►
From YouTube: House Judiciary Meeting, March 22, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
All
right,
that's
how
we
like
to
hear
it
so
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
some
senate
files
today,
our
first
one
will
be
senate
file
87
and
then
we'll
look
at
senate
file,
155
senate
file,
87
voyeurism
amendments.
We
have
senator
cost
representative
vice
chairman
duncan,
and
welcome
vice
chairman
newsome
as
well.
C
Thank
you,
chairman,
olson
and
committee
for
taking
this
on
today.
I
appreciate
it
we're
gonna
start
out
as
senate
file
87
and
before
I
get
into
the
actual
bill.
I
want
to
say
a
couple
of
things
and,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
technology
has
presented
us
with
a
world.
We
can
hardly
imagine
we
have
dancing
robots
which
look
like
real
people.
We
have
automated
cars,
which
we
talked
about
yesterday
or
a
few
days
ago,
and
the
statute
needs
updated.
C
C
The
statute
covers
that
now
with
that
I'd
like
to
do
some
explanation
here:
the
voyeurism
bill,
an
act
relating
to
crimes
and
offenses
amending
the
elements
and
penalties
of
the
crime
of
voyeurism,
authorizing
the
imposition
of
specified
probation
conditions
for
those
persons
convicted
of
voyeurism,
making
conforming
amendments
and
providing
for
an
effective
date.
C
If
you
look
on
page
one
line,
nine,
the
things
that
are
affected
with
these
amendments-
wyoming
statute,
644
304,
a
the
intro
and
romanette
3
by
creating
new
paragraphs,
romanov
5
and
romanette
6
b,
part
b,
intro
romanette
2,
and
by
creating
new
subsections
romanet
c,
and
that
goes
through
f
and
713
304
by
creating
a
new
subsection
e
are
amended
to
read.
So
we
start
on
page
two
as
we
go
through
the
first
part
of
it.
It
says,
except
is
otherwise
provided
in
this
section.
C
One
was
already
in
there
romanette
eye
roman
small
eye,
restrooms
romanette
2i
baths.
Those
were
both
in
there,
so
they're
not
listed
romanette
3
showers
was
changed
by
the
removal
of
ore
and
romanette
4
dressing
or
fitting
rooms
was
already
in
there
as
well.
Then,
the
addition
of
roman
at
five
bedrooms
with
a
semicolon
and
ore
and
then
six
under
the
clothing
being
worn
by
another
person,
regardless
of
whether
the
person
is
in
a
place
where
a
person
has
reasonable
expectancy
of
privacy,
then
on
20
b,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
this
section,
was
added.
C
A
person
is
guilty
of
a
felony
punishable
by
imprisonment
for
not
more
than
two
years,
a
fine
of
not
more
than
five
thousand
dollars
or
both
if
he
romanette
ii.
On
page
three
uses
a
camera,
video
camera
or
any
other
recording
device
on
line.
Five,
a
for
purposes
of
observing
viewing
photographing,
filming
recording,
was
added
or
videotaping.
C
9
e,
in
addition
to
the
penalties
specified
in
this
section,
a
person
guilty
of
the
offense
of
voyeurism
shall
serve
a
term
of
supervised
probation
of
on
line
13
roman
net
eye
one
year
for
a
violation
of
paragraph
b,
romanette
two
eyes
of
this
section
and
then
on
line
16
roman
at
two
not
less
than
one
year
and
not
greater
than
two
years
for
a
violation
of
paragraph
b.
C
At
the
time
of
the
offense,
notwithstanding
wyoming
statute,
713,
302,
b
and
I'll,
let
you
know
that
that
is
for
when
both
are
under
18.,
and
so
that's
the
provision
that
protects
our
18
year
olds
or
at
least
says.
Okay.
These
people
are
not
fully
developed
in
their
brain,
so
we're
going
to
give
them
a
little
less
penalty
line.
Six
app
as
used
in
this
section.
Animan
areas
means
any
portion
of
a
person's
public
pubic,
not
public
pubic
area,
buttocks,
vulva,
genitals,
female
breasts
or
undergarments
intended
to
cover
those
portions.
C
Sex
offenders
would
be
considered
there,
and
with
that
I
really
have
nothing
other
than
answering
questions,
but
I
would
like
representative
duncan
to
read,
if
you're,
okay
with
it,
to
read
the
testimony
of
the
young
lady
that
had
asked
me
if
I
would
consider
bringing
this
bill
forward.
If
you're
not
wanting
to
do
that
before
answering
questions,
I
certainly
will
entertain
it
either
way
your
choice.
B
Yes,
senator,
let's
see
if
we
have
any
questions
for
you
and
then
I'll
consider
that
from
vice
chairman
duncan
to
be
testimony
so
we'll
certainly
take
it.
Let's,
let's,
let's
see,
if
kimmy
has
any
questions
representative
oakley.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
saw
some
discussion
going
on
down
there.
So
if,
if
you
guys
are
maybe
seeing
some
of
the
same
concerns,
my
concern
has
to
do
with
okay,
so
page
3
line
20.,
it's
got
to
do
with
the
punishment
sections
specified
and
I'm
assuming
you've.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
meant
to
or
not
but
page
three,
and
maybe
you
did
I'd
like
clarification,
page
three
line
twenty
that
would
make
it
a
min
five,
so
is.
Is
that
what
you're
wanting
and
then
and
then
we
would
need
a
top.
C
That
was
amended
by
the
standing
committee,
and
that
was
a
recommendation
to
match
up
to
I'm
sorry,
I
should
have
said
chairman
that
was
to
match
up
to
other
penalties
so
that
they
were
consistent
in
what
they
were
doing.
D
Okay
and
I'd
have
to
look
at
it.
I
think,
then
you
have
to
have
a
an
upper
amount.
So
if
you
do
a
min
5
max
20,
let's
say
I
think
there
that
has
to
be
there
so
sure
I
don't
know
if
that
was
discussed,
but
that's
something
anyway,
something
that
we'll
I'll
have
to
look
at.
You
do
have
to
have
a
term
you
know.
So
if
there's
a
min
then
and
then
so
the
same
thing,
I
know
it.
D
Okay.
Sorry,
mr
chairman,
can
I
ask
another
question
you
may
thank
you,
mr
chair
page,
four
lines:
nine
through
eleven
again
so
was
it
discussed
that
it
that
it,
it
specifically
is
mandated
that
it's
that
it's
a
supervised
probation,
meaning
that
it's
suspended
rather
than
an
imposed.
C
Chairman
representative
oakley,
the
idea
of
the
term
of
supervised
probation
would
be.
I
hadn't
interpreted
it
as
mandatory.
So
if
that's
what
you're
asking,
I
might
misunderstand
what
you're
asking
representative
oakley
thank.
D
You,
mr
chair,
yes,
I
I
don't
know
that
I
can
think
of
any
other
place
where,
if
you've
got
basically
as
a
punishment
that
they
can,
they
can
have
a
term
of
so
so
punishment
is,
usually
you
know,
a
form
of
incarceration
or
fine
and
or
and
then
from
there.
It's
left
to
the
judge's
discretion
on
whether
it's
imposed
or
or
suspended
in
favor
of
probation.
D
So
I
don't
know
that
I've
seen
this
wording
or
language
used
where
it
says
shall
serve.
I
don't
even
like
even
a
term
of
probation,
it's
it
seems
it's
just
a
little
different
to
me
to
be
mandated
that
it's
probation.
I
don't
can't
think
of
anywhere
else
where
I
have
seen
that.
B
D
C
Not
being
a
lawyer
and
knowing
from
further
witnessing
of
the
representative
working
with
another
bill,
I'm
very
aware
that
she's
a
warrior
and
a
lawyer
I'm
not
going
to
push
that
issue
because
I'm
not
aware
of
it.
So
I
certainly
would
lend
that
to
those
that
have
more
knowledge
in
that
than
I
do.
B
I
trust
that
representative
oakley
is
right
and
but
just
to
I
think,
to
clarify
here
what
representative
oakley
is
trying
to
figure
out
is
the
let's.
Let's
get
to
the
intent
of
of
that
supervision
is,
is
the
intent
of
this
to
mandate
supervision
after
release
of
a
full
sentence,
or
was
the
intent
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
minimum
of
supervision
if
release
occurred
early
during
the
sentence,
so
in
other
words,
you're
sentenced
to
three
years,
you
serve
three
years
and
then
have
the
supervision.
B
That's
the
intent
versus
what
I
think
representative
oakley
is
saying
you
would.
If
you
had
an
early
release,
then
are
you
trying
to
mandate
a
minimum
release
during
the
early
mandate,
a
minimum
supervision
during
the
early.
C
Mr
chairman,
I
understand
that-
and
this
was
in
my
mind
to
be
at
the
end
of
a
year
or
if,
whenever
that
penalty
was
a
probationary
period,
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
corrective
actions
taken
care
of,
so
that
this
doesn't
escalate
into
something
worse.
B
And
that
actually,
so
that
helps
me
with
my
my
main
question
then,
because
my
main
question
is:
why
is
it
two
years
for,
I
know,
that's
the
existing
statute,
but
why
why?
Why
is
it
two
years?
