
simple
bill
right
now.
The
code
simply
says
that
bail
must
be
paid
in
cash.
This
simply
updates
this
to
21st
century
by
including
credit
card
debit
card
or
any
internet
or
mobile
cash
application,
and
it
was
brought.
M
It
was
requested
me
by
shelby
county
government,
and
I
know
that
shelby
county
jail
is
probably
a
little
different
for
most
of
your,
your
court,
your
your
facilities
and
your
counties,
but
there
had
been
a
lot
of
problem
with
pretty
rampant,
coveted
infections
and
also
the
difficulty
of
handling
cash
both
by
the
person
bringing
it
in
our
court
clerks
having
to
handle
large
quantities
of
cash
and
with
that
I'll
entertain
any
questions.
A
Question
has
been
called
on
the
bill,
any
objection,
seeing
no
we're
now
voting
on
sending
house
bill
457
on
the
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
those
opposed.
No,
the
ice
prevailed
if
you
wish
to
be
recorded
as
a
notably,
please
see
the
clerk
you
move
on
the
full
criminal.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairman
committee.
A
All
right
members
item
number
10
house
bill.
600
with
that
objection
will
be
rolled
to
the
special
calendar
item
number
11
house.
Bill
673
will
be
rolled
to
the
final
calendar
without
objection.
A
N
Morning
committee,
how
y'all
doing
today
awesome
my
bill?
1533
removes
prohibition
against
community
oversight
board
issuing
subpoenas
replaces
the
procedure
for
local
legislative
bodies
to
issue
subpoenas
on
behalf
of
a
board
with
the
procedure
for
boards
to
issue
subpoenas.
This
bill
is
about
local
control
and
enabling
community
community
oversight
boards
to
have
the
tools
that
they
need
to
make
sure
complaints
of
citizens
are
heard.
In
order
for
these
independent
oversight
agencies
to
operate
as
intended,
they
need
the
ability
to
obtain
necessary
information
via
subpoena
power.
N
Subpoenas
can
be
used
for
more
than
just
compelling
testimony
or
evidence
from
police
officers.
They
can
also
be
used
to
obtain
video
images
or
cell
phone
records
and
maybe
provide
a
clear
picture
of
what
actually
happened.
These
oversight
boards
need
to
maintain
their
independence
and
by
requiring
them
to
go
through
counsel
for
each
subpoena
request.
They
are
no
longer
independent
from
the
city's
legislative
branch.
N
Given
the
rise
of
incidents
between
police
and
citizens
across
the
country,
we
need
to
give
each
community
the
chance
to
restore
confidence
between
police
and
the
citizens
they
protect,
and
one
way
to
do.
That
is
a
strong,
independent
community
oversight
board.
And
mr
chairman,
I
do
have
a
guest
here
and
I
was
wondering:
could
we
go
out
of
session
to
allow
him
to
speak.
A
If
you
will
miss
lamar
make
sure
that
he's
turned
down
there.
If
you
would
introduce
yourself,
tell
us
who
you're
with
and
you'll
have
four
minutes.
Yes,.
O
O
First,
I
would
just
like
to
express
express
my
utmost
respect
for
your
diligence
and
duty
and
the
people
of
this
great
state,
and
I'd
really
do
like
to
appreciate
you
for
your
time
that
you
spent
up
on
this
hill
as
a
police
officer.
I
would
often
wait
each
year
for
you
all
to
send
the
laws
down
and
we
would
go
in
in
service
training
and
we
would
try
to
figure
out
what
you
all
was
telling
us
to
do.
O
I'm
here
today,
however,
to
ask
you
to
pass
house
bill
1533
since
1838
the
police
and
the
community
have
walked
in
a
pre-arranged
marriage.
The
marriage
has
had
its
share
of
ups
and
downs.
Still,
we
continue
our
relationships,
problems
unresolved.
O
O
The
community
is
again
asking
to
be
an
equal
partner
in
this
pre-arranged
marriage
of
police
and
community.
I
can
assure
you
that
the
community
as
a
whole
loves
being
married
to
the
police.
