H.B. 110 Offender Modifications: transcript

Representative Clancy. Thank You. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll, I'll be speaking to the third substitute if that's appropriate. Yes, it is. Um, that does need to be adopted. We've been working with the department First. We've, we've adopted the third sub has been adopted, but there's an amendment one that has not been adopted. Got it. Perfect. So I'll be speaking to the third substitute as amended. Okay. Um, and I would just like to state for the record, I did send the committee some information about a raccoon that did, uh, hold some drug paraphernalia that could be germane to the last discussion. So, but I always hate to see those raccoons go bad. It is a problem. Um, so House Bill one 10. Uh, there's three, three major points to this legislation. The first is something that Representative Mussman heard about in their appropriations committee. Um, right now, if, if an individual is convicted of a Class B misdemeanor, they can be sentenced to probation. Right now, uh, that probation can only exist at the county level. So county sheriffs do, uh, county probation, which is a great tool. Um, Arnold Ventures has done some significant research on the, uh, impact on short-term supervision and showing that that can actually have a positive effect as compared to longer term supervision. So, um, what we're doing in this legislation is allowing the Department of Corrections. And what you'll see in the amendment chair Weiler, is, uh, narrowing the language to make sure that we don't overwhelm the Department of Corrections. But, uh, the Department of Corrections has resources that they would like to help serve individuals who are, uh, what has been described in this legislature as, as high frequency or, uh, repeat offenders that are occurring at the Justice Court level. And so this legislation would allow the Department of Corrections as appropriate with existing resources to help individuals on that path, um, through being able to supervise them, uh, on probation. So, um, that already, that authority to be on probation already exists, but we're making sure that the Department of Corrections can facilitate that if appropriate. Um, the second two things have to do with, uh, um, the Board of Pardons and Parole. So the first is a parole consideration. So there are two pieces, two puzzle pieces that we're adding to, um, the Board of Pardons determinations when it comes to parole decisions. The first is to consider the circumstances of a new offense before re-rolling an individual. And so this could cut both ways. So you maybe have a situation where someone comes in for a parole violation on a, um, uh, you know, you can, you can select a crime, and let's say that it will take an extreme example. Let's say that there was involved in a, a attempted homicide or an aggravated assault where there's shots fired. So you may have an individual that's on camera, on a surveillance footage, firing shots, uh, from a, from a firearm. However, as we know with gang violence in particular, many times there's individuals who are afraid to come forward. And so maybe the case gets down to something that's not as serious as the original offense. All this is saying is that the Board of Pardons would review the facts of the case and the details of that case before making a parole determination. So rather than just looking at what the, uh, what what it says on the paper of this as the offense, that they'll take some time to review that before re-rolling someone who's already violated, uh, initially on their, uh, terms of parole. This could also go both ways, though. If there's something where, uh, the board can review the facts of the case and it's maybe not as serious as what is on paper, then they can make that determination as well. All we're saying is that we we're trying to give the Board of pardons more tools, more information as they make decisions that impact public safety. The second piece there is just adding a line about clear and convincing evidence that the individual is not a threat to public safety. Prior to that parole deter determination, um, finally in 2021, uh, the legislature passed, uh, a bill about pardons for individuals on the sex offender registry. And essentially it was a simple piece of legislation that said, if you receive a pardon from the Board of Pardons and Parole, um, that, uh, would eliminate the offense that brought someone to be on the sex offender registry, then, then you would be removed from the registry as well. So what was happening is you had individuals who were pardoned of a sex offense, and they were still on the registry, but the state of Utah was, there was no offense that would lead someone to be there. And so, so it was kind of a, uh, seeking to address that issue. I think for, for many of us, it would certainly make sense for an individual who is factually innocent to be removed from the sex offender registry when receiving a pardon. Um, however, over the past, since 2021, every single year, there has been more and more individuals being pardoned off of the sex offender registry that don't align with the existing registry removal guidelines. So you can think of the, there's two ways to get off of the sex offender registry. One is the registry removal process, which has been significantly legislated, debated, um, worked on over the course of years. I, Ima I think, I actually think there's a couple pieces of legislation that are impacting the registry removal process. There's hearings, uh, there's evidentiary standards, but more, more importantly, there's also timeframes. So there are certain timeframes, if someone's on a registry for a 20 year or a lifetime, there's certain timeframes associated with the existing registry removal statute that says you cannot petition to be removed from the registry if you're on the lifetime registry for a certain period of time. Um, when we created the legislation about the Pardon piece, those timelines were not, did not exist. So I would, I would contend to you all, and you'll hear from the Board of Pardons, I think we've got this to a good spot that all we're doing in this bill is making sure those timelines match. So I would contend that it wouldn't make sense to have, uh, two paths to be removed from the registry. One that's been heavily legislated discussed, debated that has these time periods in there, and then one that doesn't have any of those time periods in there. Um, you'll, I imagine you'll hear from the Board of Pardons that this is some, this is a issue that we've worked to consensus and we're not, if, if they still feel it's appropriate to remove someone from the registry, that's absolutely appropriate. But just making sure that we have the same, um, the same timeframes in place. So with that, Mr. Chair, that would conclude my presentation.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, representative, just checking on your fiscal note is, is that already updated to your third sub? The, The, the amendment reflects the fiscal note discussions. Um, right now the Utah Department of Corrections is sharing with the fiscal analyst that they don't believe there'll be a fiscal impact because it's with existing resources. The fiscal analyst office is maybe in disagreement with them with this amendment. If you choose to adopt it as a committee today, that should resolve the fiscal, no. And it should be at the very least under $20,000. But the, the hope would be zero because we'd be using existing resources. Follow up question, Mr. Chair? Yes, please. Thank you for that. I, I'm just curious 'cause it, it seems like there is extra responsibility for the Board of Pardons to process the whole exercise. Um, so if you can answer that, and then in that same question, um, do you feel comfortable when you say that they will be assessing information? I think you use a a really good example. It sounds really real, right? I mean, there may be some hesitation to, because whatever, you know, relationship, gang related relationship may be in that scenario. But do you think that's the correct role for them to get onto that much of a, of, of power to have that much power? I guess that's my question. That's the real policy question here is we're providing now this ability that was not there before. So it's in a way, a new way of, of empowering them. Do you feel comfortable with that and, and that that is the right call? 'cause you could, it could go either way. I mean, you mentioned that, right? It could be, Hey, you got less time or more time. I mean, is that how you feel we should address this and how other states done this before?