If,
for
a
for
our
we'll
call
it
our
basic
offense,
because
if
we
involve
minors,
we
want
it
to
be
a
minimum
of
three
years
to
five
years,
which
is
conflict?
I
guess
conflicting
with
the
other
paragraph
that
says
we
want
it
to
be
a
minimum
of
five
years,
but
and
then
one
year
supervision,
so
it
why
not?
B
You
know
why
not
set
the
felony
provision
higher
than
two
years
because
of
I
think
what
the
discussion
of
where
representative
oakley
was
going
with
that,
at
least
where
I
I
wanted
to
go
with
it
was
if
you're
sentenced
to
two
years,
you
don't
serve
two
years
in
prison
right,
because
you're
gonna
get
you're
very
unlikely.
You're
gonna
get
an
early
release.
B
So
knowing
that
that's
the
case,
this
is
one
thing
I
I
just
struggle
with
in
general
in
our
sentencing
laws
is
that
at
least
for
the
public,
the
public
to
understand
that
when
we
we
think
this
is.
I
think
this
is
a
very
serious
offense
center
of
cost.
I
don't
think
two
years
is
enough.
I
don't
think
that
three
years
is
enough
when
it's
done
to
a
minor.
B
C
Mr
chairman,
I
side
with
you
on
that.
The
thought
as
we
were
putting
this
together
was
because
there
would
not
really
been
anything
prior
to
this
for
this
nature
that
we'd
take
it
not
too
abrupt
at
the
beginning,
because
we
were
afraid
that
might
turn
some
people
off.
C
This
is
a
pretty
serious
offense
and
it's
definitely
something
that
you
knowingly
are
doing,
and
because
of
that,
I
I
would
not
have
a
problem
with
an
amendment
that
says
make
it
three
or
even
five.
I
mean
I
do
not
have
a
problem
with
that.
I
just
cited
on
the
idea
of
let's
not
go
too
far
too
quickly,
so
that
we
don't
end
up
killing
something
that
might
be
there
so
and
then
so,
and.
B
The
other
question
I
have
is
when
I
compare
the
con:
let's
just
call
it
the
consent
portion
of
the
misdemeanor
and
a
felony
on
the
felony.
The
basic
felony
it
is,
it
is,
becomes
a
felony
when
it
is
done.
You
know
under
the
clothing,
and
it
is
done
without
the
consent
of
the
other
person
versus
the
misdemeanor.
B
We
use
completely
different
language
instead
of
consent.
We
talk
about
it
being
done
under
the
cloney
under
the
clothing,
regardless
of
whether
the
person
is
in
a
place
where
the
person
has
a
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
and
just
help
me
understand
why
we're
not
worried
about
why
not
use
consent
in
both
scenarios,
because
it
seems
to
make
sense
whether
you're
filming,
why
does
it
change
all
of
a
sudden?
B
B
They'd
say:
well:
if
you
didn't
have
his
or
her
consent
and
you
took
a
picture
or
filmed
under
their
clothing,
that's
got
to
be
a
crime
and
then
the
level
of
the
crime,
whether
it's
a
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
may
depend
on
the
type
of
filming
that
occurred
or
where
it
occurred.
But
why
not?
Why
why
what's
the
logic
behind
that.
C
One
of
the
lawyers
that
was
advising
me
from
a
part
of
the
state
who's
done
a
lot
of
this
said
you
didn't
need
it
in
both
places,
and
I
said:
okay,
I'm
not
a
lawyer
I'll
do
as
you
say,
but
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
putting
it
back
in
either
so.
B
That
might
be
a
question
for
representative
oakley.
Maybe
if
that
is
intended,
would
you
get
rid
of
the
consent
provision
on
the
misdemeanor?
Is
that
intended
to
make
it
easier
to
prosecute?
Because
you
don't
have
to
you,
don't
have
to
put
a
victim,
I
mean:
how
do
you
figure
out
whether
you
had
consent
or
not?
You
is
the
only
way
to
do
that
to
put
the
victim
on
the
stand.
If
so,
then
that
makes
me
uneasy
with
the
felony
provision
I
want
it
to
be.
I
don't
want
it
to
be
so.
D
D
The
consent
portion
there
being
an
obvious
that
people
are
taking
all
sorts
of
videos
of
themselves
in
different
ways
today
so
today
and
we're
trying
to
not
broaden
it
too
much.
I'm
assuming
is
a
fair,
senator
cost.
D
My
thought
is
this.
I
will
for
discussion
and
then
see
what
I
I
think
that
maybe
I
can
take
a
second
do,
a
quick
amendment
that
would
just
make
it
the
punishment
language
more
conforming
to
what
we
see
in
criminal
statutes
and
then
see.
If
you
know,
senator,
would
like
to
to
weigh
in
and
if
our,
if
our
committee's
all
right
with
that.
E
D
B
Other
questions
for
yeah,
vice
chairman
washington,
your
hand
was
up.
F
F
Are
you
aware
that
some
studies
sitting
in
my
hotel
room
last
night
was
nothing
better
to
do?
I
started
reading
about
voyeurism
and
sex
offender
treatment
program
and
a
study
back
in
1985
showed
that
these
researchers
looked
at
600
cases
of
lawyers
and
all
600
of
their
participants
had
committed
other
sexual
crimes,
including
rape,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
I
agree
with
you
that
voyeurism
is
a
serious
matter.
Your
thoughts
about
including
these
offenders
and
the
registry
senator
cost.
C
Mr
chairman,
representative,
washington,
you
know
you
guys
are
targeting
exactly
what
the
initial
was
between
the
person
that
had
asked
me
about
this
and
myself
and
as
we
worked
with
lso,
please
I'm
not
knocking
anybody,
so
I
don't
want
anybody
to
take
it
that
way.
It
was
suggested
that
we
don't
quite
go
that
far
because
it's
new
and
it's
never
been
in
any
of
the
previous
information
of
voyeurism,
and
they
said
this
would
be
a
totally
new
step
to
say
that
they
need
to
be
considered
as
registered
sex
sex
offenders.
C
The
other
thing
was
you're,
not
as
I
understand
it,
to
tell
a
judge
what
they
can
and
can't
do
so
you
can
suggest
to
a
judge
what
they
can
and
can't
do.
That's
what
it
sounded
like,
and
so
the
bottom
line
for
us
was
okay.
C
If
we
can
get
this
in,
we'll
worry
about
the
rest
of
it
later,
but
right
now
something
needs
to
be
done
to
protect
innocent
people
from
what's
happening.
So
that's
really
where
I
stand
on
it
I
mean
I
am
certainly
not
opposed
to
stronger
sentence
to
that,
because
I
think
it
it
is
a
problem,
and
I
also
know
that
exactly
what
you've
said
it
does
lead
to
other
other
actions.
B
B
I
think
it's
a
rampant
occurrence,
not
just
in
the
state
of
wyoming
but
across
the
country,
that
I
just
don't
think
that
maybe
I
could
say
this
for
most
states,
but
absolutely
wyoming
hasn't
taken
a
hard
stance
on
voyeurism
and
that's
why
you
have
these
knuckleheads
running
around
with
phones
putting
when
you
talk
about
putting
a
pencil-sized
camera
in
a
hotel
room.
That
blows
my
mind
and
this
one
thing
to
be
in
the
hotel
room
is
another
thing.
B
If
you
were
to
place
that
in
a
bathroom
where
my
wife
and
my
children
are
going
to
go,
so
I
I
think
I
just
I
respectfully
but
fundamentally
disagree
with
you
know
taking
it
slow.
I
think
I
think
we
ought
to
do
it
once
and
do
it
right
and
send
the
right
message
to
the
public
that
the
public
deserves.
B
With
respect
to
whether
you
know
we
tell
judges
to
do
what
to
do
or
not,
you
know
there's
a
little
bit
of
flavor
that
in
this
bill,
which
actually
I'm
not
in
favor
of
on
page
five
lines,
one
through
four
for
example,
speaks
it
does
just
just
that.
It
says
the
sentence
shall
be
not
less
than
three
to
five
years.
That
tells
the
judge
exactly
what
the
judge
has
to
do.
So
you
know
I
think,
to
that
point.
B
If
that's
the
guidance
you
you
received
on
other
portions
of
this
bill,
I
think
that
was
I
don't
know
what
the
point
of
that
guidance
was,
because
this
bill
is
doing
that
in
some
respects,
and
we
do
that
sometimes
in
law
called
mandatory
minimums
and
maximums.
I
think
that's
what
representative
oakley
was
getting
to
on
the
five
year
and
whether
you
have
to
have
a
ceiling.
Those
are
policy
choices.
Absolutely
that's.
Why
I'm
suggesting
that?
B
Maybe
we
just
ratchet
up
the
minimum
penalties
on
all
of
these
three
three
years
for
filming
someone
who's
under
18..
So
you're
gonna
tell
me
that
when
someone
puts
a
camera
in
a
bathroom
and
films,
my
nine-year-old
daughter
that
he
gets
three
years
in
prisons
and
gets
released
on
two
years
and
that's
justice-
I
don't
think
so,
so
I
I'm,
I
think,
we're
tracking
in
the
same
field
that
I'd
rather
I'd
rather
see
those
ratcheted
up.
I
think
those
are
serious
sexual
offenses
and
whether
they
should
be
on
the
registry
or
not.