However,
we
want
to
be
an
indispensable
partner
who
can
question
police
misconduct
and
actions
when
suspicions
arise.
O
I
served
as
a
memphis
police
department
I
serve
as
a
men.
I
served
on
the
memphis
police
department
for
31
years
and
I
advocated
for
civilian
oversight.
Communities
should
have
the
authority
to
question
their
police
force
as
a
police
officer.
I've
witnessed
firsthand
behavior
that
was
out
of
line
with
our
duty
of
serving
and
protecting.
O
I
saw
officers
violate
the
code
of
conduct.
Citizens
also
saw
these
violations,
which
threatened
the
trust
necessary
for
the
overall
health
of
the
marriage.
Many
times
these
actions
go
unchecked,
which
creates
more
severe
problems
down
the
line.
If
citizens
had
a
platform
to
question
untold
behavior
early
on
questions
could
be
openly
addressed,
thus
establishing
and
maintaining
a
healthy
discourse.
O
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Any
questions
for
our
guest
representative
hardaway.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
looked
like.
I
was
about
to
be
out
of
service
there
myself
there
for
a
minute
and
thank
you,
pastor,
kirkwood,
for
being
here
known
you
a
while,
and
I
appreciate
the
service
that
you
gave
as
a
law
enforcement
officer
and
that
you
offer
now
in
your
role
with
club,
which
gives
you
a
unique
perspective.
H
H
H
H
I
Chairman
curcio,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
sir
for
being
here.
I
know
you
traveled
a
long
way
to
be
with
us
today.
So
I
appreciate
you,
can
I
ask
you:
how
long
has
the
club
been
in
existence
claire.
O
Came
to
existence
in
memphis
around
1994.,
it
has
been
on
and
off
again,
but
it
has
been
brought
forth
once
again.
A
couple
of
years
ago
mess
strickland
gave
it
brought
it
back
on
to
the
forefront
and
it
is
working
hard
to
make
sure
that.
O
That
question:
that's
always
in
the
air,
did
police
officers
do
what
was
right
that
they
handled
it
right
I
serve
on
the
board.
I
was
asked
to
serve
as
a
way
of
making
sure
that
police
would
not
be
so
worried
about
you
know.
Will
they
understand
us?
You
know:
how
can
we
get
this
board
moving
so
that
we
can
truly
bring
some
cohesiveness
within
our
community,
and
you
know
we're
doing
well,
but
my
time
on
the
board-
and
it's
just
been-
I've
listened
to
three
cases
and
two
of
those
cases.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
that
that
response
yeah.
I
I
realize
the
club
has
been
in
existence
for
a
long
time,
because
I
actually
carried
the
bill
that
would
outline
the
guard
rails
around
community
oversight
boards
in
tennessee,
and
so
I
did
a
lot
of
research
on
this
and
I
actually
was
surprised
to
hear
or
encouraged
that
the
club
came
to
me
early
on
in
those
discussions
and
said
we
have
absolutely
zero
issue
with
this
bill.
I
O
O
It
is
a
hard
process
to
get
officers
or
certain
documentations
before
claire.
I
O
In
94,
I
don't
know
all
right:
a
few
years
ago
they
tried
to
execute
subpoena
power
and
I
read
over
it
and
it
just
got
somewhere
stuck
in
the
midst
of
council
somewhere.
It
never
came
forth.
O
I
Okay,
thank
you
again.
I
appreciate
your
testimony
today.
You
know
had
some
very
encouraging
meetings
with
representatives
from
the
club
early
on
and
who
again
said,
we
have
no
issues
with
your
bill
whatsoever.
We've
never
attempted
to
have
subpoena
power,
so
this
I
just
see
this
as
very
much
a
public
policy
change.
I'm
interested
to
hear
that
today.
So
thank
you
for
being
here.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
later
lambert.
G
Just
to
follow
up
on
jeremy
kershaw's
question
and
again
he
did
an
expert
job
of
guiding
this
bill
originally
through
the
process,
and
we
tried
to
make
accommodations
for
this.
Quite
frankly,
by
allowing
for
subpoena
power
to
be
utilized
through
your
local
elected
body,
the
city
council,
you
guys
had
a
falling
out.