Oh, thank you for the, for the question. So I'll speak first to the fiscal impact. So the Board of Pardons, and I actually see Brittany in the screen behind me now. So I don't know if Ms. Carson can speak to the fiscal impact. The last time we talked, they stated that this would be a zero fiscal impact because in practice they're, uh, already trying their best to do these different things. And so this is what you're seeing in the third substitute with the First Amendment is a reflection of the many, many conversations that we've had. Um, ultimately I think this is gonna be a, a win for, uh, not just the board, but I think for public safety in general, I think a lot of individuals would probably assume that if someone is, uh, vi violates. So this would be, and I'll I'll lay out the case. So someone is arrested for a crime, convicted of the crime sent to prison, then they're on parole, then they re-offend for a new offense. Yeah. Separate offense, not just a violation. That is what they'll be reviewing there. And so I, I think, um, in practice, I think many Utahans would, would think that this is what's going on and in many cases they're doing their best. This is, I would say a collaborate collaborative language to say, let's make sure we are getting to the facts of those case and not just the, um, and it's tough. I mean, the board of Pardons, they, they do thousands and thousands of decisions per board member, um, uh, every, every day and, and every week. And so I, I've tried to make this not as a oppositional bill to the board of, of Pardons. Um, I, I think they're in a good spot. I don't wanna speak for, for, uh, Ms. Carson or whoever's here to speak for the board. Um, but that's where I say I think it can be a win-win for everyone because we're not, we're not trying to tip the scales one way or the other just to say, let's make sure when we're taking these weighty decisions of re-rolling someone back into the community, let's make sure they're ready and maybe they're ready before we think, uh, they're ready because of this, uh, consideration. So that, that's, that's my hope there. I think they could probably add a little more color to your questions, Senator asking Me. Thank

You. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair.