B
B
And
and
the
other
reality
is,
I
look
back
at
just
looking
at
the
history
of
your
bill,
unanimous
unanimous
through
the
other
chamber.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
know
if
that
means
that
this
was
the
right.
This
was
just
fit
just
perfect
to
get
the
entire
body
on
board
or
the.
I
think
what
it
means
is
that
that
other
chamber
down
the
hall
agrees
that
this
is
something
we
need
to
be
serious
about.
B
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
senator
cost.
I
had
the
similar
questions
that
representative
washit
had
and
concur
that
my
attention
was
drawn
to
page
five
line
18
the
may
versus
shall-
and
I
too
would
like
to
see
shell
and
see
sex
offender
regis
register
as
well.
My
only
question
is:
do
you
I'm
unfamiliar
with
the
program
itself,
the
treatment
program?
Would
the
costs
of
that
program
be
incurred
by
the
within
the
court
system
by
the
offender.
C
Senator
cost,
mr
chairman
representative
williams,
you're
asking
a
question
there
that
I'm
not
familiar
with.
I
don't
know
whether
that
cost
just
exactly
where
that
would
come
from,
but
the
shell
remain.
I'm
certainly
not
going
to
argue
on
that.
That's
for
sure.
B
Yeah,
that's
just
representative
williams
and
maybe
help
me
understand
where
you're
headed
with
this.
So
when
we're
looking
at
page
5
line
18
the
may
versus
a
shout
we're
talking
about
the
misdemeanor
in
that
paragraph,
so
it
does
sound
like
maybe
the
felony
is
automatic.
That's
why
it's
not
addressed
in
there
or
why
don't?
Why
don't
we
address
the
felony?
B
Why
do
we
give
the
option
for
the
court
to
provide
the
or
why
do
we
give
the
option
for
the
court
when
it's
a
misdemeanor
offense,
that's
6-4-304
or
is
the
felony
under
the
same
statute,
the
felonies
under
the
same
statute,
my
apologies,
so
it
is
the
felony
and
the
misman.
B
Other
senator
cost
other
than
it's
just
what
we
do
why?
Why
is
the
effective
date
july?
One
is
there
a
reason
why
we
can't
just
have
it
go
into
effect
when
the
ink
gets
the
paper
from
the
chief
executive.
C
H
Representative
craigo,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
senator,
so
my
question
pertains
to
the
definition
of
intimate
areas
and
why
that
was
included
within
your
bill.
What
was
the
purpose
of
defining
that
out
and
including
that
as
an
element
on
page
three
senator
cost.
C
Mr
chairman,
representative
grigo,
the
reason
for
that
was
last
year.
There
was
a
prison
bill
that
came
through
and
the
lack
of
clarity
in
it
was
making
it
difficult
for
people
to
accept
it
for
prosecution
or
to
move
forward
with
it.
So
the
attempt
was
to
make
sure
it's
pretty
clear
exactly
what
we're
talking
about,
and
that
was
the
whole
purpose
of
it.
H
Representative
craigo,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
and
I
asked
that
question
because
I
think
it
as
I
said
here.
I
believe
the
purpose
of
the
bill
is
to
expand
the
scope
of
what
is
covered
under
voyeurism,
but
I
think
that
actually
limits
it
and
I
think
it
narrows
down
the
statute
that
we
by
including
that
definition
it
narrows
down
what
we
already
can
prosecute
under
voyeurism,
and
I
say
that
and
I'll
give
an
example.
For
instance,
let's
talk
about
joker
in
the
grocery
store,
doing
a
capturing,
a
image
upskirt
all
right.
H
Let's
take
that
example,
and
the
woman
happens
to
have
on
underwear
that
wouldn't
qualify
because
he
would
have
that
would
be
a
loophole
for
him.
He'd
say
I
wasn't
intending
to
capture
an
image
of
an
intimate
area
because
she
had
clothes
on
and
it's
over
the
clothing.
And
so
my
my
question
is:
do
we
need
that
definition
in
there
or
not.
B
H
I
normally
am
so
that's
just
my
concern
by
adding
that
in
I
don't
know
if
we
gain
anything,
I
guess
is
what
is
is
really
my
question:
is
it
necessary
if
you're
shoot,
if
you're
taking
a
picture
under
somebody's
clothing
which
would
be
covered
under
on
page
2
lines
16
through
18.?
H
If
we're
taking
a
picture
under
somebody's
clothing,
do
we
really
need
the
definition
of
intimate
areas
because
it's
already
covered
by
saying
you
can't
do
it
under
you
can't
take
a
picture
record
or
view
actually,
whether
you
take
a
picture
or
not,
it
would
be
covered
under
16
through
18.
On
page
two,
that's
my
question.
C
Senator
cost
chairman
olson
representative
craigo
what
you're
talking
about
there's
an
exact
example
of,
and
that
is
in
a
town
to
the
west
of
us
and
a
town
where
university
is
in
a
town
west
of
us.
It
was
not
prosecuted
because
the
current
voyeurism
bill
they
felt
did
not
cover
such
and
in
a
town
where
there's
a
university,
it
was
felt
that
it
did
and
it
was
prosecuted
there.
C
H
H
If,
if
you
just
read
it
as
it's
in
the
statute
now
for
the
purpose
of
observing
viewing
photographing,
filming
or
videotaping
another
person,
and
once
we
once
we
have
the
language
intimate
areas
now
we
have
to
prove
intent
that
that
they
were
intending,
and
we
can
do
that
by
circumstantial
evidence.
I'm
sure
representative
oakley
could
do
that.
No
problem,
but
I'm
just
worried
that
we
are
narrowing
the
scope
of
what
we
cover
under
voyeurism
and
it
may
add
an
extra
level
of
proof
that
doesn't
already
exist,
which
I
know
is
not
your
intent.
C
Olsen
and
representative
grego,
my
concern
is
that
we
make
sure
that
it's
to
the
point
where
we
can
get
prosecution
and
not
end
up
without
prosecution,
if
there's
a
need
for
something
in
the
future,
because
there's
a
finding
of
a
loophole
or
something,
then
I
guess
that
would
need
to
be
corrected,
but
because
of
where
the
voyeurism
bill
is
right
now
and
the
fact
that
it
is
inconsistent
and
the
prosecuting
attorneys
have
said
that
they
do
like
this
bill.
They're.
Very
supportive
of
it
leads
me
to
think.
B
B
Particularly
is
my
question
because
otherwise
you
have
to
put
the
victim
on
the
stand
and
say:
did
you
consent
to
this
man
filming
you
and
putting
it
on
the
internet,
and
I
don't
think
most
victims
are
going
to
want
to
be
on
the
stand
some
may,
but
the
circumstantial
evidence
portion
becomes
important,
because
I
want
to
know
that
our
prosecutors
feel
comfortable,
that
they
can
prosecute
that
dirt
bag
without
the
need
to
put
the
the
victim
on
the
stand.
And
then
you,
so
you
don't
get
into
the
whole
argument
of
well.
B
She
consented
to
the
tattoo
she
consented
to.
I
was
right
there
in
the
intimate
area
with
with
my
tattoo
gun,
and
then
everybody
knows
in
this
community
that
I
have
that
I
have
a
camera
for
training
purposes
in
my
tattoo
parlor
or
whatever
he
says
right.
So
maybe
we'll
need
to
hear
from
some
prosecutors.
Maybe
that'll
be
helpful,
but
I
understand
that
they
may
be
there
in
favor
of
the
bill.
I
hope
they
are,
but
I
don't
want.
B
C
Mr
chairman,
I'm
I'm
certainly
not
going
to
argue
with
on
that.
I
will
yield
to
you
guys
because,
as
lawyers
you
know
more,
where
you're
going
with
the
direction
than
I
do.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
a
quality
bill
that
can
protect
people
because
it's
time
to
protect
them,
and
so
whatever
we
do
decide,
I
hope
protects
these
people
that
are.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
senator
koss
and
representative
duncan
for
being
here.
My
question
going
back
to
the
the
sentencing
is,
is:
is
there
someone
a
reason
specifically
why
we
have
the
mandatory
minimums
in
there?
I
know,
just
in
my
my
county,
my
district
court
judge
says
that
the
99
of
crimes
don't
have
a
mandatory
minimum
and
that
allows
for
judicial
discretion
and
sentencing,
and
that's
something
that
is
seen
as
kind
of
like
a
wyoming
value.
I
So
I'm
just
curious
if
this
is
modeled
after
another
or
if
there
was
a
specific
discussion
about
like
the
term
mandatory
minimum
on
these
sentences,.
C
Senator
cost
chairman
olson
and
representative
provenza
good
question.
I
thank
you
for
that.
To
be
honest
with
you,
we
wanted
million
minimums
on
so
that
the
severity
of
this
crime
would
be
realized
rather
than
going
back
to
almost
nothing.
So
it
was
one
of
those
situations
where,
if
we
don't
have
a
minimum,
a
slap
on
the
hand
just
really
doesn't
do
much
good
and
so
a
minimum
would
at
least
have
a
saying.
This
is
important
and
we
need
to
look
at.
This
is
a
minimum.
B
And
senator
costs
to
that
point
which
goes
back
to
my
number
one
concern
is
raising
the
sentences
can't
we
solve
with.