Do
you
not
work
well
with
them
anymore
or
what
what's
happened
with
that
relationship?
Because
if
I
can
finish,
I'm
sorry,
that's
the
avenue
for
the
subpoena,
and
we
purposely
did
that
to
make
sure
it
went
through
a
legislative
body.
G
So
has
there
been
some
sort
of
I
mean?
Is
it
rift
happening?
What's
going
on
there
that
that
process
isn't
working
for
you
all.
O
I
don't
think
it's
a
rift.
I
think
it's
a
misunderstanding
and
if
here's
a
question
they're
asking
now
who
will
answer,
who
will
ask
the
questions?
Will
it
be
counsel
or
will
it
be
clear
council
feels,
though
it
should
be
counsel
who
asks
the
questions,
so
I
think
the
law
hasn't
spelled
it
out.
Clearly,
who
should
ask
the
questions,
then
the
question
that
is
arising
that
I
get
from
time
to
time.
O
O
So
it's
it's,
it's
it's
some
problems
within
it
and
it
could
be
just
a
misunderstanding,
but
I
don't
think
I
wouldn't
say
that
we
are
at
odds
with
one
another.
I
would
say
we
are
at
the
table
trying
to
discuss
and
this
process
is
being
just
brought
to
a
lot
of
difficulty
when
I'm
probably
sitting
up
like
you
thinking.
O
Do
it
all
right,
just
subpoena
and
let's
see
how
it
rolls,
but
it
has
been
tested,
it
has
been
done
when
it
was
tried
to
be
tested.
I
think
a
couple
of
years
ago
it
didn't
it
didn't,
go
through.
G
Thanks
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
expanding
that
a
little
bit,
I
knew
there
had
to
be
something
going
on
there,
because
that
was
our
goal
with
original
legislation.
Is
that
you'd
be
able
to
work
locally
to
kind
of
work
through
those
things?
And
I
hope
you
guys
regardless
what
happens?
This
bill
will
continue
to
work
well
together,
because
that
we
want
the
same
thing.
G
You've
testified
to
that
both
the
community
and
the
police
and
your
elected
local
legislators
there,
the
city
council,
your
mayor,
are
all
working
together
for
both
community
safety
and
trust
in
the
law
enforcement
apparatus
that
are
out
there
to
serve
the
community.
But
we
tried
to
set
this
up,
so
all
that
could
be
handled
locally
instead
of
those
disagreements
or
whatever
words
you'd
like
to
use
for
it
would
spill
over
into
the
legislature
that
hopefully
y'all
just
work
that
out
locally.
G
So
hopefully
I
will
continue
to
do
that
sounds
like
you're
willing
to,
and
hopefully
they
are
too
so.
Thank
you.
H
H
Pastor
kirkwood,
when
you
go
into
your
meetings
for
clerg,
is
it
for
civilian
oversight
or
legislative
oversight,
civilian,
okay,
and
that
would
mean
that
the
civilian
board
would
make
a
decision
on
what
information
you
need
in
order
to
reach
a
conclusion
on
matters
that
come
before
you
is
that
correct?
Yes,
if
the
legislative
body
can
stymie
your
efforts
to
access
information
through
subpoena,
does
it
hinder
your
ability
to
do
your
job?
Yes,
plain
and
simple,
it
keeps
you
from
doing
your
job
to
the
the
best
of
your
ability.
O
I
think
that's
exactly
what
took
place
a
couple
of
years
ago.
It
got
stalled
in
council
when
I'm
asking
questions
when
I
was
told
that
claire
could
not
ask
the
questions.
H
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
being
here
and
your
service
to
the
community.
So
right
now
under
president
law,
clerk
can
get
a
subpoena,
but
they
have
to
go
through
the
legislative
body.
Yes,
okay
and
the
committee
oversight
is
a
statutory
creation,
but
it
is
consists
of
appointments
by
political
elected
officials.
Make
the
appointments
to
the
board
correct?
Okay!
O
O
Yes,
citizens
come
bring
their
complaints
to
the
civilian
law
and
for
law
enforcement
review
board
for
us
to
hear
to
give
oversight.
