H.B. 102 Victim Privacy Amendments: transcript

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, so what this bill does is it gives victims of crimes the option of just having their initials on publicly available documents rather than their full names. So this is things like police reports, charging documents, um, it has carve outs. So in instances where it wouldn't make sense to only have initials, for example, you wouldn't say, don't stalk jd. You'd say Don't stalk Jane Doe. And it also requires that agencies keep a record of the full name so that if there is, um, a court order or reason to identify the victim's full identity that it is available. We don't wanna cut off that access. Um, I also wanna say that this is, uh, already being done in some instances. So, crimes involving children, sex crimes, things like that. This just sets up, um, standards and guardrails so that this is applied consistently when it is done. And so that others have the option of, of utilizing this since people have different reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. And that is the bill That concludes your presentation. It does.

Marice Jones. I'm the director of the Victim Services Commission. We are in support of this bill. Um, I think it's important just for clarification, for anyone listening online or otherwise, that this is not in any way going to limit the information that defense attorneys get, um, or responding respondent attorneys get, uh, they will get all that information, contact address. Um, so this is primarily to protect, uh, the nosy, NORAs, the, you know, perhaps the family members or, um, other community members that perhaps don't have good intentions. And, and it could be used as an abusive tool for victims by spreading who they are or, and what's happening. So it's a, it's just a good high level protective measure and it's something that's already being used in a lot of different agencies as well. Uh, this would just make it the best practice across the board. So we appreciate Representative Hayes's efforts in it. Thank You. Thank you,

Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland, executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Uh, we appreciate the sponsor for bringing this bill. We think it's great policy. Uh, when we read the bill, then we wanted to make sure that this policy was in a place and the implementation portion was in a place that prosecutors could immediately implement it. Uh, she was great in hearing our concerns, uh, and addressing them as appropriate in her bill. Uh, we're in full support and we ask your support.

Thank you Dan Strong with CCJJ. You heard from a lot of our stakeholders already. We did vote unanimously to support this bill. We think it builds on some important work with, um, victim privacy, uh, including Senator Pitcher Bill from a couple years ago that created the Safe At Home program that we manage at CCJJ. So we appreciate Representative Hayes efforts in this area. Think this is a good step forward. Thank you.

Uh, Steve Burton from the Utah Defense Attorney Association. Um, the previous version of this bill we had concerns with. It was a little bit too broad, but Representative Hayes was great to carve out some exceptions and make sure that we still had, uh, access to the evidence that we needed and we appreciate that. So we are in support of this bill as well.

Thank you. And good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. Brett Robinson, the Chief Policy Advisor at the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and we also support this bill. Um, this is something that we routinely do in many of our cases, but this bill's important because it makes it uniform across the criminal justice spectrum, um, from the investigation all the way through the process. And this is going to remove one more potential barrier for victims to come forward. They don't choose to be involved in the criminal justice process, and it can be quite difficult to go through that process. And this is one more thing we can do to protect their identity, um, while also maintaining all the due process rights available in trial. So we encourage support.

Alright, thank you very much. Yeah. My name is Seth Stewart. I'm representing myself from American Fork. I do have concerns due process concerns with this bill. It appears to violate the speedy public trial provision of Article one, section 12 in Utah's constitution, as well as the right to be confronted with witnesses. Uh, public trial is public information, uh, redacting victims names or substituting initials in their, in their place for anything that should be public information, which includes witnesses at a public trial. Uh, that's not allowable per our constitution. There is privacy when a victim complains to a grand jury, those hearings and investigations are private, at least until an an, um, a presentment or an indictment is made. And that would, as I submit the, the scope of privacy guarantees.

Um, representative or Senator Brammer, um, given the circumstance, I'll Move that we recommend favorably. Um, HB 1 0 2 second substitute.

Thank you. And thank you for having me here today. I just wanna say, um, people don't choose to be victims of crimes, and so I wanna add the protection so that the criminal justice system works for them the way it ought.

Thank you.

I can tell. I promise I'll bring the same energy. Okay. Please proceed. I will. Thank you so much for having me today, committee. I appreciate it. And I think this is also a good bill. I'm just gonna put that out there. Um, which I think you guys think so too, because you actually did pass it last year. So if you're wondering why you're having deja vu, it's because you've already seen this. Um, so what House Bill 1 0 2 does is it gives, uh, victims of crimes the option to just list their initials on any publicly available documents. So that protects them. If for some reason they don't want that information to be out there, they're able to maintain their anonymity. Um, this includes things like police reports, charging documents. Um, it, however, also does require that the full name, um, be accessible in response to court orders. So the entities will maintain a record that can be referenced in case it is still needed for any legitimate court purposes. Um, this also does have a carve out, so it does not apply to, uh, criminal, uh, protective orders or stalking injunctions because it's very hard to say you can't stalk sh you need to fully spell out the name to know who you can't stalk. And that is the gist of what the bill does. I am open and enthusiastic to any questions.

Thank you. Megan Mills with this statewide Association of Prosecutors. Um, we're very grateful for this bill. Um, grateful for the, grateful for the sponsor's, um, receptiveness to our input and our feedback and we support it.

