►
Description
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee - February 2, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
it's
time
for
us
to
have
the
house
criminal
justice
subcommittee
on
a
wednesday
afternoon
february.
The
2nd,
if
you
would
indulge
me
just
for
a
moment,
we'd
like
to
ask
the
blessings
upon
this
proceeding
heavenly
father.
We
thank
you
for
this
meeting
that
we
have
this
afternoon
and
we
ask
for
your
blessings
upon
it
as
we
do
the
people's
business
and
serve
you
in
jesus
name
and
amen
emily,
would
you
take
the
role.
B
C
C
A
D
Yes,
sir,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
recognizing
me
and
I
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much
to
the
sponsor
for
bringing
this
bill,
and
I
I
applaud
you
for
bringing
this.
I
understand
the
background
and
you
know.
Certainly
the
community
has
rallied
around
this
effort
and
around
this,
this
service,
animal,
who
clearly
is
doing
the
state
a
good,
a
good
service
in
his
line
of
duty.
D
But
with
your
indulgence
I
would
like
to
move.
I've
got
an
amendment
coded
12809
and
I
would
what
this
amendment
seeks
to
do.
It
keeps
all
of
the
language
from
your
bill
completely
intact,
but
it
deletes
section
four
of
the
bill
which-
and
that
is
the
section
that
gives
it
the
ability
to
transfer
a
child
of
any
age
to
adult
court
for
the
commission
of
the
acts
out
outlined
in
this
bill.
D
We
transferring
that
child
to
adult
court
is
something
that
we
reserve
to
murder
typically,
and
I
think
it's
interesting
to
note-
and
I
know
this
was
not
again
know
exactly
what
your
intention
is
here,
but
if
you,
if
you
do
the
same
thing
to
an
officer,
the
child
would
not
be
bound
over
to
adult
court,
and
so
we
just
always
want
to
be
careful
that
we
keep.
That
balance
there
between.
You
know
the
difference
between
an
animal
life
and
a
human
life.
D
Certainly
it's
it's
serious,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we,
that
we
don't
tip
that
scale
to
the
point
to
where
the
animal
life
is,
is
now
worth
more
than
the
human
officer
life.
So
with
that
small
change,
that's
what
the
amendment
would
do.
Everything
else
is
intact
on
your
bill,
and
I
would
I
would
move
that
to
the
committee
and
encourage
your
consideration.
A
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second
we're
voting
on
amendment
zero,
one,
two,
eight
zero,
nine
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
the
eyes
have
it
now
we
are
back
on
the
bill
as
amended,
and
I
want
to
thank
chairman
curcio
for
the
amendment
and
I
imagine
that
you
are
okay
with
that.
But
I'll.
Let
you
speak
on
that.
C
A
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members.
This
bill
deals
with
domestic
violence
and
violence
in
the
home
and
as
a
statistical
piece
to
this.
Looking
at
2020
the
year
2020
in
the
state
of
tennessee,
there
were
close
to
70
000
instances
of
what
we
call
domestic
violence,
anything
from
murder,
some
of
them.
Those
things
that
really
stood
out
was
aggravated
assault
and
simple
assault
which
were
the
majorities.
E
What
this
legislation
seeks
to
do.
I
guess
you
could
use
the
term
giving
the
magistrate
or
judge
another
tool
in
their
toolbox
with
the
pandemic.
I
guess
use
the
terms.
Templars
have
flared,
maybe
more
and
in
a
home
and
violence
takes
place
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
afford
a
cooling
off
period
for
those
persons
in
the
home
and
that
person
who
was
the
aggressor.
E
A
A
E
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
legal.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
this
is
adding
an
additional
provision
for
the
judge
or
the
magistrate
to
say
that
they
can't
impose
a
24-hour
hiatus.
If
you
will
that
a
person
cannot
be
at
the
location
or
the
domicile
of
where
the
offense
took
place,
but
I
thought
we
already
that
was
already
ability
that
the
judge
could
already
do.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that.
Please,
okay,.
B
Michelle
fogerty
legal
services
under
current
law
under
40
11
150.
The
magistrate
may
already
order
a
defendant
to
vacate
or
stay
away
from
the
home
of
the
alleged
victim.
It
doesn't
give
a
time
frame.
It's
it's
up
to
the
magistrate's
discretion
as
to
how
long
he
wants
he
or
she
wants
to
order
that.