They
don't
bring
it
to
the
council.
O
The
mayor
appoints
us
we're
appointed
by
the
mayor,
the
council,
I
guess
votes
for
it
proves
it,
but
we're
appointed
by
the
mayor.
O
The
council,
subpoena
power,
what
has
taken
place
in
the
past
is
that
the
council,
when
curb,
went
to
to
the
council
to
get
subpoena
power
to
for
a
subpoena
to
be
done.
They
bogged
it
down,
they
didn't
let
it
go
forth
all
right,
so
council
we
can
submit
for
subpoena
power.
We
can
ask
for
someone
to
be
subpoenaed,
then
council
can
has
to
vote.
O
D
H
A
A
Oh
I'm
sorry
I
I
I
want
to
apologize.
There
was
there
was
another
person
on
the
list
to
testify.
If
we
go
out
of
session
just
for
a
minute
and
check
maggie
duncan.
If
she
was,
I
apologize
for
that
I've
scribbled
all
over
my
paper
and.
A
P
You,
chairman
I'll,
be
brief,
maggie
duncan
with
the
tennessee
association
of
chiefs
of
police.
I
think
a
lot
has
been
said,
so
I
don't
wanna
belabor
the
point.
Many
of
us
worked
very
hard
on
that
bill
with
representative
curcio.
M
P
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
miss
duncan
for
being
here,
I
kind
of
like
what
you
said
that
the
legislature
was
modeling
the
legislation
after
what
was
working
in
memphis
and
shelby
county.
H
I
still
find
it
unique
and
encouraging
that
a
former
law
enforcement
officer
is
here
testifying
as
a
member
of
clerk
and
know
him
from
his
service
when
he
was
in
law
enforcement,
and
I
know
him
his
service
with
clerv.
So
I
I
think
you
make
a
good
point,
and
I
appreciate
you
being
here
that
we
should
listen
to
those
who
are
there
doing
the
work
and
they
bring
us
recommendations
on
how
they
can
do
their
work
better.
H
We
listened
last
time
and
I'm
recommending
to
the
body
that
we
listen
this
time
to
the
citizens
which
is
expressed
through
representative
lamar's
bill.
So
thank
you.
Man.
D
P
P
You
know
our
concern
would
be
that
you
try
to
subpoena
files
that
are
in
the
middle
of
a
criminal
investigation,
and
now
you
have
broken
that
process.
The
process
that
we
follow
for
rules
of
procedures
that
are
put
before
us
from
the
supreme
court.
So
those
folks
would
absolutely
know
what
those
rules
are
and
what
those
laws
are
and
so
that
they
would
make
sure
that
those
are
followed.
A
N
N
We
all
know
we
all
see
on
tv
all
the
time
that
we
have
to
do
better
by
building
relationships
between
law
enforcement
and
the
community,
and
this
is
a
way
that
we
can
further
do
that
and
improve
the
efforts
that
we
already
put
in
place,
and
I
do
believe
this
deserves
further
discussion
amongst
the
committee.
So
my
request
is
that
we
move
this,
be
roll
this
bill
to
the
first
calendar
for
next
year.
A
I
A
F
Would
I
would
move
that
this
bill
be
rolled
to
the
first
calendar
of
2022.
C
But
before
we
decide
to
roll
this,
I
just
for
the
committed
consideration.
I
wasn't
a
fan
of
community
oversight
boards
because
I
think
they
have
the
potential
and
the
tendency
to
interfere
with
the
criminal
justice
process.
We
already
have
set
up,
I'm
not
against
the
purpose
of
trying
to
get
accountability
and
transparency,
I'm
in
favor
of
those,
but
I
my
desires
that
we
would
try
to
address
those
issues
within
the
systems
we
already
have
in
place
and
when
the
this
bill
was
proposed.
C
Last
year,
the
the
guard
rails
and
so
forth
that
were
placed
on
them.
I
felt
were
appropriate
that
if
the
subpoena
power
is
needed,
they
could
go
through
the
legislative
body,
and
so
what
I'm
hearing
today
is
the
board
who's
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
the
chief
of
police
and
others
may
want
to
do
a
subpoena
they've
tried
to
do
that.