We
can
get
rid
of
mandatory
minimums
in
this
bill
and
solve
solve
that
problem,
where
we
send
the
right
message
instead
of
saying
not
more
than
two
years,
if
we
say
not
more
than
four
years,
we
effectively
did
that
we
raised
you
know
without
setting
a
minimum
we
raise
it
by
by.
We
raise
the
minimum
by
raising
the
simple
language
in
the
statute
instead
of
saying
not
less
than
three
years
to
five
years.
B
We
just
say
up
to
five
years
and
for
a
minor-
and
I
just
I
just
do
not
see
a
scenario
where
a
judge
in
the
state
of
wyoming
has
a
case
where
a
minor
has
been
filmed
in
her
private
areas
and
they
sentence
that
that
person
to
one
year
or
two
years
when
the
felony
for
an
adult
is
already
two
years
in
existing
statute.
So
the
mandatory
minimum
of
three
years
doesn't
seem
necessary
to
send
that
message.
B
C
Judge,
I
don't
disagree
with
that.
One
point
that
I
would
like
to
make
right
now,
just
so
that
everybody
understands
for
a
person
who
records
a
telephone
call
not
intimate
or
anything
just
a
telephone
call.
The
penalty
is
more
severe
than
the
voyeurism
current
penalties.
We
have
so
anything
to
make
that
stiffer.
I
am
certainly.
B
Just
it's
a
good
point,
though
it
is,
but
it
is
a
good
point.
Yes,
vice
chairman
washington,
then
maybe
we'll
we'll
take
senator
costa
out
of
the
hot
seat
and
get
some
public
testimony.
Thank
you,
mr.
F
Chairman
just
to
comment
on
the
language
of
consent,
you
know
in
an
investigation,
oftentimes
we'll
recover
these
cameras
and
recordings,
and
we'll
have
a
lot
of
victims
that
we,
we
don't
know
who
they
are,
and
so,
if
we
have
to
prove
consent
to
the
victim
or
lack
of
consent
to
the
victim.
F
It's
going
to
cause
us
some
problems,
and
so
I
I
like
the
earlier
conversation
about
finding
a
way
around
we're
not
creating
that
consent
requirement.
B
C
And
representative
you're
not
going
to
hear
any
complaints
from
me.
I
mean
this
is
a
serious
situation
that
we
need
to
work
on,
and
so
I'm
in
favor
of
whatever
we
can
do.
That
will
make
it
better.
So
certainly
all
right.
J
These
are
her
words,
not
mine,
and
if
she
were
here,
you
would
only
hear
her
voice.
J
I
appreciate
everyone
taking
the
time
to
listen
today.
First,
stop
I'd
like
to
briefly
explain
the
circumstances
that
has
led
me
to
being
here
today
in
june
of
2019.
After
taking
a
walk
on
my
lunch
break
from
work,
which
I
did
frequently,
I
returned
to
the
office
to
change
back
into
my
work.
Clothes
most,
if
not
all,
of
my
co-workers
knew
that
this
was
a
common
thing
for
me
to
do
on
my
lunch
breaks,
especially
in
the
summer,
the
women's
restroom
at
the
office
was
just
a
single
room.
J
J
J
J
J
What's
interesting
to
me
is
that
the
audio
recordings
that
he
captured,
if
convicted,
actually
carried
a
harsher
punishment
than
the
voyeurism
counts,
did
illegally
recording
a
person's
conversation
without
their
consent
carries
a
punishment
of
up
to
five
years
per
count
for
the
crimes
that
were
committed
against
me
of
voyeurism.
The
harshest
punishment
was
up
to
two
years
in
prison
per
count
according
to
the
current
wyoming
law.
J
Not
only
was
this
a
humongous
violation
of
privacy,
to
say
the
least,
but
according
to
the
current
voyeurism
laws,
this
crime
is
not
viewed
as
a
crime
of
a
sexual
nature.
A
person
who
commits
these
types
of
crimes
is
doing
so
under
no
pretense
than
a
sexual
one.
In
my
particular
instance,
the
person
guilty
of
these
crimes
did
not
place
a
random
camera
in
a
random
bathroom,
hoping
to
capture
a
random
stranger
without
their
clothes.
J
J
J
I
think
anyone
under
the
sound
of
my
voice
would
agree
that
this
was
not
that
this
was
most
definitely
a
crime
of
a
sexual
nature
back
when
these
laws
were
put
into
place,
technology
did
not
exist
like
it
does
now.
This
law
was
probably
protecting
innocent
people
from
what
we'd
refer
to
now
as
a
peeping
tom.
However,
in
this
day
and
age
and
with
the
amount
of
technology
available,
the
current
punishment
for
voyeurisms
is
not
enough.
J
The
people
committing
and
being
convicted
of
these
crimes
should
be
considered
sexual
offenders
and
a
threat
to
not
only
their
victims
but
to
everyone
around
them.
If
a
camera
can
be
placed
in
a
doorknob
or
even
a
ballpoint
pen,
a
camera
can
be
placed
anywhere
when
it
comes
to
cameras
being
placed
in
restrooms
or
fitting
rooms.
This
is
a
serious
problem
that
should
carry
a
harsher
punishment.
J
I
also
think
it's
very
important
to
remind
everyone
that
this
crime
is
sometimes
viewed
as
just
something
that
might
happen
to
silly
kids,
making
dumb
decisions
with
their
cell
phones
and
exchanging
pictures.
They
shouldn't
have
I'd
like
to
make
a
point
to
say
this
crime
committed
against
me
was
done
in
my
workplace
by
a
co-worker
that
was
in
his
50s.
J
J
I
may
not
have
been
able
to
affect
the
punishment
given
to
the
person
who
forever
changed
my
life,
but
the
deceitful
and
heinous
actions,
but
my
goal
today
and
moving
forward
is
to
give
victims
of
these
crimes
more
peace
of
mind
that
I
received.
Not
only
was
he
given
the
least
amount
of
punishment
for
these
crimes,
but
he
was
not
required
to
register
as
a
sex
offender.
J
J
With
your
help,
we
can
provide
justice
to
victims
of
these
crimes
as
it
stands
now,
the
people
guilty
of
these
crimes
are
getting
away
with
mere
slaps
on
the
wrist
for
life.
Life-Altering
crimes
they're
committing
against
others.
Just
imagine
if
your
wife,
daughter
or
mother
had
been
violated
in
this
way.
What
type
of
punishment
would
seem
sufficient
to
you?
J
I
don't
plan
to
stop.
Hopefully
the
changes
made
here
today.
I
will
continue
to
fight
for
myself
and
other
victims
of
these
crimes
until
there
is
a
suitable
punishment
in
place
and
required
time
on
a
sexual
offender
registry.
Please
help
me
take
a
positive
step
in
the
right
direction
to
make
these
much
needed
changes.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time,
and
I
appreciate
your
listening
today.
B
Vice
chairman
duncan,
thank
you
for
reading
that
story
to
us,
because
I
think
that
just
that
testimony
alone
speaks
to
the
questions
that
this
committee
was
asking.
As
I
hear
that
testimony,
I
hear
three
issues
in
the
law.
Unfortunately,
I
only
hear
that
one
of
those
issues
in
your
bill
is
addressed
only
one,
that's
the
loophole
itself,
but
I
hear
I
hear
a
wyoming
citizen
crying
out
for
stricter
penalties
more
than
the
two-year
felony.
B
This
bill
doesn't
do
that,
but
it
should
I
hear
a
wyoming
citizen
crying
out
to
place
people
who
commit
these
crimes
on
the
registry.
This
bill
may
do
that,
may
not
do.
That
could
be
a
little
stronger
in
doing
that,
it
sounds
like
I
think
you're
on.
B
I
think
you
want
to
address
all
of
those
issues,
senator
cost
and
it
sounds
like
maybe
we
can
get
there,
but
I
think
I
think
I
hope
we'll
take
some
more
public
testimony,
but
I
really
think
that
you
know
I
think
we
ought
to
address
that
two-year
felony
and
I
think
that
I
think
that's
important
and
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
serious
conversation
about
about
the
sex
offender
registry
as
well,
and
I
think
we're
getting
there
all
right
additional
public
testimony
online.
B
K
K
K
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
cost
for
bringing
this
forward
again
this
year
and
thereby
acknowledging
this
is
a
problem.
Last
year,
representative
crank
from
kemmer
brought
this
bill
forward.
Four
amendments
at
my
request
and
the
house
committee
agreed
unanimously
that
this
law
should
be
changed.
K
However,
due
to
some
issues
and
wording,
the
amendments
were
pulled
in
senate.
You
will
see
my
face
today
because
I
believe
that
the
shame
of
voyeurism
belongs
to
the
perpetrator,
not
to
me
or
any
other
victim
chairman
olson.
I
hope
that
I
can
answer
your
question
regarding
what
I
believe
is
the
purpose
of
defining
intimate
area,
because
this
is
something
that
I
requested
last
year.
K
In
my
opinion,
there
are
five
problems
with
the
way
the
current
voyeurism
law
is
written.
I
testified
before
senate
a
few
weeks
ago
about
the
same
law.