Thank you. Brittany Carson with the Board of Pardons and Parole. Uh, we appreciate the sponsor for the extensive work that we've been able to do with him, um, on this bill throughout, um, the interim and into the session, uh, we have a zero fiscal note on the bill as, uh, in the third sub as presented. Um, most of this is very much in line with what we are already doing in terms of process wise for the parole issue that you were discussing, discussing the board, um, gains access to that information. Due to this discussion, we are actually working with the Attorney General's office and the Department of Corrections to improve that information sharing to the board so that we are making sure all of that information is there and available as we make those really important public safety decisions. Um, additionally to the pardons portion of the bill, um, we review this as a refinement on the 2021 policy passed by this body that kind of tied the pardon with the sex offender registry removal. And we can implement that as written. So we wanna thank the sponsor for his great work on this bill.

Um, so that for us, yes. Okay.

Strong, uh, directed sentencing commission here for CCJJ today. Uh, we reviewed this bill and I worked with a sponsor on a few iterations of the bill and really appreciate his, uh, collaboration with the different entities involved. I think we think the bill's in a good place voted to support it, um, on the sex offense registry issue, I think it, it does make sense to sort of disentangle those processes. We did talk about whether there were other ways to do that, but I, we think this works, um, for, for kind of undoing maybe an unintended consequence of, of, uh, the, the change in 2021. And then I'll speak to the amendment just briefly 'cause that was an issue that came up in our meeting as well. There was some concern that the initial language, although I think everybody intended only frequent offenders in certain circumstances, would be referred to AP and P, that it would've allowed maybe the floodgates to open and we could have hundreds of B misdemeanors going from justice courts to AP and p and that that may be what the fiscal analysis honing in on. So, to, to my eyes at least, it looks like the third, uh, the amendment and the third sub resolved that and should be a pretty limited number of cases. So thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I'm the Executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. We want to thank the sponsor for bringing this bill for the collaborative nature in which he's addressed these issues. We think that each of these different portions of the bill is important, that it will help address public safety concerns in our community and would urge your support.

I'm the director of the Victim Services Commission. We also have reviewed this bill and been in conversations with the Board of Pardons and Representative Clancy. We definitely appreciate all his efforts in, in working through the different iterations and, and getting it to this point. And we are in support of it, um, and appreciate the, the focus on public safety. Obviously from a victim's perspective that's important not just to those that have been victimized, but also those that hopefully none of us will be victimized. So thank you.

Chair members of the committee. My name is Felix Espinoza and I am here on behalf of Utah for rational sex offense laws in opposition to provision three of this bill. A few statements and questions for the record. Uh, pardons are not exonerations. I believe Representative Clancy's justification confuses forgiveness with innocence and that matters. The border of pardons and parole is written into the Utah Constitution under Article seven, in which it may grant pardons after convictions As a discretionary authority guided by rehabilitation and public safety, this constitutional power has recognized, has been recognized in precedent set by HP 13 and hb uh, SB two 15 in 2012 and 2021 respectively that established early petition removal for five years and 20 years. HB one 10 provision three seeks to effectively strip the board of its constitutional constitutionally granted discretion to consider each case on its individual merits. In August, 2019, the Utah Department of Corrections gave a presentation to the Juab Judiciary Interim Committee, um, on the registry that cited extremely conservative board practices with only 14 approvals out of 83 petitions between 2015 and 2019. This historical data contradicts the premise of HB one 10, uh, provision three, where, um, so we ask where is the crisis now? Where is the data from 2020 to 2025 supporting the sponsor's claims in the following year. In September, 2020, sentencing commission director Monica Diaz, gave a presentation to the Law Enforcement Interim Committee, in which a board coalition, including the Attorney General's office, BCI, and the board itself agreed that a pardon should result in registry removal. If it is being asserted that the number of individuals applying to pardons has increased since 2021, uh, since the 2021 legislation and the number of pardons granted involving sex offenses has likewise increased what data supports these claims, we ask that this committee extract provision three out of this bill subject to independent data before restricting constitutional clemency authority.