C
The
legislative
body
turned
them
down
and
now
we're
gonna,
essentially
we're
being
asked
to
interfere
with
that
internal
process
in
the
local
government,
and
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
be
put
in
a
position
of
interfering
with
the
process.
That's
set
up
between
the
locals
and
their
board,
it's
their
board,
so
I
I'm
just
I
just
I'm
opposed
to
this
legislation.
C
N
N
A
I
I
N
I
am
not
sure
how
many
citizen
review
wars
exist
in
in
the
country
today.
I
It
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
It's
my
understanding
that
there's
over
more
than
200
now
across
the
united
states.
That
was
something
that
I
learned
in
my
research
as
we
as
we
talked
about
this,
do
you
do
you
have
an
idea
about
how
many
of
those
have
the
power
of
subpoena,
which
you
seek
to
add
today.
N
I
am
not
sure
about
how
many
citizen
review
boards
do
have
complete
subpoena
power
with.
Are
you
asking
outside
of
being
checked
by
the
legislative
branch,
the
local
legislative
branch
or
just
in
general,
the.
I
Thank
you
you.
You
may
be
surprised
to
find
out
that,
in
fact,
a
minority
of
community
oversight
boards
have
subpoena
power
and
are
you
familiar
with
the
national
institute
for
justice
by
chance?
I've.
I
Okay,
so
they
are
they're,
actually
the
research
arm
of
the
u.s
department
of
justice,
and
so
they
they
look
across
the
country
at
all
of
our
system
of
justice,
to
see
how
it's
doing
they
produce
reports.
They
do
extensive
research
and
data
analysis
on
different
aspects
of
our
law
enforcement
system.
Would
you
agree
that
those
are
probably
the
right
folks
to
do
that
job.
N
You
may
have
heard
the
stories
about
what's
going
on
in
juvenile
court,
they
had
to
come
down
and
other
various
issues
we
have
had
so
yes,
I
agree
that
they
are
there
to
ensure
that
law
enforcement
is
acting
as
they
are
proper
and
my
guest
just
testified
that
as
officer
he
seems
that
there
are
instances
where
they
are
not,
and
I
think
that
is
important,
that
we
are
continuing
to
bring
transparency
to
the
system
and
allow
citizens
to
feel
as
if
those
who
are
tasked
with
protecting
their
safety
are
acting
in
a
way
that
is
fair
and
and
just
and
unfortunately
that's
not
always
the
case,
and
the
some
of
the
issues
with
local
government
is
that
it
can
be
political
size
and
again,
as
my
speaker
testified,
they
have
tried
to
get
these
subpoenas
and
be
able
to
and
they
were
able
to
do
that
successfully.
N
N
I
So
that's
where
I
learned
that
actually,
a
minority
of
these
boards
have
subpoena
power
and
in
fact,
and
one
thing
that
I
was
curious
when
I
looked
at
your
bill,
it
doesn't
seem
to
speak
to
when
the
subpoena.
Let's,
let's
say
we
decided
to
move
forward
with
this
and
grant
subpoena
power
to
the
board
is:
does
your
bill
entertain
whether
or
not
that
would
be
that
subpoena
could
be
exercised
before
or
after
any
criminal
investigations
have
taken
place.
N
I
I
So
what
we
found
is
that
most
citizen
oversight
procedures,
the
of
the
of
the
small
minority
that
do
have
subpoena
power,
including
berkeley
and
san
francisco.
They
are
actually
prohibited
from
undertaking
an
investigation
until
all
criminal
pending
criminal
charges
against
any
police
officers
have
been
adjudicated
or
unless
they
receive
permission
from
the
district
attorney
to
proceed.
So
it's
a
very,
very
delicate
balance
that
you're
going
with
there,
because
you've
got
to
make
sure
that
those
things
are
are
done
properly.
I
Your
bill
does
not
does
not
speak
to
that,
but,
moreover,
when
we
look
to
the
experts,
what
they
say
is
that,
in
fact,
many
oversight
advocates
and
directors
believe
that
having
subpoena
power
serves
no
useful
purpose.