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
exactly
the
exact
same
things
that
I
went
over
and
sent,
and
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
the
recording
that
and
if
you
would
like
to
listen
to
that,
you
could
do
so.
K
K
The
second
problem
stems
from
this
first
problem
that
is
constitutionality.
It
is
unconstitutional
to
use
a
law
that
is
written
in
such
a
big
manner
or
undefined
manner
as
to
make
legal
activities
illegal.
A
rogue
county
attorney
could
potentially
charge
someone.
They
don't
really
like
with
taking
a
picture
of
their
neighbor
wearing
a
fedora,
and
this
would
be
a
felony
or
a
person
who
is
currently
imprisoned
under
the
law
could
potentially
get
their
conviction
overturned
based
on
the
unconstitutionality
of
the
current
law.
K
At
the
senate
committee
meeting,
it
was
revealed
that
sneaking
into
a
locker
room
and
recording
naked
people
has
a
lesser
consequence
in
wyoming
than
sneaking
in
and
recording
a
conversation
between
two
strangers
about
the
weather.
My
understanding
is
that
both
of
these
activities
are
felonies
and
that
the
penalty
for
the
conversation
would
be
five
years.
K
The
fourth
problem
is
lack
of
clarity.
When
I
encountered
a
voyeur
taking
a
picture
of
my
skirt
in
a
grocery
store
parking
lot,
the
incident
was
caught
on
camera
prosecution
was
declined,
based
on
the
fact
that
I
was
wearing
underwear.
Therefore,
the
image
did
not
meet
the
requirement
of
under
the
clothing,
and
it
was
also
not
in
an
enclosed
area.
K
Prosecuted,
but
one
thing
is
clear:
many
hours
of
law
enforcement
time
and
effort
was
wasted
due
to
the
vague
nature
of
the
current
law.
The
fifth
problem
is
the
age
of
the
law.
Our
current
voyeurism
law
is
16
years
old.
We
all
know
that
it
has
become
increasingly
easy
to
take
and
distribute
voyeuristic
pictures.
K
16
years
ago
we
were
dealing
with
people
taking
pictures
having
to
find
a
way
to
get
pictures
developed,
paying
for
each
print
and
personally
distributing
copies.
Now
we
are
dealing
with
people
being
able
to
take
nude
pictures
and
distribute
them
potentially
to
thousands
of
people
within
a
matter
of
seconds.
The
stakes
are
much
higher
now
for
victims,
and
so
the
stakes
need
to
be
much
higher
for
perpetrators.
K
It
is
time,
in
my
opinion,
to
clarify
what
voyeurism
is
and
is
not.
It
is
also
time
to
increase
penalties
for
people
who
engage
in
voyeuristic
activities.
I
support
putting
these
lawyers
on
the
sex
offender
registry.
I
came
here
last
year,
so
some
of
you
may
remember
me.
I
am
here
again
today
to
see
if
we
can
make
some
changes.
It
has
been
five
years
since
that
day
at
the
grocery
store.
Please
let
me
know
that
I
have
been
heard.
B
L
L
There
is
having
said
that
there
are
some
issues
with
the
bill
that
have
been
raised.
That
can
be
clarified.
I
I'm
sure
representative
oakley
will
bring
those
forward
and
I'd
just
like
to
clarify
a
few
issues
on
this
in
on
page
two
line:
five
and
six.
L
If
you
are
looking
at
removing
consent
of
the
person
being
viewed
out
of
there,
there's
a
phrase
in
there
that
you
could
remove
for
the
misdemeanor
offense
on
that
the
then.
The
next
thing
that
you
get
into
is
the
felony
offense,
which
is
starts
at
line
20,
and
that
goes
through
the
that
that
indicates
a
two-year
felony
for
that
particular
offense,
and
they
are
correct
the
the
statute,
it's
a
five-year
felony
for
intercepting
oral
communications
and
electronic
communications,
so
frankly,
at
a
minimum
on
line
22.
L
L
with
regard
to
the
next
page
there,
where
you
you
you're
talking
about
the
consent
there-
and
I
I
would
say
it
would
seem
to
me
like
this-
is
rather
very
restrictive
on
this
particular
felony,
and
what
I
would
recommend
is
that,
on
line
seven
at
the
end
of
line
seven
there
that
you
would
insert
the
word
or
then
you
would
go
down
there
and
then
you
would
have
b
under
the
clothing
or
be
under
the
core
of
being
worn.
L
L
We
have
recording
of
intimate
areas
or
using
a
camera
or
other
image,
recording
device
under
clothing
being
worn
by
another
person,
and
then,
since
this
is
a
felony,
and
I
know
that
that
without
the
consent
of
the
other
person,
frankly,
whether
you
put
that
in
the
language
or
not
normally,
consent
is
a
defense
to
most
crimes
within
the
state
of
wyoming.
L
On
that
the
other
thing
is
down
there,
where
line
20
page
3,
where
it
says
not
less
than
five
years,
but
there's
not
a
greater
than
you're
going
to
have
to
change
that
to,
and
I
would
suggest
that
at
the
very
least
that
you
change
that
to
not
more
than
than
five
years.
But
I
would
suggest
that
you
raise
that
to
ten
years.
For
example,
a
felony
bad
check
case
over
a
thousand
dollars.
B
B
The
line
20
for
the
minor,
mr
chairman,
yes,
I
am.
L
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm
with
you,
and
I
would
say
not
more
than
ten
years
on
that
and
five
thousand
ten
thousand
dollars
either.
One
10
000
is
just
a
general
felony.
For
example,
a
theft
charge
is
10
years
on
that
now.
L
The-
and
I
just
want
to
point
something
out
to
the
legislative
body
here-
is
that
this
is
the
law.
Is
that
if
even
if
you
have
a
min
a
mandatory
minimum
and
maximum
sentence
on
a
particular
offense
say
you
have
a
two
to
five
or
whatever
it
is
on
this,
a
judge
can
still
grant
straight
probation
on
that
particular
offense.
L
L
L
On
that
as
well,
it
doesn't
it
if
you're
looking
at
just
the
adult
part
and
not
the
misdemeanor
part.
Here,
I
think
you
need
to
say
this.
Subsection
you'll
have
to
have
your
wordsmiths
at
lso.
Tell
you
how
that
goes.
The
the
other
thing
is.
I
want
to
point
something
out
here.
If
a
person
is
sentenced
to
the
penitentiary
and
they
actually
go
to
the
penitentiary,
they
don't
get
a
split
sentence
and
they
don't
get
probation.
L
Then
a
judge
does
not
have
authority
to
place
them
on
probation
once
they
are
sent
to
the
department
of
corrections,
then
they
come
out
and
they're
under
governed
by
the
parole
board
in
the
as
they
parole
out
early.
As
chairman
olson
indicated
that
you
know,
if
you
get
a
five-year
sentence
with
good
time
and
all
that
stuff,
they
might
be
out
in
three
years,
but
then
they
have
that
other
time
after
that
that
they
can
place
them
out
on
parole,
which
is
similar
to
probation.
L
It's
the
same
probation
and
parole
agents
that
govern
those
things,
but
the
courts
don't
govern
that.
That's
governed
by
the
parole
board
and
county
attorneys
and
prosecutors
have
no
say
in
what
goes
on
there
with
revocations
or
anything
like
that,
and
so
I'm
thinking
in
part
what
this
may
relate
to
on
starting
on
page
4
line
9
may
relate
to
the
misdemeanor
offense
as
it
was
started
there,
but
yet
that
doesn't
make
much
sense.
L
Because
then
you
have
this
video
segments
and
clips
you're
talking
about
video
down
here
on
line
18,
and
so
I
it
seems
kind
of
incompatible.
But
if
a
judge
does
put
him
on
probation,
I
think
that
shall
probably
needs
to
be
turned
to
a
may
and
in
that
particular
issue,
and
then
the
last
thing
that
I'd
like
to
address
is
this:
in:
is
the
placement
on
the
sex
offender
registry?
L
L
And
if
you
have
any
questions
I
would
I
know
I
went
through
a
lot
there,
but
that's
the.
If
you
have
any
questions.
Let
me
know.
B
B
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
mr
burn.
Looking
at
page
three
lines:
five
through
seven,
just
kind
of
a
technical
question
about
some
of
these
words
that
are
used,
observing
viewing
viewing
photographing,
filming,
recording
or
videotaping.
Do
you
foresee
the
need
to
add
live
streaming
in
there
or
is
what's
listed
in
there
covered?
Mr
baron.
B
L
Me
that's
by
definition,
mr
chairman.
I
suppose
you
could
argue
that
if
it's
live
stream,
it's
not
recorded.
B
Yeah
and
probably
covered
under
filming,
maybe
but
filming
is
an
archaic
word.
Maybe
now,
because
we
don't
have
film,
but
I
think
that
I
see
the
point
so
just
so
to
clarify
one
thing:
you
said,
mr
barron
on
the
sex
offender
registry
under
7-13-302,
filming
of
a
minor.
That's
a
that's
the
that's
a
separate
statute,
not
in
this
bill
right
now.
That's
a
statute
that
I
think
list
lists
off
offenses
that
are
automatic
on
the
registry,
which
is
what
you're
referring
to
that.
