►
Description
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee - April 21, 2021 - House Hearing Room 2
A
A
Thank
you,
madam
clerk
members.
We
are
on
item
number
two
continuing
on
item
number
two
from
yesterday.
Before
we
begin,
is
there
any
personal
orders
later
lambert.
C
A
All
right,
seeing
none
we're
going
back
on
item
number
two
house
joint
resolution,
44
by
chair
lady
hazelwood.
Without
objection,
we
will
go
back
out
of
session
to
hear
continue
in
testimony
we're
out
of
session.
Let's
see
if
we
can
get.
Let's
see
yesterday,
we
heard
from
it
if
you'll
come
back
up
the
attorney
general's
conference
sheriff
bledsoe
with
the
sheriff's
association,
tennessee
bureau
of
investigation
and
then
with
the
chiefs
of
police.
That's
maggie
duncan!
A
D
Afternoon,
chairman
and
committee
members
jimmy
music
tennessee
bureau
of
investigation.
I
know
there
was
a
lot
of
conversation
and
testimony
yesterday,
so
I
will
not
relitigate
all
the
discussion
that
was
had
then.
I
just
want
to
start
out
by
saying
that
I
mean
obviously
our
whole
business
is,
is
justice
and
trying
to
take
care
of
victims.
D
So
it's
something
that
is
important
to
us,
but
given
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
yesterday,
especially
given
what
general
crump
vocalized,
I
think,
represents
most
of
our
sentiment
here
from
the
law
enforcement
community
is
that
this
obviously
has
a
lot
of
moving
parts,
and
it's
something
that
that
we
take.
D
You
know
very
personally
and
professionally
important,
and
we
want
to
do
it
right
and-
and
there
are
some
elements
of
this-
that
our
concern
is-
we
just
don't
know
how
it
would
be
done
properly
and
that
that's
a
concern
we
want
to
do
it
right.
So
thank
you,
chairman.
E
Maggie
duncan
executive
director
for
the
tennessee
association,
she's
the
police,
and
not
to
belabor,
but
I
agree
with
mr
music
also
with
d.a
crump.
We
are
the
police
chiefs
across
the
state
and
the
law
enforcement
agencies
that
they
represent
are
concerned
with
how
we
implement
this,
and
so
without
going
into
you
know.
We've
listened
to
a
lot
of
debate,
we're
very
appreciative
of
the
the
time
that's
been
taken
on
this
issue.
We've
worked
really
diligently
on
this.
E
We
may
be
at
an
impasse,
but
we
believe
that
taking
care
of
victims
is
our
number
one
job
preventing
crime
is
another.
You
know
another
important
piece
of
our
our
jobs
and
as
we
move
forward
that
we
make
sure
that
victims
are
taken
care
of,
but
that
we
are
doing
it
correctly
and
that
we're
actually
actually
able
to
implement.
F
I'm
jeff
bledsoe
the
executive
director
for
the
tennessee
sheriff's
association,
and
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
good
afternoon
to
each
of
you.
Our
sheriffs
have
always
answered
the
call
to
protect
our
victims
and
serve
our
victims
when
that
call
comes
out
for
us
to
respond
to
a
scene
and
our
sheriffs
have
been
involved,
especially
our
association
since
the
beginning
of
this,
and
we've
been
diligent
to
be
in
all
meetings
and
spent
hours
upon
hours.
F
A
G
You,
mr
chairman,
and
and
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
being
here
today
and
and
general
crump.
I
know
you
you
spoke
yesterday,
so
thank
you.
Thank
you
also
for
being
here.
I
know
it's
kind
of
strange.
We
had
to
cut
committee
off
and
restart
so
so
thank
you
for
taking
time
just
a
comment
really
especially
to
sheriff
bloodsow,
obviously
you're
the
sheriff
or
former
sheriff
from
from
my
home
county
of
dixon
county,
and
I
have
seen
you
weep
for
victims.
G
I've
seen
you
bleed
for
victims,
and
so
so
thank
you
for
being
down
here
to
talk
about
this
important
issue.
Because
again,
as
we
talked
about
yesterday,
none
of
us
disagree
on
on
the
the
substance.
It's
just
how
do
we?
How
do
we
make
this
happen?
You
know
it's,
the
the
sentiment
is
in
the
right
spot.
It's
just
how
we
make
this
happen,
so
I
just
want
to
commend
you
because
I
know
it
puts
all
of
you
in
a
very
unenviable
place.
G
You
know
to
to
be
up
here,
testifying
on
something
that
that
we
all
we
all
want
to
see
come
to
fruition,
but
but
we
just
haven't-
haven't
made
it
to
that
point
yet.
So,
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
time
away
from
your
law
enforcement
careers
and
from
from
defending
victims
and
working
for
victims
rights
every
day
to
be
down
here
to
testify.
So
thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
everyone,
I
and
thank
you
chairman
first,
but
I
it's
very
rare
that
I'm
on
an
opposite
side
from
our
great
law
enforcement
team.
So
you
know
I
love.
You
is
and
and
appreciate
all
you
doing
appreciate
you
being
here
and
I
think
one
area
I
think
I'd
like
to
hear
more
and
I
don't
know
who
wants
to
answer
but
the
the
issue
with
the
juvenile
crime.
B
Why
is
that
seem
to
be
a
line
drawn?
And
I
guess
just
as
a
non-lawyer
non-law
enforcement,
the
crime
is
getting
worse
and,
and
god
bless
y'all,
not
any
fault
of
yours,
but
I
just
try
to
wonder
that
the
juvenile
crime
is
on
rise
and
it
just
looking
at
it
not
trying
to
be
a
pessimist.
But
I'd
like
to
hear
more
about
why
that's
something
y'all
don't
want.
H
Good
afternoon
stephen
crump,
I'm
the
district
attorney
general
of
the
10th
judicial
district,
and
I
also
serve
as
the
legislative
chair
for
the
tennessee
district
attorney's
general
conference
and
representative
moody.
You
have
been
a
remarkable
friend
to
law
enforcement
for
a
long
time
and
we
have
absolutely
no
quarrel
with
you
or
your
position
on
this
particular
piece
of
legislation.
H
In
fact,
we
don't
crawl
with
anybody
who
wants
to
improve
the
lot
and
and
the
lives
of
victims.
The
juvenile
piece
is
particularly
complicated.
It's
complicated
first
by
the
fact
that
juveniles
are
treated
significantly
differently,
just
as
a
defendant
than
an
adult
is
there
are
certain
privacy
requirements
that
go
along
with
the
juvenile
system.
H
There
is
a
very
limited
period
of
time
during
which
a
juvenile
can
be
can
be
supervised.
There
are
very
limited
means
for
recovery
of
restitution
and
then
also
there's
the
component
of
merely
manning
that
court
in
in
many
of
our
jurisdictions.
General
sessions
and
juvenile
judges
serve
in
the
same
capacity,
and
so
they
may,
on
a
in
five
day
week,
arraign
new
juveniles
on
criminal,
offenses
or
delinquent
offenses
all
five
days,
even
if
they
don't
hold
hearings,
but
for
one
day.