So
the
very
experts,
the
people
who
designed
these
boards-
that
we
all
now
know
and
appreciate,
are
saying
this
serves
absolutely
no
useful
purpose
whatsoever.
It's
here
in
the
national
institute
for
justice
report.
It
says
if
the
oversight
board
already
has
authority
under
garrity
versus
new
jersey.
I
They
go
on
to
say
that
trying
to
secure
subpoena
power
could
invol
involve
oversight,
planners
and
lengthy
court
battles
with
officers
unions
that
may
not
that
they
may
not
win.
In
addition,
in
the
process
of
the
litigation
planners
may
incur
significant
legal
costs
and
lasting
poor
relations
with
the
police
or
the
sheriff's
department,
although
subpoena
power
could,
in
some
limited
circumstances,
be
useful
for
forcing
citizens
to
testify
or
provide
documents,
oversight
staff
are
unlikely
to
want
to
exert
such
coercion.
I
I
We
made
sure
that,
if
we're
going
to
have
community
oversight
boards
in
tennessee
by
golly,
they're
going
to
be
the
best
ones
anywhere
in
the
country
as
defined
by
the
experts,
so
I
cannot
entertain
deviating
from
that
path
in
any
way,
shape
or
form,
and
I
hope
I've
illustrated
why
this
political
football
is
exactly
that.
It
is
it's
it's
something
to
be
able
to
go
home
and
cheer
about,
but
the
experts
are
telling
us.
It
serves
no
useful
purpose.
N
Thank
you
and
I
appreciate
your
comments
and
everything
you've
done
to
improve
this
bill.
It
doesn't
go
unnoticed
and
even
our
experts
can
improve,
which
is
what
this
bill
is
about.
It's
not
about
saying,
they're
wrong
or
right.
In
some
cases
like
you
said
it
does
work,
and
I
do
believe
we
deserve
to
have
a
conversation
to
see
how
we
can
do
something
good
and
make
it
even
better,
and
so
with
the
mr
chairman,
can
I
take
this
bill
off
notice.
N
G
G
I'm
trying
hard
not
to
look
at
representative
hardaway
he's
been
longer
than
I
have,
but
once
the
committee
begins,
there
are
several
motions
that
can
be
made
by
committee
members,
but
for
a
member
on
their
own
to
take
a
bill
off
notice.
I
have
never
seen
done
and
I
don't
think
it's
possible,
but
only
the
clerk
would
know
that
for
sure
or
representative
hardaway.
H
You,
mr
chairman,
I
do
know,
but
I
think
I
have
more
sound
way
of
of
doing
it
and
that's
to
request
the
opinion
from
the
clerk.
A
H
H
A
You
representative
hardaway,
he
is
objected,
so
we
are
now
voting
on
previous
question.
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
previous
questions
say
aye,
those
opposed.
No,
the
eyes
prevailed.
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
chairman,
I
have
a
house
bill:
zero,
zero,
zero
one
that
also
has
witnesses
who
have
driven
to
nashville
for
testimony.
H
And
since
we're
obviously
going
over,
if
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
to
the
bill
today,
which
is
a
bill,
that's
that
needs
to
move
in
the
same
fashion
as
one
of
the
bills
that
we
had
earlier,
and
I
did
not
object
to
that
bill.
Moving
out,
because
I
was
under
the
impression
that
house
bill
1
would
move
along
as
a
companion
deal.
H
So
I'm
asking,
mr
chairman
that
if
we're
not
going
to
hear
that
bill
today
that
it
will
be
set
for
the
next
calendar
in
the
number
one
spot
so
that
these
witnesses
don't
make
a
200-mile
drive
for
nothing.
And
I
know
you've
you've
tried
your
best
to
manage
the
proceedings
to
allow
time
for
that.
But
since
it
didn't
play
out,
I
would
ask
that
you
would
extend
the
courtesy
of
placing
that
bill
and
it's
the
number
one
bill
for
the
next
calendar.
A
Sir
members,
all
bills
that
were
not
taken
up
today
be
rolled
to
next
week's
calendar.
We're
adjourned.