B
L
Mr
chairman,
I
believe
it
would
in
the
statute,
I
think
we're
referring
to
is
719
19.,
sorry
there's.
This
is
always
a
they're
long
statutes,
and
so
I
can't
just
immediately
glance
at
it
and
tell
you
I
think
it's
in
719,
302
okay,
is
where
the
list
of
statutes
are
in
that,
but
it
would
yes.
I
believe
that
that
would
be
the
best
way
to
handle
that.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
good
morning,
mr
baron.
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
my
thought.
I've
flagged
the
same
issue.
I
think
all
of
subsection
e
creates
two
separate
punishment
provisions
and
I
think
they're
conflicting,
and
so,
while
I
understand-
and
you
know,
we
kind
of
discussed
the
intent,
the
reality
is
that's
part
of
you
know
if
you
get
out
on
probation
or
parole
as
part
of
sentencing
discretion,
so
that's
already
covered
in
the
in
all
of
the
other
previous
and
necessary
punishment
sections.
D
So
I
guess
my
thought
is
to
completely
eliminate
section
e,
and
I
just
was
since
you're
here
thought
I'd
see
if
that's
the
solution
you've
arrived
at
as
well.
Mr
barron.
L
If
somebody
is
placed
on
probation,
I
would
suggest
one
thing
there
is
that
perhaps
in
the
misdemeanor
language
up
there
in
subpart
a
that,
as
we
do
like
say
in
the
dui
statute
and
a
couple
other
statutes,
we
expand
the
term
of
probation,
say
up
to
three
years
in
that
particular.
B
B
And
I
will
I
just:
did
I
got
a
couple
in
the
virtual
world
with
hands
raised
anyone
else,
who's
gonna
testify
in
the
room.
I
would
just
say
at
this
point:
try
not
to
let's
try
not
to
go
back
over
anything
that
we've
already
been.
I
think
we're
making
really
sharp
progress,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
enough
time
to
work
the
bill
and
hopefully
open
up
some
time
on
our
second
bill.
So
I
think
we're
we're
on
a
good
trend
here.
So,
let's
just
not
be
repetitive,
go
ahead.
M
Mr
otokovic,
thank
you,
mr
chairman:
byron
oticon,
the
executive
director
of
the
wyoming
sheriffs
and
chiefs
rising
to
support
the
bill.
So
let
me
bounce
rapidly
through
a
couple
of
key
points,
rather
than
do
a
kind
of
an
introduction
so
to
speak,
because
I
think
you
you're
correct
your
time
is
better
spent
on
working
some
of
the
issues
that
we've
already
identified.
M
So
this
is
an
issue,
that's
very
frustrating
for
us,
as
we
see
the
disparate
treatment
between
what
exists
in
statute
this
offense
and
other
sexual
related
offenses.
I
would
remind
the
committee
of
a
couple
of
key
points
and
I
and
I
appreciate
the
sense
of
seriousness
and
frustration
as
we're
working
the
bill,
because
it
also
points
out
to
us
some
of
the
frustration
we
have
and
the
disparity
with
other
statutes
in
the
conflicts
and
the
general
trends
we
see
going.
M
I
would
hope
that
at
some
point
during
the
discussion,
you
would
ask
the
department
of
corrections,
if
they're,
even
offering
sex
offender
management
or
sexual
perpetrator
therapy
at
the
moment,
with
the
budget
cuts.
As
I
understand
that
was
the
last
thing
on
the
table
to
be
cut-
and
I
haven't
checked
lately
if
it
was
in
fact
cut.
M
So
your
question
of
who
pays
is
very
relevant
with
the
offender
generally,
they
don't
have
the
ability
with
the
state
not
without
a
budget,
so
that
is
of
issue.
Likewise,
you've
reduced
the
amount
of
time
people
spend
on
probation
again
this
points
to
the
seriousness
of
these
kinds
of
cases
that
the
one
size
fits
all
doesn't
necessarily
fit.
All
crime
is
my
point,
mr
chairman.
M
Third,
I
would
also
ask,
as
you
look
at
the
treatment
modality
and
therapy
options
available,
because
we
also
believe
in
early
intervention,
if
you
can
intercede,
intervene,
correct
behavior
in
the
early
stage,
you'll
avoid
that
long-term
behavior
issue
at
some
point,
which
is
very
important.
But
if
I
remember
correctly,
the
therapy
treatment
that's
recommended
exceeds
the
current
time
you
would
spend
in
jail,
given
the
fact
that
you've
granted
the
ability
for
jail
time
to
be
reduced,
you
do
the
day
for
day.
M
You
do
the
good
time
you
do
all
of
those
things
that
five
year
sentences
we've
already
talked
about
is
now
two
and
a
half,
maybe
and
our
therapy
time.
If
I
remember
right,
was
three
years
minimum
five
years
probable,
so
you're
releasing
a
person
before
they
can
complete
the
treatment
you
want
them
to
receive.
M
M
We
may
need
to
take
a
more
serious
look
at
some
of
that
treatment
to
ensure
success
and
proper
supervision
to
ensure
that
they
don't
reoffend
when
in
this
case,
the
testimony
of
one
of
our
witnesses
indicated
a
multi-year
prime
spree
involving
thousands
of
issues
coming
to
light
once
and
we
need
to
get
our
treatment,
our
sentencing
our
whole
treatment
of
that
offender
done
well.
Mr
chairman,
I
could
go
on
for
a
while,
but
I
think
I
should
quit
there.
B
Mr
oticoven,
just
to
you
just
you
just
drove
the
point
home,
I
think
on
the
felony,
which
is
that
I
mean
one.
You
can
compare
the
felony
to
other
felonies
and
it
doesn't
make
any
sense.
But
if,
if
we're
really
focused
on
wanting
treatment
for
these
offenders,
a
two-year
the
two-year
sentence
after
they
get
day
for
day
good
time
and
they
serve
a
little
over
a
year
and
they're
out
we're
not
getting
them
the
treatment
that
they
need.
So
would
you
agree
that
making
that
I
know
mr
baron
said
five
years?
B
Is
it
I
don't
know
what
the
mat?
I
don't
know
what
the
magic
number
is
for
that,
but
it
sounds
like
if
the.
If
the
treatment
is
three
to
four
years,
we
want
at
least
a
four
year
sentence
to
be
able
to
get
most
of
that
treatment,
and
if
it,
if
you
basically
serve
just
over
half
of
your
sentence,
we
would
actually
need
five
years
to
get
two
and
a
half
years.
Maybe
three
years
on
the
actual.
M
Sentence
and
mr
chairman,
I
would
agree
and
with
the
caveat
that
I
would
want
to
see
what
the
current
recommendation
is
for
that
treatment
modality
to
be
successful,
I
would
not
want
to
say
that
we're
we're
banking
on
two
and
a
half
years
when
three
years
is
the
magic
number
kind
of
a
thing.
Please
I
I
don't
have
a
clear
answer
for
you
on
that,
and
I
say
it
it's
difficult
when
you
look
at
the
normal
other
sentencing,
and
then
we
tweak
this
to
a
specific
sentence,
makes
it
somewhat
difficult.
M
But
I
think
mr
barron's
point
is
well
founded
in
that.
Unless
you
specify
that
length
of
time
probation,
it
can't
be
as
long
as
you're
thinking
it
might
be.
So
there's
some
specificity
there
you
may
want
to
deal
with
in
order
to
make
this
a
good
bill
and.
B
M
B
M
Mr
chairman,
at
first
blush
I
would
answer
no,
I
would
not
see
a
problem
with
that.
What
about
the
misdemeanors
and
the
misdemeanor?
You
have
been
reluctant
to
list
misdemeanors
on
the
sex
offender
registry.
It
that's
a
very
sensitive
topic
that
you
have
wrestled
with
before
you
have
been
reluctant
to
do
that.
M
M
M
Expungement,
mr
chairman,
yes,
it
was
made
a
little
easier
to
expunge.
I
guess
so.
You
need
to
make
sure
that
this
is
not
one
of
those
that
is
in
that
process
of
the
fast
track
of
having
it
expunged.
As
we've
already
heard
of
this
multi-year
issue
that
seems
to
go
on,
we
may
have
them
being
first
offenders
several
times.
B
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
odakovan
quick
question
technology
is
ever
evolving
in
regards
to
this
bill.
Do
you
think
there's
plenty
of
coverage
as
far
as
what
is
is
captured
specifically
on
on
page
three,
I'm
I'm
just
thinking
of
drones
and
and
other
types
of
technology
out
there.
If
you
can
just
kind
of
speak
to
to
that.
M
Mr
owen,
mr
chairman,
I
would
hope
that
you
a
drive
on
the
language
that
is
inclusive,
far-reaching
and
broad,
because
you
are
correct
the
type
of
technology
that
we
contemplated
even
the
last
time
this
bill
was
heard,
doesn't
match
what
I
got
posted
on
facebook
to
look
to
see
how
small
the
camera
can
be
to
do
to
place
to
hide,
to
involve
with
so
whether
it's
in
the
sky,
on
the
ground
or
plugged
into
the
wall
seemingly
innocently.
B
Mr
chairman,
that's
a
good
question.
I
mean
in
san
francisco.
They
banned
drones
on
the
beach,
so
somebody
put
a
camera
on
a
kite
and
flew
it
over
the
beach
and
it
wasn't
a
drone.