H
So,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
all
those,
the
first
three
really
relate
to
the
status
of
the
law
as
it
as
it
pertains
to
juveniles.
Specifically,
I
think
the
most
the
most
troublesome
thing
is
that,
for
example,
take
the
issue
of
restitution,
and
I
mentioned
that
when
I
spoke
yesterday,
restitution
under
the
marsy's
law
arrangement
victims
would
have
a
constitutional
right
to
full
and
timely
restitution
for
their
losses.
H
That
is
physically
impossible
in
many
juvenile
cases,
because
this
court
loses
supervision
and,
and
so
once
the
court
loses
supervision.
It
automatically
means
that
we
either
aren't
fulfilling
the
constitutional
mandate
to
full
and
timely
restitution
or
we're
creating
some
process
that
ignores
the
full
and
timely
restitution
process
that
has
been
enacted
in
the
constitution.
H
I'm
not
suggesting
to
you.
There
are
not
ways
to
do
that.
I
don't
sitting
here
today.
I
don't
know
what
the
answer
to
that
is,
but
that's
a
that's
an
illustration
of
how
a
remarkably
great
intent
and
something
this
body
and
the
senate
passed
a
restitution
first
bill
this
year,
which
chairman
doggett
actually
carried.
That's
a
bill
that
will
revolutionize
the
way
victims
are
treated
in
the
state.
H
H
Most
of
the
issues
in
juvenile
court
can
be
worked
out.
I'm
not
suggesting
to
you
that
there
aren't
ways
to
work
it
out,
but
fundamentally
it
will
require
more
people,
because
you're
going
to
have
to
have
somebody
there
every
day
to
be
notifying
victims
to
be
seeing
what
comes
in
you're
just
going
to
have
to
be
doing
that,
and
it's
not
as
simple
as
being
able
to
check
a
computer
docket,
because
we
could
check
a
computer
docket
and
we
could
possibly
get
an
address,
but
getting
what.
H
If
they're
detained
today
and
there's
going
to
be
a
hearing
tomorrow-
and
we
don't
have
a
way
to
get
in
touch
with
them,
we
can't
send
them
snail
mail
if
you
will
and
get
there
the
day
after
the
arraignment
occurs.
So
there
are
practical
difficulties
that
I
think
require
people
actually
in
the
courtroom.
H
From
the
district
attorney's
perspective,
law
enforcement
will
have
a
different
perspective
for
notification
because
they
will
be
the
ones
that
will
be
required
to
notify
a
victim
that
night
as
to
what
would
happen,
and
I
won't
speak
for
their
part
of
that
I'll.
Let
them
speak
for
it,
but
they
have
real
and
practical
concerns
that
will
begin
long
before
the
da's
office
is
ever
involved
in
the
case,
and
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
If
you
have
follow-ups,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
try
to
do
that.
A
Any
other
questions
representative
hardaway.
I
Thank
you
and
thank
you
again,
mr
chairman,
the
problems
that
we
have
with
the
juvenile
the
juvenile
court
issues.
I
H
I
guess,
the
one
that
we
can't
do
something
about
is
the
funding
part
of
it
and-
and
yes,
people
are
part
of
that,
but
they're
also
going
to
be
requirements
for
additional
computer
terminals
and
additional
bandwidth,
and
there
are
all
kinds
of
expenses
that
that
we
can't
appropriate
ourselves.
H
The
processes
we
can
help
work
on.
But
but
ultimately,
juvenile
court
is
a
different
animal
than
criminal
court
as
well.
It
should
be,
and
the
most
significant
offenders
out
of
juvenile
court
typically
are
treated
as
an
adult
if
they
are
transferred.
Occasionally,
they
are
not
because
they
are
not
transferred,
but
the
most
significant
cases
in
juvenile
court
from
a
victim's
perspective,
the
most
serious
cases
those
go
into
criminal
court
where
they
are
treated
differently.
And
we
don't
have
the
the
the
restraints
that
we
have
in
juvenile
court.
I
Does
anyone
else,
mr
chairman?
Anyone
else
want
to
respond
to
that,
because
what
I'm
not
hearing
is
that
yeah
we
looked
at
the
problem.
We
offered
a
solution
and
a
solution
to
me
when
you're
in
negotiations,
the
art
of
the
deal
is
have
something
in
black
and
white.
Was
there
something
offered
to
the
sponsor
madam
chair
and
did
she
have
a
counter
offer
I'm
interested
in
knowing
how
we
got
here.
H
You
all
won't
have
to
do
it
in
one
year
to
to
to
comply
with
the
constitutional
mandate.
You
could
spread
these
out
over
three
or
four
years
you
could
include
in
those
juvenile
workers.
You
could
include
in
those
the
victim
witness
coordinators,
and
I
want
to
say
to
the
committee
when
we
talk
about
funding,
we're
not
talking
about
additional
lawyers,
we're
talking
about
actually
victim
witness
coordinators
assistant
victim,
witness
coordinators.
H
From
our
perspective,
who
would
actually
be
there
on
the
ground
with
the
victims
day
in
and
day
out,
and
so
we
offered
that,
and
I
want
to
we're,
not
opposed
to
marsy's
law
as
a
concept.
We're
simply
saying
that
these
are
practical
concerns
that
we
also
will
feel
very
strongly
that
we
swore
an
oath
to
the
constitution,
and
if
the
people
of
this
state
create
a
constitutional
mandate
on
us,
we
don't
want
to
just
say:
well,
we
don't
have
the
people
to
do
it,
so
we're
not
going
to
worry
about
it.
H
Our
oath
doesn't
allow
us
to
do
that
and,
and
frankly,
that
would
be
a
cavalier
way
for
us
to
approach
what
we're
doing,
and
so
nobody
on
this
panel
has
attempted
to
sit
back
and
not
create
a
solution.
We
drafted
a
marsy's
law
version
of
law
enforcement
that
we
were
asked
to
draft
a
version
of
marcy's
law
that
had
minimal
fiscal
impact
and
that
that
did
as
much
as
we
thought
we
could
do.
We
did
that.
H
We
gave
that
to
the
sponsor
the
sponsor
and
marcy's
law
did
not
like
that
version,
and
so
I
I
don't
want
you
to
feel
like
this
has
been
a
one-way
conversation.
It's
been
a
two-way
conversation.
We
just
haven't
been
able
to
agree
on.
The
juvenile
piece
is
certainly
one
of
them,
but
but
it's
not
obviously
the
only
one.
I
Okay,
I'm
still
not
getting
a
full
picture.
You
did
a
draft
of
marcy's
law
and
presented
it
to
the
sponsor
the
sponsor
rejected.
It
was
that's
where
it
stopped.
H
Yes,
sir,
because
it
was
fundamental
differences,
it
was,
it
was
the
difference
in,
for
example,
does
this
begin
after
indictment,
as
our
current
constitutional
amendment
says,
or
does
it
expand
into
session
general
sessions,
court
and
juvenile
court?
Those
are
significant
issues
and
again
the
estimated
cost
just
from
the
district
attorney's
conference
to
to
equip
all
of
our
courtrooms
efficiently.
For
this
to
be
done
effectively
from
the
mandate
is
16
million
dollars,
but
it's
not
just
that.