But
under
current
law
they
can
already
order
the
defendant
to
stay
away
from
the
home
of
the
victim
and
any
other
location
where
the
victim
is
likely
to
be.
B
F
A
G
Now
and
while
I
can't
have
the
deepest
level
of
respect
for
the
sponsor
of
the
bill,
I
can't
fathom
he
would
wish
to
do
that.
But
yes,
I
would
definitely
from
a
legal
standpoint,
worry
a
bit
that,
while
it
says,
may
it's
in
a
separate
section
of
the
statute
it.
If
they
only
look
at
that
statute.
I
would
genuinely
be
concerned
that
someone
would
argue
we
have
two
competing
statutes.
One
saying
may
do
24
hours.
Another
saying
may
be
a
condition
for
the
entirety
of
the
term.
G
B
A
F
Representative
griffey,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
representative
mckean
for
for
bringing
this.
I
I
think
I
get
your
intent
and
I
think,
there's
a
way
to
fix
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
just
say
that,
if
requested
by
a
victim
or
whatever,
the
magistrate,
shall
at
a
minimum
order,
the
person
stay
away
from
a
domicile
for
a
minimum
of
24
hours,
not
less
than
24
hours.
F
E
A
H
H
A
A
H
H
A
A
Thank
you,
chairman
curcio.
If
there's
no
objection,
previous
questions
has
been
called
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposers
know
the
eyes.
Have
it
the
bill.
Moves
on
to
criminal
justice
committee?
Thank
you,
chairman.
Hal.
All
right
item
number
four
house
bill.
1678
by
leader
lamberth.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
leader
lambeth.
You
are
recognized
famous.
G
Chairman
very
straightforward
bill,
currently
under
the
statutes.
If
you
commit
robbery
against
someone
with
a
fake
firearm,
it
is
the
same
as
if
you
utilized
a
real
firearm
to
the
victim.
They
know
no
difference
in
many
of
those
circumstances.
This
would
add
that
into
the
provisions
for
aggravated
assault,
if
it's
any
article
used
or
fashioned
to
lead
the
victim
to
reasonably
believe
the
article
was
a
deadly
weapon,
so
fake
knife,
fake
gun,
if
you
are
threatening
someone
like
that,
it's
assault.
G
A
G
You,
mr
chairman,
and
last
year,
we
we
passed
some
very
good
legislation.
In
my
humble
opinion,
led
by
both
you,
mr
chairman
and
chairman
curcio,
and
one
of
those
bills
dealt
with
expungement,
and
we
were
very
clear
in
this
committee
that
we
were
creating
an
expungement
opportunity
and
several
that
folks
could
take
advantage
of
once
that
there
was
not
a
repeat
opportunity
for
that.
Every
five
years
I
mean
that's
just
not
what
we
set
up.
G
There
has
been
an
argument
going
around
in
some
legal
circles
that
there
may
be
an
argument
for
that
in
the
code
that
we
passed
last
year.
I
I
don't
buy
it.
I've
not
seen
a
judge
that
has
ruled
that
way
yet,
but
the
first
part
of
this
bill
just
clarifies
that
we
did
not
create
an
unlimited,
expungement
opportunity.
It's
a
one-time
opportunity.
G
There
are
instances
in
the
statute
where
you
could
get
two
a
misdemeanors
or
an
a
misdemeanor
underneath
felony
or
even
I
think,
two
e-felonies
expunged.
But
it's
a
one-time
opportunity.
That's
always
been
the
intent
of
expungement,
so
this
cleans
up
the
first
part.
The
second
part
goes
into
an
area
that
one
of
our
fellow
representatives,
representative
halford,
brought
to
my
attention
over.
While
we
were
out
of
session,
he
had
one
of
his
constituents
that
had
gotten
a
theft
charge
early
in
life.
G
First
time,
offender,
expungible
type,
offense
exactly
what
we
all
envision
when
we
think
of
expungement
and
then
much
later
in
life,
a
decade
later
or
moore
had
gotten
a
dui
bad
decision.
Not
a
good
thing
to
do.
You
know
was
convicted
of
that,
but
unfortunately,
because
there
was
a
subsequent
conviction
for
a
non-expungable
offense,
the
original
offense,
the
theft
could
not
be
expunged.
G
This
fixes
that,
and
if,
if
you
have
a
first
time
offense
that
is
expungeable
just
because
you
later,
you
know,
get
an
offense
or
multiple
offenses
that
are
no
longer
expungeable,
then
that
first
one
you
could
still
have
removed
in
this
particular
young
lady's
circumstance.