Thank you Madam Chair and good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Brett Robinson. I'm the Chief Policy Advisor for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office. And we also would like to thank Representative Hayes for bringing this important piece of legislation. I think it's important to understand that this is something that, um, office prosecution offices can do and ha and do routinely in several types of cases. It doesn't do anything to impact the legitimacy of the proceedings. Um, but it's important to remember that victims don't choose to be victims of crime. And it's not easy to go through the criminal justice process. And this is one small thing we can do, um, to make that a little bit easier and we encourage it support. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Madam Chair, did I hear that this is something that the prosecutor's office can already do?

Yes, that is correct. Uh, Madam Chair, thank you for that question. We do this routinely in cases already where we have, uh, victims who are juveniles or in some sexual violence cases. So this is something that we can do and do, do. Um, and it's something that is, um, something that, that defense counsel and prosecutors are used to doing in certain cases. And it doesn't impact the legitimacy, but it does take, it does take consideration of the victims and their privacy.

Madam Chair, another question. Please. Yes. Um, so if this is an ability you already have, why do a bill to let you do it still?

Great question. Thank you. Um, Madam Chair, I, I think it's important for several reasons. For one, this isn't just for prosecutors, it's for all of the players in the criminal justice realm. Um, and I think it's important that this is something that could go to victims as a, as an option early on in the process. Um, because it would apply to law enforcement as well. And I've personally spoken with some people or even considering whether or not they should report a crime. And sometimes they ask, well, will, will my name be out there? Will it be on charging documents? Will it be on police reports? And I have to let 'em know that that's not something that can be guaranteed right now, we do it for several cases, um, but we, at the time of filing, we often don't know what a victim prefers. And so a bill like this would make that decision happen early in the process, and then it could follow through the process to make sure people are taking that in into consideration. So I do think it's important, um, to make sure that it's consistent throughout the process. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I, I get where this is coming from and I remember voting for it last year, but after I did, I remember thinking that while I agree with the ability to be able to do this, there is also that other side of someone, um, protecting their identity and making false claims. And then the person that they are accusing does not have that same ability. And so the question I'm trying to consider is, you know, sh what person's rights, Trump whos, you know, so anyway, thank you so much for sharing that information. Alright,

Marlis Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. Uh, we support this bill as well. Uh, we've worked with Representative Hayes and appreciate, um, some of the insights we've been able to share with her as well. Victims are, as Mr. Robinson said, they're basically thrust into these circumstances. They have absolutely no choice. And, and what we can do to help elevate that privacy for them in the process can prevent them from a lot of public, um, harm and criticism. And of course, in a world of such heightened media and socials and whatnot, uh, there's so much victim blaming and criticism out there that it really can prevent a victim of crime from making a report. And of course, if those reports aren't made, then public safety remains jeopardized by ongoing criminals getting away with it. And so this effort to further protect it and, and as was indicated, all the key players in the system, and as a former prosecutor, you know, defense attorneys, all the key players, they get that information in complete, uh, form and addresses and contact information. They get all that because they need that. And they're entitled to that to prepare the defense for anyone that is accused of a crime. And so those that need it will have it. Uh, but those that may not need it or may be looking to do additional harm or criticism to victims won't have that easy access and it just increases their privacy. So we support it. And appreciate Representative Hayes. Thank you.

Uh, Christopher Brownwell, Utah, chief Privacy Officer, director of the Office of Data Privacy. Um, we spoke on behalf of a different bill this week, HB 3 25, that also deals with, uh, victim privacy rights, um, and that bill we work closely with Law Enforcement Media Coalition to balance victim privacy by eliminating victim name from the definition and initial contact reports. Um, this bill is very similar. Uh, along that vein of protecting victim rights, um, our office has in the last year received, received complaints, um, to our privacy ombuds person from victims whose names were made public. Um, so those were referred to us. So this is something that does occur where there are victims' names included in public records. Um, and, and as our ombuds person has reviewed them, um, there have been determinations at least that they should not have been made public in some of these interest, uh, instances. And that the, uh, transparency aspect of public interest of making it, um, public or transparent didn't outweigh the individual privacy interest. So we do see value in a proper balancing and having some mechanism to make the victim names private.

Hello, I'm Seth Stewart. Um, I'm speaking to this bill on account of the impact that it could have on the right to a speedy trial, and particularly to be confronted with the witnesses against oneself. I I understand that there's, there's this exemption that's being carved out for victims to say that they can have file list requests to have their names anonymized and have the initials put in there. Um, practically speaking, whether or not a victim is summoned to testify at a trial, a victim is a witness, and the accused always have the right to be confronted with those who witness against them, regardless of whether there's any kind of mediation or alternative representation arrangement going on there. And so, by granting them anonymity there, uh, I'm concerned that this could result in reduced transparency and public reporting and accounting, for example, if there are, uh, victims and accusers who are going around and perhaps over accusing, uh, that's, that's a very valid concern and I would like that addressed before this bill goes through. So thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. I have to be extra careful these days. Uh, I'm going to move to adopt the second substitute. It's already adopted. It's already adopted. You guys are way ahead of me. Um, then I will move to favorably adopt or favorably recommend House Bill 1 0 2 second sub, uh, to the house floor for their consideration. Thank you. The motion is to favorably, sorry. Oh, is second sub. It's second. The motion is to favorably recommend the second substitute of House Bill 1 0 2.