H
We
tried
to
write
into
our
draft.
What
does
enforcement
mean?
What
are
the
limits
of
enforcement?
We
don't
want
a
sentence
set
aside.
We
don't
want
a
conviction
set
aside
because
of
this.
We
have
asked
consistently
for
a
long
time
for
a
definition
of
what
enforcement
would
look
like
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
that
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
anybody
has
not
dealt
with
us
fairly
on
that
issue.
I
just
think
there
are.
H
I
think
there
are
fundamental
differences
about
what
that
ought
to
look
like
their
version
says
that
we
won't
set
aside
a
conviction,
but
does
that
mean
a
sentence?
What
does
enforcement
look
like?
Does
it
mean
they
can
hire
a
lawyer
and
and
intervene?
I
mean
what
what
does
that
look
like
and
and
again
I
the
discussions
have
been
ongoing
for
18
months
between
us
and
them,
and
there
have
been
lots
of
language
drafts
back
and
forth.
There's
been
lots
of
discussions.
H
They
have,
they
have
put
together
things
that
they
thought
were
important
for
their
draft
that
we
couldn't
agree
to
for
the
reasons
I've
stated
before
that
this
is
not
something
where
these
two
parties
have
been
sitting
in
one
part
of
the
state
in
another
part
of
state
not
talking.
We
have
talked
almost
continuously
for
18
months
and
we
come
down
to
three
real
issues:
the
issues
that
I've
spoken
about,
which
are
the
expansion
to
general
sessions,
court,
the
juvenile
court
problems
and
then
the
enforcement
piece.
I
H
I'm
certain
that
a
bunch
I'm
certain
some
people
have
it
because
they've
asked
us
for
it.
I
don't
recall
you
asking
me
specifically
for
it
I'm
happy
to
present
you
with
I'm
happy
to
give
you
a
copy
of
our
version
of
it
representative,
but
I
I
don't
think
anybody
asked
me
anything
yesterday
and
so
I
I
apologize
if
I
missed
it,
but
I
don't
recall
being
asked
for
a
copy
of
it,
but
I'm
happy
to
send
it.
I
All
right,
I
made
that
statement
during
my
q,
a
with
the
judge.
H
I
All
right,
so
we
can
move
things
along
the
you
said
that
you
could
get
things
in
place
years
ahead
of
schedule,
as
opposed
to
going
with
the
diversion
and
the
schedule.
That
would
evidently
kick
in
if
we
pass
the
sponsor's
bill.
That
help
me
understand
that.
How
would
you
move
ahead
years
ahead
of
schedule
to
put
things
in
place
as
opposed
to
what
you
would
do
if
the
bill
passed
to
put
things
in
place.
H
Representative,
the
this
cannot
appear
on
the
ballot
until
2026,
for
the
people
of
the
state
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
want
to
add
it
to
the
constitution.
My
statement
was
that,
in
terms
of
the
fiscal
piece
of
this,
you
could,
over
the
next
five
years
with
the
enabling
language
that
was
created
for
this
session.
H
If
you
pass
the
enabling
language
in
this
session,
you
could
begin
the
process
of
equipping
all
of
the
courtrooms
with
the
number
of
people
that
are
going
to
be
necessary
and
then
have
them
all
in
place.
Long
before
the
people
ever
voted
on
it,
you
could
in
fact
be
doing
much
of
what
marxist
law
is
wanting,
but
it
requires
that
investment
beforehand.
H
The
position
is
not,
can
you
do
it
before
or
after
what
I'm
saying?
Is
you
don't
have
to
wait
to
pass
this,
and
what
we
want
to
avoid
is
a
situation
where
this
general
assembly
and
the
next
general
assembly
passes
it
and
the
general
assembly
after
that,
decides
it's
not
necessary
to
fund
it.
That's
the
that's.
H
The
trap
that
we're
potentially
caught
in
is
that
there
this
general
assembly
passes
it
and
the
next
general
assembly
for
constitutional
purposes
passes
it
again
and
then
the
next
general
assembly
says
we
don't
think
any
money
is
necessary
for
this,
and
so
they
don't
implement
any
fiscal
additional
resources
for
us.
So
when
I
say
that
we
could
do
it
beforehand,
I
just
mean
you
can
put
all
the
pieces
in
place
before
it
will
actually
appear
on
the
ballot
which
is
in
2026..
H
I
D
You
representative,
I
just
want
to
make
one
clarifying
comment
and
when
you
asked
about
that
timeline,
I
think
I
know
what
general
crump
was
was
saying,
but
we
had
a
meeting
on
march
11th
from
that
was
a
thursday
after
floor
session,
we
met,
we,
we
wrote
our
draft
over
the
weekend
and
got
it
to
the
sponsor
on
monday.
They
did
produce
another
draft
after
that.
I
think
we
got
it
two
weeks
later,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
understood
it
did
not
end
on
that
monday
after
we
sent
that
all
right.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
asked
the
judge
this
yesterday
and
she
didn't
know,
and
I
don't
know
which
one
of
y'all
would
respond
would
like
to
respond,
but
I
asked
her
what
was
the
difference
between
tennessee's
law
on
victim
notification
today
as
compared
with
what
they
were
requesting
in
marcy's
law
for
victim
notification?
Can
anyone
address
that.
H
I
think
I
think
we'll
each
address
it
a
little
bit
differently,
because
we
each
have
different
components
from
the
state's
perspective.
It
would
involve
from
the
initial
appearance,
a
notification
prior
to
that
initial
appearance
at
arraignment
and
then
at
bond
hearing
in
general
sessions,
court
or
initial
appearance
in
juvenile
court.
We
currently
are
not
doing
that.
What
we're
currently
doing
in
tennessee
is
once
a
case
is
indicted,
presented
or
or
opened
by
information
the
according
to
the
tennessee
constitution.
H
H
Initial
appearance
in
a
juvenile
proceeding,
but
it
would
begin
in
general
sessions,
then
each
time
there
was
either
a
continuance
or
a
hearing
of
any
kind
additional
notifications
in
general
sessions
court
and
to
give
some
sense
of
a
difference
that
takes
the
the
case,
count
that
we
currently
manage
from
about
250
000
cases
a
year
statewide
to
about
1.3
million
cases
a
year.
H
That
could
increase
from
that
number
depending
upon
how
a
victim
was
categorized.
For
example,
if
a
victim
of
crime
was
defined
as
somebody
who
is
indirect,
who
is
directly
who
directly
suffers
as
a
result
of
it,
you
could
be.
Somebody
borrows
a
car
from
another
person
and
is
in
a
wreck
because
of
a
dui.
That
person
could
end
up
being
a
victim
and
again
not
suggesting.
We
don't
want
to
talk
to
that
person.
Just
saying
that
expands
the
number,
as
the
definition
expands.
F
Representative
beck,
we
only
have
one
system
currently
that
helps
to
identify
for
our
victims
and
that's
administered
by
the
tennessee
sheriff's
association.
That's
7,
which
stands
for
the
statewide,
automated
victim
information
notification
system,
which
a
person
can
register
and
sign
up
for
that,
but
it
does
not
apply
to
juvenile
criminals
at
this
point
because
of
all
the
protections
and
privacy
and
confidentiality.