So
I
mean
it's
a
great
question.
You
just
have
to
constantly
battle
with
there's
always
going
to
be
a
loophole.
I
suppose
our
goal
is
to
not
have
a
loophole
in
the
beginning.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
representative.
N
Thanks
and
it's
probably
an
unfair
opinion
question,
but
the
bill
was
heard
last
year
and
didn't
make
it.
I
didn't
quite
have
not
heard
what
was
so
wrong
with
it
last
year
that
it
didn't
make
it
through,
and
maybe
that's
for,
senator
cost
as
well.
But
what
have
we
fixed
from
last
year
that
has
assuaged
everyone
in
the
senate
or
what
was
the
problem
last
year
that
it
didn't
make
it?
If
you
can
remember.
B
No,
that's
actually
a
great
question
because
when
I
look
at
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
bill
and
I
remember
the
where
the
conference
committee
was
ending
and
then
I
look
at
a
unanimous
unanimously
flying
through
the
senate
and
I
wonder,
what's
changed
in
the
senate
so
that
we're
in
contemplating
all
these
amendments
specifically,
we
don't
want
to
lose,
but
I
also
think
we
have
an
opportunity
to
send
the
right
message
at
the
right
timing
and
button
up
this
law.
Do
you
have
do
you
know,
mr
oticon,
mr
chairman,
without
being.
M
Interesting
answer:
there
are
several
things
that
happened
in
the
last
few
days
of
the
last
legislature
that
I'm
still
shaking
my
head
out
wondering
why
and
what
they
thinking,
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
those
moments
when
I'm
going.
What
was
wrong
with
this?
It
was
a
good
bill
and
there
are
days
I
still
wonder
what
happens
on
the
last
days
of
the
legislature.
Mr
chairman,
with
all
due
respect,.
B
C
M
O
Good
morning,
chairman
olsen,
thank
you
for
giving
me
just
a
minute
I'll,
be
brief
and
and
committee
members
good
morning.
We
certainly
support
this
bill,
there's
nothing
worse
when
a
survivor
finally
does
come
forward,
because
so
few
do
to
be
told-
and
you
know
mr
odakovan
hit
the
nail
on
the
head-
you
know
it's
so
frustrating
when
the
law
will
not
have
definitions
that
will
cover
what
victims
come
forward
with.
So
as
difficult
as
last
year's
voyeurism
bill
was
with
the
definitions.
There
were
lots
of
opinions.
O
There
are
common
themes
that
are
frustrating
everyone
this
year,
so
I
just
want
to
plan
to
see
before
I
jump
off,
that
we
always
have
a
lot
of
trouble
when
we're
either
inserting
intense
language
or
taking
it
back
out,
because
so
many
perpetrators
of
these
kinds
of
crimes
and
others
can
easily
get
off
because
they
just
say:
oh,
I
didn't
mean
any
harm,
and
you
know
this.
There
are
some
obvious
examples
with
hundreds
of
thousands
of
photos
is
different,
but
having
some
kind
of
interim
study
on
these
kinds
of
sex
crimes.
O
What
is
effective
treatment
is
the
sex
offender
management
or
sex
offender
registry
even
working
before
we
add
more
people
to
it,
but
having
some
kind
of
interim
study
around
consent.
What
does
that
mean
privacy?
What
does
that
mean?
Yeah?
Maybe
you
consented
to
a
photograph,
but
what
rights
does
that?
Give
you
for
the
future
and
really
looking
at
all
our
sex
crime
laws
together,
because
there's
just
too
many
where
that
intent
for
sexual
gratification
is
in
these
crimes
and
all
a
perpetrator
has
to
do
is
say
yeah.
No,
I
didn't
mean
it
that
way.
Ergo.
O
I
think
it
was
a
year
or
so
ago,
in
some
of
the
news
in
our
northern
counties,
someone
gets
groped
at
a
bar.
All
that
person
has
to
do
is
say
I
didn't
mean
it,
and
I'm
worried
that
in
several
of
the
bills
we're
passing
this
year,
which
is
great,
we
still
need
some
longer
time
to
look
at
all
the
definitions,
and
I
agree
with
some
of
the
committee
members
wow,
you
know:
do
we
want
that
victim
on
the
stand
to
have
to
talk
about
consent?
O
Maybe
we
can
have
a
longer
discussion
about
how
we
bring
safety
to
that
victim
when
they
do
have
to
be
on
the
stand
or
in
an
alternative
setting,
that's
all
I'll
say
to
to
plant
some
seeds
about
what
we
could
do
this
summer
and
thank
you
for
the
time
and
for
your
hard
work.
I
hope
we
can
pass
this
spell.
Thank
you
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer.
B
E
All
right,
thank
you,
hello.
My
name
is
andrew
thomas.
I
am
a
senior
at
cody
high
school
and
I'm
representing
cody's
youth
for
justice.
Before
speaking,
I
would
like
to
thank
chairman
olson
and
the
judiciary
committee
for
letting
me
speak
today.
I
am
here
speaking
in
favor
of
passing
senate
file.
87
voyeurism.
E
I
think
it's
pretty
obvious
that
as
the
bill
stands
now
without
these
amendments,
that
it's
it's
very
vague
in
its
wording
and
it
makes
it
extremely
difficult
to
prosecute
people
for
these
crimes
and,
as
a
lot
of
you
said,
technology
is
advancing
extremely
fast
and
it's
only
going
to
continue
doing
so,
and
so,
as
that
happens,
it's
made
easier
and
easier
for
voyeurism
to
occur
and
for
people
to
get
away
with
it
without
prosecution.
E
And
so,
if
we
don't
have
these
amendments,
no
one's
going
to
get
tried
for
this
kind
of
kind
of
thing.
This
needs
to
pass.
A
lot
of
people
are
victims
of
this
and
have
not
had
justice,
and
I
can
imagine
that
that's
extremely
frustrating
for
these
people
and
back
to
the
technology
thing
and
speaking
as
a
student.
E
I
remember
that
when
I
was
in
middle
school
there
was
there
was
an
issue
of
students
like
sharing
explicit
photos
of
girls
in
our
school,
and
that
was
pretty
messed
up,
and
I
think
that
a
lot
of
young
men
don't
really
think
about
that
sort
of.
They
don't
think
about
that
sort
of
thing.
Their
brains
aren't
developed,
and
so
they
just
act
by
doing
something
stupid.
E
If
we
increase
the
punishment
for
this
kind
of
thing,
I
think
it'll
put
in
people's
heads
how
serious
this
sort
of
thing
is,
and
it
could
reduce
happenings
like
that
on
for
younger
people.
That
is
all
I
have
to
say.
I
really
hope
you
consider
passing
this
bill
as
I
think
it
would
help
our
state
be
a
much
safer
place.
Thank
you
and
I
can
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
for
me.
B
Andrew
thank
you
for
testifying.
It's
always
great
to
have
young
folks
involved,
particularly
students
really
appreciate
that
my
you
know
not
just
watching
the
legislature
but
but
getting
involved
on
a
bill
testifying
on
the
bill
getting
involved
in
the
process.
It's
great
to
see
my
I
got
a
nine-year-old
daughter.
I
got
obviously
some
younger
kids,
but
my
nine-year-old
daughter
was
on
spring
break
last
week
and
I
didn't
see
her
at
the
capitol
and
I
thought
I
was
going
to
and
when
I
over
the
weekend
I
asked
her.
B
You
know
how
come
you
come
and
watch
us
and-
and
she
was
you
know,
reading
hanging
out
playing
video
games
and-
and
I
asked
her
why
she
didn't
come
and
she
said
dad.
I've
already
been
to
the
capitol
enough,
so
the
reverse
happens
with
my
kids,
so
I'm
really
excited
to
see
when
young
people
get
involved
in
the
process.
B
D
Mr
yes,
mr
chair,
I
I
would
just
include
it
continues
page
five.
Oh.
B
It
goes
on
to
page
five
all
the
way
up
wines
one
through
four
okay,
so
it's
been
moved
by
representative
oakley
and
seconded
by
representative
zwanisser
discussion
on
the
amendment
question
on
the
amendment
all
those
in
favor
signify.
By
raising
your
hand,
all
those
opposed
that
amendment
carries
representative
williams.
G
I
have
two
amendments:
okay,
h3
line.
B
B
G
N
Representative
answer
page
amendment:
I'm
not
sure
how
friendly
it's
gonna
be,
but
page
three
line
twenty.
I
just
wanna
change
not
less
than
five
years
to
not
more
than
ten
years,
and
I
I
guess,
I'm
not
a
huge
fan
of
mandatory
minimums
and
I
like
a
lot
of
judicial
discretion,
especially
if
this
is
an
18
year
old
high
school
senior.
I
guess
I
need
to
wait
for
a
second
before
I
explain.
Secondly,
by
representative
provenza
discussion.
Yeah
did
she
oh
great.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
would
agree.
I
was
gonna
say
second,
what
representatives
wanna
wanna
just
said.
I
don't
know
if
now
is
the
time
for
the
discussion
on
it,
but
but
I'll
go
ahead.