Yes. Can you see me? Yes, we can. We can see, hear you. Go ahead. Good. Um, my family and I strongly oppose that section of House Bill one 10 associated with, um, the sex offender registry being a conviction based registry. For years, people have asked that it become a risk-based registry. There's no data I can find that says otherwise. If, if this bill passes, then our efforts and we're in the middle of a pardons process is very long and very complicated and costly that will destroy that effort and it will destroy our hope of me getting off the registry anytime soon. Over and over again, people have asked that we move to a risk-based registry, which is better for security and safety of the public because a high risk offender who has a low sentence could get off and we dunno where they are versus low, low risk offenders who may stay on the registry for decades because they were falsely convicted or overcharged. Um, we are trying to ha get a pardon for a false conviction I received in 1999, and this bill basically squashes any effort whatsoever. So we need to move to a risk based registry and then reconsider that portion at another time. Thank you.

Senator Escamilla. So moved. Yes.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I, you know, this is, this is, this is a big bill. Um, and I, I know the sponsors work really hard. I, I think you're addressing some pieces. I, I feel comfortable moving the bill. I I'm sure there's, we're gonna hear more about some of that concern on the sex offenders list. I'll, I'll review, but I, I feel it's in, in a good place and without, I'll make a motion that we, uh, recommend favorably. Third substitute as amended HB one 10 to the Senate.

I would say as well, speaking to the last commenter we have in the third substitute, we made sure that there's clear language about factual innocence so that if there was a, a, a pardon that was being, uh, sought for factual purposes of factual innocence, then this would not apply. And so that's something that we wanna make, make clear. Um, and then I would just say as well, this bill is not about a risk based registry or conviction based registry. This is making sure that the standards that we've adopted for other registry removal, uh, puzzle pieces of our system are aligned in that fact. I think you can see that, um, the Board of Pardons is supportive of this, um, and that, and that's come with a lot of, a lot of work too. So I recognize that there's frustration with people who, who maybe disagree with that portion of it, but I would say that if we're gonna have those conversations, then we need to batch that all together. This bill is solely, uh, addressing the, uh, disparity in those two paths forward. That, that, that would be, uh, what I share. Mr. Chair.