Uh, yes, because, uh, it sounds like there's some concerns about, uh, confrontation clause issues Fifth Amendment, uh, not knowing who your accuser is. And I want to clarify a couple of things. Uh, 'cause I deal with charging, uh, documents all the time. Uh, what this would do is an initial charging document called an information in other places, an indictment. Um, it, it would, a victim could request to have their initials instead of their full name. Um, and the reason why that's important is as a, as a defense lawyer, you're gonna know who the, the, the accuser is. You have to, like, it's gonna come to you in discovery. And, and at the end of the day, you have to know that. 'cause if you want a trial, your accuser's gonna be there in front of you for cross examination. That's, that's a constitutional right. Um, and this in no way impinges on the, um, on the, the right to confrontation. Uh, but it does add a, a layer of protection for, for victims, um, and, and alleged victims in this case, because the most important thing right out the gates is you need to inform someone what the crimes are against them. And, and in that sort of public facing document, you just have to prove if you're the government, that you have probable cause to match this statute with these actions. Um, and, and, uh, in that frame of reference, the specific name of any individual that's a victim is not really relevant, is relevant. That they meet the elements of the offense so long that the defense has access to who their accuser is and ultimately has the right to confrontation. That's not violated. And this is a constitutional provision, adds a layer of protection, I think is helpful in a world where more and more of our, uh, uh, criminal cases are publicized. Um, it adds, uh, it adds a little bit of, of safety in a very vulnerable circumstance when you're a victim of a crime. So I support this bill and I ask my colleagues to support it as well.

Thank you. And thank you for the committee's time and for the questions that were raised. I wanted to address a couple things. Um, the concept of like serial accusations was brought up, and that is why specifically, like we addressed this concept when we were working out this bill, and that is why that there is a record attached, uh, to say if there is a legitimate reason to find out the names that it is available. So if there are cases and you do think that this might be an instance of serial accusation, you'll be able to find that. Um, I brought this bill originally forward because I have a constituent, and I don't wanna go into details about her, but she was afraid to file a police report because she didn't want it getting back to her. She didn't want the people that she felt in danger from to have access to that information potentially face retaliation. And I think at the end of the day, we need a criminal justice system that is actually useful to the people that it is designed to serve. If people are scared to use it and to even take that first step, then we've, we've got a kink to work out there, right? Um, so this, this standardizes practices, as was mentioned, this already is being done in some instances. This broadens it so that it can be done in more and it includes, um, specifications because right, it, it is already happening now, but this adds guidelines and some guardrails. So again, it it, it includes the fact that the name needs to be attached. It has the specific carve outs for when it is necessary so that practices that already exist can do it. So more functionally. And finally, I think Mr. Robinson said it best victims don't choose to be victims of crimes. They're, they're the victims here. And we want to make sure that they're being protected adequately and that the system is serving them the way it was designed. So thank you again so much for your consideration today, and I would hope to have your support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill gives victims of crimes the option of using just their initials on publicly effacing documents. So that is things like police reports, um, charging documents. Uh, it requires that the full millions still be available, um, so that they can be found in response to a court order if that information is needed. And it has carve outs for, uh, criminal protective orders and stalking injunctions. Um, but that is the sum of the bill. I would love your support and then we can go to lunch.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a Question? Sam Hayes, will you yield to a question?

I'll yield to a question? Yes. Representative

Hansen, thank you. Is it good to effectively know both sides of the story? Even if the victim has is just leaving initials

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to know both sides of the story. This just adds a layer of protection for victims. People do not choose to be victims of crimes. This was brought to me by somebody who was in a, a, a situation and she was not comfortable putting her name on any publicly facing documents because she was afraid of retaliation from, um, from her abuser's family, frankly. Um, and this is especially important in small towns and rural areas where everybody knows everywhere. So this does not do anything to get in the way of a person's right to face their accuser. It just provides a layer of security for the victims so that the criminal justice system can serve the people it's designed to help.

Wonderful. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker with the sponsor yield. Two Question. Representative Hayes will yield No Our Representative Peck.

I'll waive. Thank You. Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. President. This bill gives victims of crime the option of having their in, of just having their initials on publicly available documents rather than their full names. Um, this is already being done in some instances, but it creates standards and guardrails that is applied consistently when requested. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. President. I move that second substitute house Bill 1 0 2 pass.

Senator Vickers Baldy in, what are we doing? Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. So We're gonna K Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers. Weiler Wilson Winterton, you Know, was good. So

Mr. President, this bill ensures that every child in state custody is screened within 60 days for federal benefits such as social security or veteran's benefits. And that no eligible child leaves money unclaimed. It requires the benefits to be placed in a protected, uh, child specific account, um, able accounts when appropriate and imposes strict fiduciary duties on the department to manage funds in the child's best interest.