D
D
D
We
had
probably
the
lowest
level
of
a
child
pornography
case,
and
the
judge
said
I
I
take
you,
this
legislative
intent
when
it's
a
minimum
that
it
should
be
imposed
so
and
then
what
happens
is
I
think
you
might
find
it
less
used.
What
happens
is
you
know?
D
B
D
B
D
Q
Perfect
okay,
could
you
read
that
one
more
time.
B
P
B
A
B
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I'm
I'm
going
along
with
what
a
prosecutor
and
county
attorney
barron
said,
and
so
what
that
would
be
would
be
to
add.
I
believe-
and
I
hope
I'm
doing
this
in
the
right
place-
page
2
line
19
to
add
afterwards.
B
I
think
representative
oakley,
wouldn't
that
go
with
with
just
subsection
a
wouldn't
it
go
under
up
where
we
have
the
six-month
fine
of
not
more
than
750
dollars,
and
then
we
would
include
it
right.
There.
D
We
could,
I,
I
think,
trying
to
think
back
that
I've
seen
it
when
there
is
a
as
a
as
a
separate
subsection
and
other
like
you
know
it's
both
in
the
301
and
the
dui
statute,
and
I
don't
have
them
in
front
of
me,
but
I
believe
they're
in
a
separate.
I
don't
think
that
that
necessarily
matters
chairman,
so
if,
if
there's
any
preference,
but
it
does
need
to
be
in
there
that
it's-
you
know
that
it's
allowed
to
up
to
a
year
if
we
want
to
increase
it
over
a
six-month
probation.
D
So
wherever
the
committee
thinks
it's
fits
best
is
fine
with
me
is.
B
B
Okay,
let's
put
it,
let's
pick
a
place
to
put
it
so
it's
easier
for
k
and
then,
if
lsl
wants
to
adjust
it
they
you
know.
When
I
approve
the
standing
committee.
I
can
do
that
so
we're
on
page
two:
do
you
wanna?
Where
do
you
wanna?
What
do
you
wanna
do,
which
one
you
wanna
stick
with:
creating
a
new.
B
And
it
would
be
after
six,
so
it'd
be
seven,
so
we're
creating
roman
net,
seven
and
roman.
It
seven
will
read.
B
B
B
should
be
a
whole
other
statute,
in
my
opinion,
the
easier
if
the
misdemeanor
was
one
statute.
The
felony
was
another
statute,
but
I'm
not
gonna
we're
not
gonna
get
we're
not
gonna
mess
with
that
right
now.
I
don't
think
so.
Okay,
so
a
new.
So
on
page
two
new
subsection
b
and
subsection
b
would
read.
B
This
is
the
new
subsection
b:
okay,
okay,
all
right
for
representative
oakley.
D
B
All
those
in
favor
of
the
amendment
signifies
in
your
hand,
all
those
opposed
that
amendment
carries
before
we
have
some
general
discussion.
Let's
see
if
there's
any
other
amendments,
mr
chairman
representative,
because.
R
B
Would
I
think
under
that,
are
you
talking
about
7-13-304
302.
R
D
D
D
B
B
Two-Year
felony
representative
washington.
F
Your
wish
is
my
command
motion
that
line
22
on
page
two
strike
the
word
two
and
then
numeral
two
and
replace
with
five.
B
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
like
to
see
I
I
know
that
voyeurism
is
referenced
in
the
sex
offender
registry
law,
but
it's
not
mentioned
in
the
definition
of
criminal
offenses,
so
I
think.
F
I
would
like
a
more
of
a
conceptual
amendment.
Ask
the
lso
attorneys
to
make
the
recommended
changes
throughout
this
bill
and
the
sex
offender
registry
statute
necessary
to
make
certain
that
this
voyeurism
is
included
in
the
sexual
offender
registry
throughout.
B
F
H
Just
quick
discussion
on
this,
mr
chairman,
so
I
think
we
should
also
include
not
just
part
two
of
c
but
part,
one
of
c
the
entire
felony
provision
we're
going
to
include.
I
mean
that
would
cover,
because
otherwise
we
are
not
covering
the
person
who
sticks
a
camera
in
a
hotel
room
or
a
locker
room.
We're
only
covering
the
personal
right.
H
B
B
R
Go
second,
so
I
you
know
it,
it
is
already
in
there
specifically
for
if
it's
voyeurism
against
a
minor,
I'm
not
comfortable
with
adding
more
people
to
the
sexual
offender
registry,
especially
after
we've
had
this
long
discussion
about
expungement,
where
it
makes
it
harder
for
people
to
to
to
re-enter
society.
So
so
my
question
is
maybe
for
the
committee:
what
what,
where
is
the
line
from
when
someone
is
reformed
versus
not,
and
how
well
does
a
sexual
offender
registry
work
before
we
start
putting
more
people
on
to
it?.
B
A
lot
and
representative
again,
I
do
think,
that's
a
good
point.
I
think
whether
it
makes
it
there
or
not
the
it
was
raised
that
maybe
it
would
be
a
good
interim
study
to
really
study
that
registry
and
what
are
the
effects
of
it
are
we
are
we?
What
are
our
recidivism
rights?
Look
like
with
it.
What
do
our
offenses
look
like
in
general?
What
does
life
for
those
individuals
look
like
in
terms
of
getting
back
into
society?
I
think
those
are
long-term
questions
that
probably
not
one
of
us
has
an
answer
to.
B
I
think
the
one
question
we
can
still
answer
today,
though,
is
whether
or
not
it
is
an
offense
that
is
worthy
of
being
on
the
registry
that
we
want
to
keep
it.
The
purpose
of
the
registry
is
not
to
penalize.
It
is
to
keep
people
on
our
radar,
so
we
know
you
know
so
when
we
have
somebody
who
has
a
thumb
drive
with
thousands
of
videos
on
it,
you
know
how
many
times
did
they
go
through
the
system
or
do?
Are
we
even
keeping
track
of
those
people?
B
I
think
that's
the
only
thing
we
can
answer
today.
Vice
chairman
washington,.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
heart
come
back
to
that
powerful
letter
that
we
had
from
our
victim
and
she's
an
adult,
I'm
assuming
we're
in
the
workforce.
So
if
we
don't
address
adult
victims
and
survivors
in
in
this
bill,
I
think
we
failed
to
hear
the
message
from
that
individual
who
was
so
poignant
in
testimony
today.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
just
would
again
say
that,
while
the
intent
of
the
sex
offender
registration
may
not
be
to
to
penalize,
it
certainly
has
that
effect
and
it's
something
that
people
go
to
great
lengths
to
avoid,
and
I'm
just
just
talking
about
the
realities
of
it
here,
and
it
can
be
one
of
those
things
that
then
could
make
this
less
used.
It's
just
a
discussion
when,
when
people
go,
you
know,
I've
had
a
judge,
push
me
to
switch
a
charge.
D
I
didn't
do
it,
but
to
try
to
say
could
we
find
a
different
charge
that
wasn't
something
where
they
had
to
register?
So
it
definitely
is
a
big
consideration
for
defendants
in
pleading
and
taking
responsibility
if,
if
they
have
to
do
registry,
just
just
throwing
that
out
there
for
discussion.
B
Oh,
that's
representative,
oakley's.
B
B
All
right
k
will
you
please
call
the
roll
on
senate
file,
87
voyeurism
amendments.
B
B
S
Minutes.
Okay,
I
trust
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you.
Today
I
bring
before
you
senate
file
155.,
it's
pretty
simple
bill.
It's
limiting
firearm,
seizure
and
regulation
and
the
keywords
during
emergencies.
So
that's
really.
We've
had
a
trend
in
some
of
the
big
cities
to
close
down
firearms
sales,
gun
stores,
gunsmiths,
etc.
This
bill
says
that
they've
got
to
do
with
the
same
as
they
do
with
other
business,
doesn't
mean
they
can't
do
it.
They've
got
to
follow
it
in
that
fashion.
S
It's
an
engrossed
bill.
The
second
part
of
the
bill
deals
with
the
concealed
carry
permits
and
the
shooting
ranges
which
turns
out
that
down
here
the
city
or
the
county
operates
a
shooting
range
and
we
had
to
amend
the
bill
to
make
it
so
that
it
didn't
have
we
forced
it
where
theirs
was
open
all
the
time.
Long
and
short
I'd
stand
for
questions
on
it
yeah.
My
commissioners
talked
to
me
about
that
amendment.
N
S
B
M
M
E
M
B
B
Thank
you
clarissa.
So
we
are
on
senate
file,
155,
limiting
firearms,
seizure
and
regulation
during
emergencies.
Anyone
else
wishing
to
testify
on
this
bill
close
public
comment
on
this
bill
committee.
What
is
your
pleasure
moved
by
representative
larson
seconded
by
vice
chairman
washit
discussion
on
the
bill.
B
All
right,
representative
ian
is
fine
with
the
question
question
being
called
and
I
guess
you'll
follow
up
with
us
senator
on
that
definition,
maybe
just
in
case
we
get
that
on
the
floor
or
it
might
be
helpful.
B
Q
A
Representative
williams,
aye
representative
washitt,
aye,
representative
yin,
no
representative
swannot,
sir
aye,
chairman
olson
aye,
mr
chairman,
you
have
eight,
I'm
sorry,
seven
eyes
one
excused
and
one
no.