That's
that
umbrella,
that
is
placed
over
the
juvenile
court
at
this
time.
So
we
would
have
to
expand
that
and
change
the
laws
to
pull
the
juvenile
offenders
in.
F
Yes,
sir,
it's
through
any
of
the
court
system,
it
begins
upon
booking.
Once
that
person
is
entered
into
the
booking
system
and
all
95
counties
participate,
you
can
go
online
register,
it
can
send
you
a
text
message
or
an
email
or
a
phone
call
to
let
you
know
on
three
parameters:
whether
that
person
is
released
from
custody
or
they're
transferred
to
another
facility
or
they're
transferred
out
for
court
or
they
escape
custody.
So
there's
three
parameters
that
would
give
notification.
K
Full
disclosure,
general
crump,
is
my
district
attorney
and
I
have
observed
firsthand
the
job
that
his
office
does
and
they
do
a,
I
think,
an
outstanding
job
with
the
resources
they
have
available
in
taking
care
of
victims
rights
in
district
10..
It's
it's
commendable
and
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
that
no
one
before
us
today
or
no
one
on
this
diaz
is
opposed
to
enhancing
victims
rights.
I
think
everybody
agrees
on
that.
K
I
think
the
problem
comes
in
in
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
details
and
I've
done
a
lot
of
study
about
this
done.
Some
research
done.
Some
reading
listened
to
what
other
states
have
done
and,
of
course
we
have
various
avenues
through
which
we
can
find
out
how
it's
working
in
other
states.
We've
heard
a
lot
about
oklahoma.
During
testimony
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
we
had,
I
believe,
a
professor
from
oklahoma
has
told
us
what
a
good
job
he
was
doing.
I
was
working
in
oklahoma.
K
I
found
that
interesting,
and
I
have
a
quote
here
from
mr
chairman.
If
I
may
read
this,
if
you
don't
mind,
his
name
is
trent
baggett
he's
the
executive
coordinator
with
the
district
attorney's
council
of
oklahoma.
K
K
Recently,
I
heard
that
it
is
also
starting
a
cottage
industry
in
the
defense
bar
to
sue
on
behalf
of
victims
that
their
rights
have
been
infringed
upon.
We
are
experiencing
growing
pains
with
the
implementation
of
marxist
law.
We
certainly
want
to
abide
by
the
law
and
not
be
a
thorn
in
the
side
of
victims.
K
I
also
know
that
when
a
prosecutor
has
500
plus
new
cases
each
year,
there
are
only
so
many
hours
in
a
day
in
the
quote,
and
I
think
that's
what
I
hear
my
general
saying
and
what
the
witnesses
are
saying
here.
We
want
to
do
the
best
we
can
for
victims,
but
we
want
to
do
it
right
and
we
don't
want
to
be
caught
in
a
trap
like
oklahoma,
and
I
hear
a
similar
situation
in
florida,
similar
situation
in
kentucky
where
they
said.
Let's
do
this,
but
there
was
no
implementation,
a
language
and
no
resources.
K
Given
I
want
to
do
this,
but
I
want
to
do
it
right
and
that's
the
job
of
the
subcommittee
is
is
to
make
sure
that
we
pass
good
policy
and
I
think
that's
why
I've
enjoyed
hearing
this
compelling
testimony.
My
heart
grieves
for
the
victims,
there's
nothing
at
all
that
we
can
do
now
for
the
victims
in
the
past,
but
there
is
something
we
can
do
about
the
victims
in
the
future,
but
it's
incumbent
upon
us
that
we
do
it
right
and-
and
that's
why
I
feel
like
this-
does
need
further
study
and
further
work.
A
Thank
you,
representative
moody.
B
D
I'll
take
a
stab.
I
don't
know
that
I've
got
a
good
answer
for
you
except
you
know.
There
was
a
previous
version
that
did
have
some
definition
of
a
victim
that-
and
I
just
don't
know
because
you
know
if
you
looked
at
that
one
and
I
don't
want
to
get
on
a
side
bar
about
something-
that's
not
in
what's
before
you
all
now,
but
it
could
be
very
expansive
or
very
narrow.
E
Representative
moody,
the
current
constitutional
bill
of
rights,
has
a
victim
in
it
and
there's
no
definition
of
it,
but
because
the
from
a
notification
standpoint
and
and
and
in
all
the
cases
that
we've
been
talking
about,
happens
after
indictment,
then
it's
more
defined
from
that
aspect.
I
would
say
so
that's
how
we
currently
handle
things,
and
so
we
don't
currently
limit
specific
types
of
victims,
because
we
treat
we
try
to
treat
every
victim
equally.
H
I
was
going
to
say
that
our
office,
the
way
we
do
it
is
each
assistant-
is
required
to
review
the
file
and
determine
what
losses
have
been
suffered
by
a
victim.
Obviously,
in
a
crime
against
a
person.
That's
that's
easy
typically,
but
in
in
a
property
crime
it
can
be
more
complicated,
and
so
we
don't.
We
don't
go
by
a
standard,
necessarily
definition,
because
it's
hard
to
say,
and
sometimes
for
example,
if
if
there
is
insurance
involved,
while
you
may
have
a
victim,
that's
an
insurance
company.
H
The
general
assembly
has
said
they
can't
be
treated
as
a
victim.
So
even
though
they
have
a
direct
loss
because
they
paid
for
the
damages
to
somebody's
vehicle
or
somebody's
medical
bills
or
whatever
they
can't
be
reimbursed,
and
so
that
also
complicates
what
is
a
victim
and
what
is
not
a
victim
when
it
comes
to
saying
a
victim.
Has
a
constitutional
right,
for
example,
again
to
restitution.
A
L
Well,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
know
that
a
great
deal
of
time
in
this
committee
has
been
spent
on
this,
and
I
appreciate
it.
I'm
not
going
to
go
back
through
what
what
marcy's
law
does.
I
think
we
have
everybody
here
has
a
pretty
clear
understanding
of
that,
but
I
do
want
to
make
a
couple
of
points
about
it
before
I.
You
know
attempt
to
respond
to
some
of
the
points
that
were
made
here
during
various
testimonies.
L
First
of
all,
marcy's
law-
I'm
really
am
proud,
and
I
know
that
everybody
on
this
committee-
I
think
everybody
in
this
legislature,
is-
wants
to
protect
and
make
sure
that
victims
are
taken
care
of.
I
don't
think,
there's
any
question
about
that.
We
have
some
good
legislation.
We
have
a
constitutional
amendment
that
addresses
victims
rights
already
in
our
constitution.
L
L
The
answer
is
because
that
is,
can
easily
be
changed
by
future
legislators.
I
don't
think
it's
hard
to
see
which
way
the
wind
is
blowing
in
terms
of
whose
rights
are
getting
the
most
attention
at
this
point,
and
I
think
most
of
us
would
agree
that
the
perpetrator
of
the
crime
is
sometimes
getting
a
lot
more
leeway
than
the
victim
of
the
crime.