The
theft
was
keeping
her
from
being
employed.
The
dui
did
not
bar
her
from
employment,
but
the
job
that
she
was
seeking
said.
Look.
A
G
Unfortunately,
no,
if
you
start
off
with
offenses
that
are
not
expungeable,
you
can't
cherry-pick
kind
of
which
ones
throughout
I
mean
that's
a
discussion.
We
could
have
down
the
road
and
whether
or
not
we
want
to
go
there.
We
we
never
have
before
we've
always
been
hey
if
you're
kind
of
early
entry
into
the
criminal
justice
system
that
that
first
time
offense
would
be
the
one
that
is
expungable.
But
if
you
start
off
with
a
high-level
felony
or
a
dui
or
something
that's,
not
expungable
then
later
get
something
that
is
low
level.
A
A
Previous
question
has
been
called
all
in
favor,
let
it
be
known
by
saying:
aye,
aye
posers
no
eyes
have
it
that
bill
moves
on
to
criminal
justice
committee,
all
right
that
takes
us
down
to
the
last
spill
on
the
counter.
Today,
item
number
six
house
bill
1763
also
by
leader,
lamberth
leader
lambeth.
You
recognized
have
a
motion.
A
second.
G
To
recognize
famous
chairman-
and
I
know
chairman
dog-
had
responsibilities
and
was
not
able
to
be
here
with
us
today,
but
I'm
sure
he's
watching
on
this.
He
invited
all
of
us
to
go
over
and
tour
the
tbi
a
few
months
ago,
and
I
took
advantage
of
that.
I've
been
over
there
and
toured
their
facility
many
times,
but
each
time
I
learn
something
new
about
how
we
can
best
serve
here
and
in
this
particular
tour.
G
They
were
discussing
the
opioid
epidemic
and
the
number
of
fake
pills
that
are
out
there
on
the
streets
that
are
being
sold
to
folks
and
unsuspecting
to
those
folks.
They
they
think
they
are
buying
a
specific
type
of
pill,
and
that
pill
is
many
times
laced
with
fentanyl
or
other
extremely
dangerous
drugs,
as
well
as
potentially
the
the
drug
that
they
thought
they
were
buying.
That's
dangerous
and
it's
all,
because
they're
able
to
legally
possess
pill
presses.
G
You
can
apparently
order
them
on
amazon
or
you
know
other
places,
and
you
can
legally
possess
that
this
would
make
those
pill
presses
under
certain
circumstances,
paraphernalia,
which
is
what
they
are.
I
mean
they
are
drug
paraphernalia.
Would
be
a
misdemeanor,
it's
not
a
felony,
but
the
hope
would
be
is
that
it
diminishes
the
number
of
pill
presses
that
are
available
out
there,
and
it
does
make
exceptions
if
someone
has
that
for
lawful
means.
G
A
G
So
the
pill
press
specifically
it
excludes
legitimate
businesses.
It
excludes
wholesale
drug
distributors,
anyone
that's
a
pharmacist
licensed
by
border
pharmacy
manufacturers
of
drug
products.
So
if
someone
is
legitimately
engaged
in
that
they're
excluded
from
all
of
this,
and
so
all
of
those
circumstances
are
excluded
from
this,
it's
it's
only
only
going
to
be
those
that
are
literally
involved
in
the
criminal
activity
that
would
be
included,
but
we
listed
out
several
exceptions
in
this
bill
to
make
sure
and
if
anybody
sees
anything
we
missed
please.
G
H
H
G
I
can
do
my
best
at
answering
that,
but
I
think
legal
probably
has
that
up
and
I
actually
think
it
does
list
several
of
those
in
there
as
well,
and
it
also
has
some
kind
of
catch-all
language.
It's
a
great
question,
mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
you
asking
it,
ms
john,
if
we
could
go
to
legal
on
that,
I
think
there
is
a
list,
but
I
can't
recall
off
the
top
of
my
head.
G
Thank
you
and
I
appreciate
that
question
I
I
did
not
have
something
in
the
bill,
but
I'm
just
a
point
of
personal
privilege
here.
I
wanted
to
thank
our
legal
staff,
we're
here
at
the
bill
finally
deadline
day,
and
I
just
wanted
us
to
thank
you
guys,
you're
here
in
committee,
at
the
end
of
a
long
day
and
you
all
been
working
diligently.
Thank
you
all
very.