Waive summation, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, committee, I'll be speaking to the second substitute of this bill. The second substitute, um, reflects a lot of work that's gone in with different stakeholders, um, particularly thankful to the Board of Pardons and others who have been working hard with me on this legislation and House Bill one 10. Um, you can think of it as just a, another shift in the right direction to make sure that we're being very conscientious about the weighty decisions of, uh, probation, uh, of pardons, uh, parole, and then, uh, meaningful supervision as well. So I'll go through the, the main points of the bill in front of you. Um, Jonathan is gonna pass around a one pager that we printed out along with some data to, to go along with that as well. So the first piece is, is quite minor. This allows the Department of Corrections to supervise individuals who have been convicted of Class B misdemeanors. So right now, uh, what we're seeing is that, uh, many times our criminal justice system can feel like an all or nothing thing. And so this, uh, allows, um, the Department of Corrections and AP and p if appropriate, if someone has committed, you know, something like 37, uh, class B misdemeanors. While all of those may not rise to level of an A, they could get a short and structured probation, uh, piece, uh, if a judge orders that and finds that appropriate, um, through AP and P. The second piece we'll talk about, um, is parole. So, as you all know, uh, the criminal justice system can be very complex, and individuals who are on parole and who are arrested for a new crime while on parole, sometimes the the name of that crime doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. And so what we're doing here, and this has been a collaborative process with the Board of Pardons and Parole, is having the board review the facts of the case, um, when someone's been arrested for a new crime. So in some circumstances, this could merit the board making a more lenient decision because they're seeing, uh, this, uh, maybe the, the name of the offense doesn't necessarily match the, the substance or the harm. And so they can look at those facts. Um, equally speaking, if something was an egregious offense, but it was pled down, or there was different circumstances that, uh, led it to be classified at a lower offense, uh, the board can look at that. And so all we're saying is that before these, these weighty decisions with public safety are made, that they consider the facts of those case. We also added a line about, um, having the board find before re-rolling, uh, an, uh, an offender that the board must find by clear and convincing evidence that the offender no longer poses a threat to public safety. So just being, just adding, uh, some, some more guidance as you look at all of the mitigating and aggravating factors in these decisions, making sure that public safety is, is at the heart of it. I wanna also mention too, and you'll probably hear this in the, um, discussion and public comment, um, we've been working really hard, uh, over the past year, I would say, on making sure that, um, victims feel supported through the process. We heard in this last hearing that, that it's tough for a victim to go through the criminal justice process. And the, the, the parole, uh, pardon and parole process is no different. Um, substitutes two strips out, uh, language that, that I had been working on about victim and, uh, victim notification and law enforcement and prosecutor notification. The reason for this, as you'll hear in the present in public comment, I imagine, is that there's a significant amount of work that's been going into this. And so, rather than than legislating with a broad brush, we want to support the board in what they're doing. And so I think they'll be able to, to speak to that. Um, but it goes without saying that, um, we're hearing from victims across the state that this is a tough process. Finally, I want to address the, the piece about the pardons for individuals who were on the sex kidnap and child abuse offender registry. So in 2021, there was a Senate bill, um, that passed through the legislature that made a lot of sense and said, if someone was pardoned and recognized colleagues, a pardon is a very, very powerful tool. A pardon, is the state of Utah forgiving someone for a crime and making it go away as if it never happened? So you might imagine that a pardon for a grievous, uh, sexual offense like child rape, that's a very serious and, and a very mighty decision. So the idea that if someone was, was pardoned, particularly if they were innocent of said crime, but that crime led them to be on the sex offender registry, it would make sense that if we pardon that individual, they should also be removed from the registry. This bill, uh, when it passed in 2021 and never had a house hearing, it actually failed on the house floor until there was a call of the house and it, and it, and it barely, barely passed. And what that bill did is it basically said that, uh, in, in, in essence what it did, and if you look at the data in front of you, it created a new avenue for individuals to get off of the sex offender registry without going through the registry removal process that's already in place. So what this bill does, hou house bill one 10 on the second substitute, it does not remove the board's discretion to take some to pardon someone, uh, even for the, even for offenses that, um, individuals have been, uh, uh, required to be on the lifetime sex offender registry. So it does not limit the discretion. They can still be removed from the registry. All it does is it matches the same timeline that the registry removal process that exists, it matches the Board of Pardons process to the same thing. And so, when you think about it from a public policy perspective, the legislature has worked hard on the registry removal process, and they felt that these time, these timelines were appropriate. Um, for these circumstances, all we're doing is making sure that the second avenue that individuals have this opportunity, we're making sure that it fits that ex that same, that same timeline. Um, so with that colleagues, I will, uh, sum my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions and you can, uh, review any of the materials in front of you as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Committee. My name is Brittany Carson. I'm the Director of Public Outreach and Transparency with the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole. First off, we want to thank Representative Clancy for working with us on this. Over the last several months, it has been a great opportunity to reflect and look at our processes to make improvements where we can from a policy and administrative rule standpoint, as well as to provide some great education. First of all, we wanna thank the Department of Corrections and the Attorney General's office for working with us to review our parole violation process so that we can better incorporate the information that Representative Clancy mentioned as we're making those important decisions on parole violations. We also wanna thank Representative Ivory, Glendon Mitchell, and other victims groups who have been incredibly helpful with us as we've looked for ways to improve both our victim notification process as well as our disclosure process. When it comes to victim impact statements, we are currently working on an administrative rule that will allow us to provide summaries of victim of record victim impact statements to the offenders so that we can be both in compliance with state statute as well as the labrum decision from 1992. Um, we are also working with prosecutor's offices to, uh, streamline the retrieval of good victim contact information as those cases transition from the court's jurisdiction to ours. Uh, victim notification has been a huge priority of ours for the last two years. We've launched my voice and many other tools to improve that, and this is definitely one of those things that will help us in that process. Lastly, we wanna address the pardons issue. We rep, uh, recognize that as an executive branch agency, it is the legislatures, um, prerogative to put policy guidelines around those things and we appreciate the really thoughtful approach that they have taken to the part ins. So with that, we're just grateful for the opportunity to work together with Representative Clancy on this bill.