So
it's
important
that
we
get
this
in
the
constitution
as
we
see
from
this
process,
that's
very
difficult
to
do
a
constitutional
amendment.
L
You
know
this
is
the
poster
child
for
that,
and
it
shouldn't
be
easy
to
do,
but
again
the
need
for
it
that
that
is
why
we
need
to
make
sure
that
victims
rights
are
protected
in
perpetuity
and
that
they're
protected
too.
A
lot
of
things
have
changed
since
1998
in
terms
of
how
we
communicate
there
are
conversations
about
how
we
notify,
whatever
not
very
many
people
left
in
this
country
above
the
age
of
eight.
L
L
L
Let
me
try
to
make
people
understand
how
I've
been
impacted
by
whatever
crime
that
it
is,
but
what
I
really
all
the
conversation
that
I've
that
we
have
heard
for
the
past
two
days
and
even
prior
to
I
want
us
to
remember.
I
think
we're
getting
some
things
kind
of
melded
together
that
are
actually
separate.
We're
talking
here
about
a
constitutional
amendment.
L
L
The
constitutional
amendment
is
an
overview,
that's
what
marcy's
law
would
do
and,
as
the
judge
made
I
mentioned
in
her
testimony
yesterday
and
as
was
mentioned
here
by
some
other
folks
in
testimony,
we
have
six
years
to
get
it
right,
but
we
don't
need
to
wait
six
years
to
get
it
right
and
then
do
the
constitutional
amendment
the
earliest
that
this
can
be
on
the
ballot
is
2022
and
not
the
next
gubernatorial
election,
but
the
one
after
that.
So
we
have
this
time
and
in
multiple
meetings
I
have
asked.
L
I
have
requested
marcy's
law
and
I
you
guys
know
I
am
definitely
not
an
attorney,
so
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
draft
enabling
language.
I
have
asked
the
folks
that
were
up
here
previously
to
do
that
and
what
I
have
asked
them
to
do.
What
I'm
asking
you
to
do
is
to
allow
these
things
to
move
on
parallel
tracks.
L
We
have
an
opportunity
to
move
marcy's
law
forward
at
the
same
time,
and
you
have
my
commitment
and
the
commitment,
I
think,
of
other
supporters
of
marcy's
law,
that
we
will
work
to
make
sure
that
statut
the
statutes
that
are
necessary
to
make
it
work
or
in
place
and
we'll
work
on
the
funding,
because
nobody
denies
that
there
will
be
funding
issues.
I
think
a
lot
of
that
funding
is
to
be
determined
based
on
things
like
the
definition
of
a
victim
that
discussion.
L
We
had
a
little
bit
of
that
here
and
I
would
point
out
that
at
one
point
we
had
the
definition
of
a
victim
was
in
the
marsy's
law
that
would
have
narrowed
that
definition
and
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
about
personnel
required
and
that
sort
of
thing
we
took
that
out.
At
the
request
of
the
other
side.
L
We
also
we
keep
hearing
that
we
had
that
it.
It
needs
to
be.
The
problem.
Is
the
implementation
everybody's
good
with
the
idea?
The
problem
is
the
implementation.
Again.
I
come
back
to
the
fact
that
is
for
this
committee
and
all
of
us
in
the
legislative
legislature
to
work
through
during
the
six
years.
But
again
I'm
asking
you
on
behalf
of
the
victims
that
testified
yesterday
on
behalf
of
all
the
other
victims
that
are
not
here
and
can't
be
here,
some
who
are
no
longer
walking
this
earth
because
of
horrendous
situations.
L
We
have
sort
of
a
circular
argument
going
because
then
there
was
testimony-
and
I
will
tell
you
this
is
very
tendency
specific,
because
we've
been
working
on
it
for
18
months
to
make
it
so
marcy's
law,
as
written
that
you
are
looking
at,
is
not
the
same
as
marcy's
law
in
other
states,
because
tennessee
is
not
the
same.
We've
worked
very
hard
on
that
issue
to
make
it
tennessee
specific
and
when
I
really,
if
you
really
listen
to
a
lot
of
the
discussion
and
a
lot
of
the
argument,
this
comes
down
to
money.
L
I
mean
that
is
the
bottom
line
and,
as
the
judge
mentioned
yesterday,
nobody
says
to
the
defendant.
We
don't
have
enough
money
to
afford
you
your
rights.
I
don't
think
we
should
say
that
to
the
victim
either.
This
should
be
doing
about
the
right
thing:
taking
care
of
victims,
giving
them
a
voice.
That
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
I
think
we
can
figure
it
out.
L
A
C
Hey,
mr
chairman,
just
a
general
comment
and
to
the
sponsor
I've
watched
you
literally,
you
know,
negotiate
as
part
of
the
budget
process,
a
multi-billion
dollar
budget.
I've
watched
you
involved
in
a
multitude
of
different
bills
and
there's
rarely
a
time
that
I've
seen
you
put
more
energy
or
passion
or
effort
into
an
issue
other
than
this.
So
I
say
this
for
the
advocates
of
this
particular
bill.
C
You
could
have
possibly
picked
a
better
sponsor
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
out
loud,
because
I
know
this
is
something
that
is
extraordinarily
important
to
you
and
I,
you
know,
don't
know
exactly
what
the
vote
will
be
today,
but
I
know
that
this
is
something
that
is
a
lifelong
pursuit
for
you
to
make
sure
to
support
these
victims
and
in
this
bill
and
any
other
bill.
And
so
I
just
really
really
appreciate
that.
C
I
say
that
as
your
friend
and
as
your
colleague,
we
see
a
lot
of
folks
coming
to
this
committee
and
there
are
folks
that
sometimes
we
see
come
to
the
podium
and
it's
clear
that
they
are
carrying
a
bill
for
somebody
else
or
something
that
you
know.
Somebody's
asked
them
to
do,
but
sometimes
honestly,
you
can
kind
of
tell
that
somebody's
heart's
not
into
it.
J
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
I
share
chair
lady
hazelwood's
concerns
and
interest
in
this.
I
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
for
tennessee.
I
also
hear
the
concerns
of
law
enforcement
and
district
attorneys
about
implementation.
J
A
I
I
Why
is
it
we
can't
get
started
now
on
the
amendment
now
I
was
unsure,
but
general
crump
tells
me
that
there
has
already
been
written
proposals
back
and
forth.
I
didn't
get
my
hands
on
any,
which
suggests
to
me
that
we're
already
making
progress
on
that.
If
we
have
a
deadline,
we
have
a
deadline.
I
If
it
comes
time
to
implement
it,
I
see
no
reason
why
the
same
folks
who
may
or
may
not
decide
to
move
it
forward,
wouldn't
have
the
the
the
common
sense
to
put
the
statute
and
I'm
assuming
most
of
that
would
have
to
come
through
here
in
place
in
a
timely
fashion.
I
I
set
mr
chairman,
listening
to
the
george
floyd
trial
yesterday,
not
the
trial
but
the
the
actual
verdict,
and,
along
that
same
time,
I
received
a
couple
of
messages
from
domestic
violence,
victims.
I
It's
like
they
wrote
it
okay
and
then
looking
at
the
family
of
floyd
and
their
expressions
understanding
how
they
were
able
to
keep
up
with
the
proceedings.
A
lot
of
that
because
of
the
the
glare
of
the
cameras
and
the
notoriety
of
the
the
the
case
itself-
and
it
got
me
to
thinking
about
justice
delayed-
is
justice
denied.
I
After
listening
to
those
ladies
who
braved
the
the
what
some
would
say
is
embarrassment,
some
would
say,
exposure
and
the
misfortune
of
being
on
record
forever
reciting
their
experiences
after
listening
to
them.
I
Let's
get
it
started
and
fill
in
the
blanks
so
that,
if
it's
a
successful
amendment
to
the
constitution,
that
things
will
be
in
place,
everyone
on
this,
this
committee
understands
their
duties.
I
They
understand
the
challenges
that
come
with
budgeting
you're,
an
expert
on
that,
madam
chair,
so
I'm
having
a
difficult
time
delaying
any
thing
that
will
give
the
rights
give
that
comfort,
that
peace
of
mind,
that
safety
to
victims
and
their
families,
and
after
listening
to
the
the
explanation
from
general
crump
that
yeah
we
are
moving
along
and
we
have
plans
we
have
negotiations,
we've
got
documents
flying
back
and
forth.
I
I
don't
see
why
we
can't
do
it
I'll
still
wait
until
the
actual
vote
to
make
up
my
mind,
but
I've
moved
and
grown
since
yesterday,
and
I
that
phrase,
mr
chairman
justice
delayed,
is
justice
denied.
I
just
can't
with
good
conscience,
sit
here
and
and
not
contemplate
whether
the
full
measure
of
justice.
A
Question
on
bill
question
has
been
called
any
objection,
seeing
none.
We
will
now
be
voting
on
sending
hjr
44
as
amended
on
the
full
criminal.
Madam
clerk
take
the
road.
B
A
I
A
The
special
calendars,
because
the
bill
this
posture
had
been
rolled
to
its
third
and
final
role,
that
it
had
for
calendaring,
and
so
there's
only
two
things
that
it
could
have
done.
It
could
have
passed
on
to
the
next
committee
or,
if
it
failed,
it
could
have.
It
would
go
automatically
to
the
special
calendar
in
which,
from
that
point
it
will
be
referred
back
to
the
clerk's
desk
because
it
had
been
rolled
three
times
onto
this
final
calendar.
There
is
no
opportunity
for
a
summer
study,
motion
or
other
motion
for
that
matter.
A
A
By
representative
lynn,
just
taken
off
notice.
A
A
Item
number
eight
house
bill:
673
that
objection
will
roll
to
the
first
calendar
of
2022.
G
G
What's
going
on
in
our
criminal
justice
system,
we're
talking
about
all
manner
of
reforms
and
these
next
two
bills
house
bill
897
and
the
one
following
it
were
brought
to
me
by
senate,
sponsor
who
was
very
interested
in
digging
into
this
issue,
and
I
I
believe,
as
I
think
that
senator
believes
that,
when
we're
looking
at
pretrial
when
we're
looking
at
the
issues
surrounding
our
criminal
justice
system
to
me,
there's
there's
not
one
thing:
there's
a
million
little
things
that
contribute
to
the
overcrowding
in
our
jails
and
and
the
other
things
that
that
plague
our
criminal
justice
system,
and
so
these
next
two
bills
deal
with
one
particular
topic
that
I
think
needs
a
much
longer
discussion,
and
so,
in
conjunction
with
the
body
down
the
hall,
I
would
ask
that
we
move
house
bill
897
to
summer
study.
A
All
right
members
without
objection
said
summer
study.
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
same
same
applause.
Here
this
is
on
the
same
topic
and
again
not
there's
not
one.
One
thing
here
that
I
think
we
can
put
there's
there's,
there's
a
lot
of
issues
that
we
need
to
discuss
and
so
again,
in
conjunction
with
my
senate,
sponsor,
I
would
ask
this
be
moved
to
summer
study.
A
G
Thank
you
committee.
I
want
to
make
sure.
G
Thank
you
very
much
give
me
one
second,.
G
This
partnership
resulted
in
the
governor's
use
of
force
policy
committee,
which
issued
recommendations
on
september,
the
10th
2020
in
the
form
of
a
sample
use
of
force
policy
for
law
enforcement
agencies
to
adopt
across
the
state.
This
bill,
as
amended,
seeks
to
codify
these
best
practices
to
ensure
that
the
men
and
women
of
law
enforcement
continue
to
excel
in
their
role
of
keeping
tennesseans
safe,
and
I
want
to
say
that
in
tennessee
we
lead,
we
have
a
history
of
leading.
G
I
want
us
to
continue
to
lead
and,
as
I
spoke
with
members
of
law
enforcement
from
across
the
state
on
this
issue,
what
many
of
them
said
was
representative.
We
don't.
We
don't,
engage
in
a
lot
of
these
practices.
Our
local
policies
and
procedures
say
that
we
cannot
engage
in
these
practices,
and
so
the
request
was
actually
that
we
have
a
piece
of
legislation
that
codified
a
statewide
standard
to
show
that
tennessee
leads
and
that's
exactly
what
this
is
today.
G
This
is
this
is
a
way
to
show
the
rest
of
the
country.
How
how
we
truly
are
leaders
in
in
this
and
many
other
areas
when
it
comes
to
law
enforcement,
and
I
would
happy
to
take
any
questions,
but
I
seek
passage
of
the
of
this
amendment.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
We're
on
the
amendment.
Any
questions
for
the
sponsor
on
the
amendment
question's
been
called
any
objection.
Seeing
now
we're
now
voting
to
add
amendment
code
4896
on
the
house
bill
1406,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
those
opposed.
No,
the
ice
prevailed
you
adopt.
We
are
now
on
house
bill
1406
as
amended.
C
Hey,
mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
we've
we've
talked
about
this
for
phil
bill
before
I
am
fully
in
favor
of
every
aspect
of
it,
except
for
I
believe
it's
section,
five,
the
very
last
section
that
deals
with
no
knock
warrants
these
are
rarely
rarely
ever
used.
I
would
have
preferred
a
bill
and
you've
done
the
labor
on
this.
You've
worked
with
all
the
groups
law
enforcement
is
in
favor
of
this.
They
do
not
have
any
objections.
C
C
It
would
have
been
my
preference
if
we
would
have
been
able
to
put
some
very,
very
stringent
guard
rails
on
that
process
and
say
that
only
in
an
instance
where
a
where
the
subject
of
a
search
warrant
has
made
a
direct
threat
toward
law
enforcement
in
the
situations
that
I'm
talking
about
are
when
you
have
someone
who
is
actively
out
on
social
media
or
has
been
has
made
statements
to
others
that
they
will
kill
the
next
officer
that
comes
through
the
door
or
tries
to
arrest
them
and
circumstances
like
that.
C
A
no
knock
warrant
I
feel
like,
would
be
a
pro
appropriate.
This
bill
does
ban
no
knock
warrants
completely.
I
understand
the
policy
provision
on
that
again.
I
support
every
aspect
of
the
bill,
except
that
one.
I
merely
wanted
to
point
that
out
that
you
have
worked
with
law
enforcement.
They
are
all
well
in
favor
of
this
and
that
that
is
the
only
provision
of
this
bill
that
I
have
any
concern
about
whatsoever
and
just
wanted
to
state
that
publicly.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
your
leadership
on
this
issue.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
leader,
lamberth,
and
I
know
that
that's.
That
is
an
issue
that
that
you've
brought
forward
and
that
we've
spoken
about
with
law
enforcement.
G
So
I
do
appreciate
you
you
voicing
that
we
do
feel
like
this
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
again
this
was
an
effort
that
we
wanted
to
bring
forward
as
a
way
to
work
with
law
enforcement,
to
show
that
we
are
doing
things
right
and
so,
but
but
I
I
very
very
much
appreciate
your
leadership
and
and
your
and
your
comments.
J
For
that
representative
griffey,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
sponsor
bringing
it
and
leader
lambert
for
the
confirmation.
I
think
law
enforcement
indicated.
They
don't
have
any
problems
or
concerns
with
the
legislation
is
just
drafted
and
based
upon
that
I'll,
be
supporting
your
legislation.
So
thank
you,
representative.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
to
the
sponsor.
This
build
is
pretty
much
my
christmas
wish
list
and
that's
yeah,
and
that
sandwich
the
I
think
in
in
the
the
climate
that
we're
in.
I
I
think,
without
that
trust
factor,
neither
law
enforcement
nor
the
citizens
are
as
safe
as
they
could
be.
Law
enforcement
can't
properly
do
its
job
without
the
trust
of
the
citizens,
and
vice
versa,
that
communications
and
intelligence
exchange,
and
sometimes
the
actual
physical
protection
of
one
for
the
other
is
necessary.
I
So
I
thank
the
sponsor
this.
This
hits
a
lot
of
these
spots.
It
fills
in
a
lot
of
the
blanks
that
has
kept
the
community
in
turmoil.
If
there's
anything
that
we
need
to
understand.
I
After
seeing
the
national
displays
of
not
intentional
all
the
time,
sometimes
mistakes
are
made
in
the
field.
The
fewer
opportunities
there
are
to
make
a
mistake.
I
think
the
safer
our
law
enforcement
agencies
are
going
to
find
their
members
are,
I
think,
the
safer
we're
going
to
find
our
citizens
are.
So
I
thank
the
sponsor
these
safeguards.
I
The
way
that
we
spell
things
out
gives
us
uniform
expectations
across
the
state
of
tennessee
on
what
citizens
should
expect,
and
law
enforcement
has
a
pretty
good
idea
of
how
to
direct
their
actions.
So
I
thank
the
sponsor.
I'm
definitely
supporting
it,
of
course,
like
leta
lambert,
I
could
fine-tune
it,
but
I'm
going
with
this
because
I
believe
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
for
the
citizens
and
it's
right
thing
to
do
for
our
law
enforcement
agencies,
our
agents,
our
officers,
especially
those
in
the
field.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members.
I
just
want
to
say,
and
thank
you
for
your
comments
representative,
but
I'll.
Tell
you
what's
on
my
christmas
list
and
everybody
else's
is
to
see
a
day
when
everyone
has
an
equal
respect
for
each
other,
whether
that's
a
member
of
law
enforcement
or
member
of
the
member
of
the
public,
and
that
we
can
all
see
tennesseans
being
as
safe
as
possible,
and
that's
what
this
committee
works
very
very
hard
to
do
every
day.
G
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
this
legislative
body
is
is
consistently
voted.
One
of
the
most
conservative
legislative
bodies
in
the
nation,
if
not
the
most
conservative
legislative
body
in
the
nation
and
this
bill
did
pass
the
senate
with
32
eyes
and
no
nays
came
down
a
senate
judiciary
with
with
no
no
votes.
So
this
again
is
a
way
that
we
can
show
the
nation
that
tennessee
leads
and
we
continue
to
lead.
And
so
again
with
that,
I
move
passage.
A
A
G
G
I
won't
re-litigate
that
bill,
but
I
just
want
to
paint
a
picture
of
what
we
did
last
year
and
I
thank
the
members
of
this
body
for
for
at
least
listening
to
that
and
involving
themselves
in
that
debate
in
that
discussion.
Not
everyone
supported
it,
but
it
did
pass
both
chambers
and
was
signed
into
law
by
the
governor.
This
discussion
here
is
about
what
happens
with
those
right
at
500
folks
who
are
sitting
in
prison
under
that
old
system.
That
does
not
exist
anymore.
Let
me
be
the
first
to
say:
all
of
them
did
wrong.
G
Every
single
one
of
them
broke
the
law.
I
am
not
advocating
for
any
sort
of
broad
clemency,
I'm
not
advocating
for
a
get
out
of
jail
free
card.
I
do
not
think
that
every
single
person
that
happens
to
have
been
incarcerated
under
that
old
law
was
was
otherwise
completely
innocent.
I
realized
there
are
multiple
charges
on
a
lot
of
those
folks,
I
will
say
there's
about
48
of
them
who
are
serving,
and
that
is
their
only
charge
and
it
was
their
first
time
offense,
but
for
most
of
them,
that
is
not
the
case.
G
G
We
can
pull
the
the
data
from
tdoc,
we
know
exactly
who
they
are.
We
know
what
those
cases
are,
but
this
this
amendment
would
seek
to
create
a
process
whereby
those
cases
could
be
reviewed
and
in
many
cases
after
following
that
review,
the
parole
board
or
the
court
whomever
we
go
to
could
very
well
make
the
determination
that
they
need.
They
need
to
stay
right
where
they
are
for
as
long
as
we
sent
them
there,
but
in
other
cases
they
may
say
no.
This
was
this
was
too
much.
G
The
punishment
did
not
fit
the
crime,
but
I
also
think
that
this
idea
needs
much
more
discussion
and
so
with
that
one
second.
J
A
We
will
need
a
motion
in
a
second
on
that.
First,
you
have
a
motion
and
second
representative
griffey.
It
cannot
go.
You
can't
roll
it
because
of
the
number
of
roles
that
is
taken.
It'll
have
to
go
to
the
special
calendar,
so
you
can
either
you
can
take
it
off.
A
Next
item
house
bill
1312
item
number
18
1312
by
representative
hardaway
or
excuse
me
I'm
sorry.
Thank
you.
I'm
out
of
service
again
house
bill
1321
by
representative
hardaway.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
house,
bill
1321,
it's
pretty
simple,
but
it's
going
to
have
a
strong
impact
on
the
community.
It
speaks
to
reckless
endangerment
in
terms
of
those
who
are
shooting
into
crowds
of
two
or
more.
I
It
also
speaks
to
the
those
who
would
shoot
from
within
a
motor
vehicle
into
a
motor
vehicle.
One
of
the
things
that
I
couldn't
believe
is
you
could
have
this
type
of
road
rage
and
drive-by
shootings
and
still
keep
your
driver's
license
or
go
get
a
driver's
license.
I
So
that's
in
here
that
five
years
from
the
conviction
that
of
under
this
statute
that
you
would
not
be
eligible
for
a
driver's
license,
except
as
under
the
amendment
mr
chairman,
which
we
did
put
on,
I
don't
believe
which
was
the
untimely
filed
amendment.
A
Okay,
represent
farmer.
J
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
members
to
know.
I
looked
at
this.
I
believe
this
was
rolled
in
2022
in
the
senate,
and
I
think
that,
since
it
was
untimely,
I
believe
department
of
safety
wanted
to
speak
on.
It,
however,
wasn't
able
to
because
they
have
issues
with
that.
This
is
going
to
issue
a
new
class
of
driver's
license.
J
I
I
C
C
I
have
a
motion
that
I
would
like
to
make
unless
the
member
would
potentially
consider
that
themselves,
but
it,
I
think,
would
be
most
appropriate
to
put
this
in
the
same
posture
where
all
the
rest
of
the
bills
that
were
deferred
in
the
senate
to
2022
potentially
went.
But
I
would
I
don't
want
to
do
that
without
at
least
hearing
from
the
sponsor
of
the
legislation.
I
I
believe
that,
for
the
sake
of
making
the
the
amendment
available
to
the
public
that
we
put
it
on
and
after
that,
mr
chairman,
I
would
ask
that
you
asked
the
committee
to
move
the
bill
to
the
first
calendar
of
2022..
A
Okay,
we
are
on
the
motion
to
consider
the
amendment,
so
we
will
need
a
vote
on
that.
Okay,
you
have
a
motion.
Second,
all
right.
Those
in
favor
of
the
untimely
filed
amendment
for
consideration
say
aye
as
opposed.
No.
The
eyes
prevailed
now
we're
on
amendment
code,
seven,
four,
three:
four
by
representative
hardaway
question:
the
question
has
been
called
on.
The
amendment
well,
he'll
need
a
motion
in
a
second
okay.
You
recognize
on
the
moment
now.
Question
has
been
called
all
right.
A
A
J
I'm
kind
of
shocked,
I
thought
that
they
would
have
already
been
covered
under
first
responders,
so
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Question
has
been
called
any
objection,
seeing
no
we're
now
voting
to
send
house
bill
864
on
the
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
as
opposed.
No,
the
ice
prevailed,
move
on
the
full
criminal.
Thank
you.
Chair
committee
item
number
11
house,
bill
1308
by
representative
chisholm
motion
and
second
you're
recognized.
Thank
you
chairing
committee.
J
This
bill
prohibits
the
application
of
bill
bond
deposit
made
by
or
behalf
of
a
defendant
to
the
payment
of
a
judgment
or
fine
or
court
cost.
A
A
M
Thank
you
chairman
in
committee.
This
bill
does
have
an
amendment
that
makes
the
bill
it's
amendments
number
6819,.
M
Okay,
you
recognized
on
the
amendment
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee,
and
I
appreciate
the
patience
of
this
committee
of
on
this
particular
bill.
In
current
code
aggravated
cruelty
to
a
domestic
animal
or
a
companion.
Animal
is
defined
as
an
act,
that's
done
or
carried
out
in
a
depraved
and
sadistic
manner
in
which
tortures
are
mames
and
animal,
including
the
failure
to
provide
food
and
water
to
a
companion,
animal
resulting
in
substantial
risk
of
death
or
death
in
its
original
form
unamended.
A
Thank
you
very
much
leader,
lambert,
you're
recognized.
Thank
you.
C
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
coming
back
to
subcommittee
on
this
bill
and
amending
it
to
catch.
What
would
have
been,
I
think,
a
pretty
egregious
error.
That
is
not
your
intention,
where
substantial
risk
of
harm
had
been
left
out
of
the
mandatory
language
that
would
have
again
did
the
opposite
of
what
you're
intending
and
would
have
allowed
for
some
animal
abusers
not
to
be
prosecuted,
and
so
I
thank
you
for
coming
back
to
this
subcommittee.
That's
what
the
committee
system
is
for
is
to
make
sure
that
we
get
it
right.
A
M
A
A
M
A
J
A
Question
has
been
called
on
that
amendment.
Any
objection
cnn
will
vote
to
add
this
amendment
6228
on
the
house
bill
924,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye.
Those
opposed
eyes
prevail.
You
adopt.
We
have
folks
that
are
here
to
testify.
Do
you
wish
to
call
them
up
and
question
has
been
called
on
the
bill?
A
Any
objection
for
that
point
of
order.
Yes,
can
we
withdraw
the
question?
Okay,
motion's
been
withdrawal.
F
J
Town
that
there
was
a
certain
representative
last
name
rob
that
was
in
a
coffee
shop
this
morning
and
was
asked
if
he
resembled
a
very
popular.
J
A
A
A
Item
number
17
house
bill
803
by
representative
griffey,
will
be
sent
back
to
the
clerk's
desk
members
from
all
indications,
unless
someone
else
has
a
bill
in
their
pocket
that
they're
about
to
pull
out.
I
think
that
we
have
completed
our
calendars.
C
Mr
chairman,
if
I
may
be
recognized
in
fact,
I'm
going
to
go
insist
on
being
recognized
whether
you
recognize
me
or
not.
Here
sure
I
don't
have
a
bill,
but
I
will
tell
you
that
every
single
member
of
this
committee
and
and
we've
been
talking
about
you
when
you
run
around,
have
admired
how
you've
done.
I
mean
you've
done
a
phenomenal
job
on
this
committee.
I
know
it
was
your
first
year
chairing
a
subcommittee,
but
you
really
really
really
have
done
the
hard
work.
G
Okay,
jeremy
curcio.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
I
want
to
echo
that
it's
been
a
pleasure
getting
to
work
with
you
this
year.
Thank
you
for
not
sending
me
bad
bills
to
the
full
committee.
I
really
appreciate
that,
but
no
in
all
seriousness,
doing
a
fantastic
job.
Thank
you
for
the
work
you've
put
into
this.
Everybody
who
serves
on
this
committee
or
or
the
civil
justice
committee
knows
this.
These
are
working
committees
and
you
know
you
can't
you
can't
phone
these
in.
G
So
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you've
done
extra
hours
and
also
like
me,
you
go
home
every
night,
it's
a
long
drive,
and
so
I
know
you
put
a
lot
into
this
a
lot
more
than
than
what
the
what
the
pay
reflects
and
people
say
this
is
a
part-time
job.
It
certainly
is
not
so
congratulations
on
a
great
year.
Well,.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
I
will
say
that
this
is.
I
would
put
this
committee
up
against
anybody
that
I've
really
really
enjoyed
being
serving
on
this
committee
with
all
you,
it's
a
team
of
all-stars.
I
honestly
believe
it,
and
so
I
I
would
say
that
any
criminal
justice
subcommittee
across
this
country
that
we
we
outwork
them
and
could
outdo
them.
I
honestly
believe
that.
So
thank
you
all
for
working
with
me
and
helping
me
for
all
those
times
that
I
go
out
of
service.
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
It's
been
a
pleasure
working
with
you,
whether
you're
in
service
or
out
of
the
service
you've
been
a
terrific
chairman,
no
matter
what
so
looking
forward
to
2022
and
making
some
good
law
well.
Thank.