Dan. Thank you, Dan. Strong speaking today for CCJJ. We reviewed this bill at our meeting just a, uh, hour or so ago, and, uh, some of the comments Representative Clancy and Brittany made today about the work that's gone into it were reflected in that meeting and we, uh, ultimately voted unanimously as a commission to support the bill. And just wanna thank, uh, Representative Clancy for the good collaborative work getting to this point. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Alright. Marli Marlis Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. Um, our commission reviewed the first iteration of this bill and really appreciated the concept and the focus on trying to protect victims. We had some practical application questions and concerns. We very much appreciate Representative Clancy and the Board of Pardons being included in that conversation to better protect victims, uh, was we have not had a chance to reassess our position. I anticipate with our concerns being resolved in the substitute that is now released that we'll be moving towards the support. But just wanted to thank representative for listening and for the Board of Pardons and the good work that they are doing to better support victims. It was needed and they've been very responsive. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, committee members. My name is Deandra Brown. I'm glad to be before you again today. I'm here representing myself as well as my siblings, who we are all members of the five Browns. Um, our father is currently serving time in the Utah State Prison for the sexual abuse of myself and my two sisters. And since the beginning of his sentence in 2011, he has repeatedly tried to overturn the guilty plea and my siblings and I have, uh, experienced no fewer than 13 filings to change his plea with two more currently before, uh, pending. It's hard enough to put those experiences into words, but even harder to know that, uh, there are certain parts of the process where victims feel that they are not heard and that the the benefit is on the offender. I don't often speak about publicly, but it has been incredibly difficult to know that victim's impact statements are in the hands of the offender, and yet they have time to prepare what to say what, how to challenge us, and we are not given that opportunity. I know that portion was removed and I'm quite disappointed and will really follow up to make sure that victims have a stronger voice in this process and thank the sponsor for his work in this area. Thank you, Madam Chair, if I may.

Sure. Um, I've gone through two parole hearings with my siblings in 2025 alone, and we felt that our victim impact statements were almost used against us because, um, the, the offender, our father was able to review them in advance and prepare how he was going to, um, address the board. Um, and so it felt a, a bit like a violation that we were not allowed to know what he was gonna say, but at the other end, he was allowed to view all of our deepest, darkest, um, thoughts that were, uh, for, for the board to help them understand the impact.

And thank you Madam Chair and, and the decision that, uh, Ms. Brown is referencing its case law called Labrum, uh, v Utah. Um, I, I'll just go on record and say I believe that it was erroneously decided. Um, the Supreme Court held that it was a Sixth Amendment violation to not give copies of victim impact statements to offenders at parole hearings. We worked hard to try to find something in this legislation to address that we were not able to do it, but, um, I think it's something worth interim study mm-hmm. Or another conversation because what it's doing is it's empowering offenders who have already been adjudicated as guilty, um, over the o giving them power over their victims. And, and I think that's something that we might be able to address.

Thank you. My name is Stuart Young. I'm the Criminal Deputy Attorney General at the office of the Utah Attorney General. Uh, we just want to, uh, thank Representative Clancy for, uh, bringing a number of, uh, concerns that we had seen, uh, for our prosecutors, uh, over time. Uh, we really appreciate the change, the proposed change, uh, relating to the pardon issue on the sex offender registry. Uh, and, uh, and, and we had actually really enjoyed all of the bill, uh, as it had in, in its, uh, previous iteration. We understand that BOPP is working on the notification issue, and, and we hope that, uh, that that issue will continue to be addressed, uh, by BOPP, uh, for us. But we really appreciate the bill in its current form and, um, and, uh, and supported. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, chair members of the committee. My name is Felix Espinoza. I am here on behalf of Utah for Rational Sex Offense Laws, U-T-R-S-O-L in opposition to HP one 10. This legislation proposes three distinct provisions affecting different populations, victim impact statement protections, parole release requirements, and mandatory waiting periods for pardons tied, uh, to sex offender registry categories. Could you, could you speak to the sub that was presented, please? Where at, Um, the, the presenter actually said that those were not no longer in the bill. So please, please address and keep Germaine your comments to the bill that was presented. UTR So l supports and acknowledges representative Clancy's, uh, interest in victim rights and public safety under Provision one, we stand in opposition to provisions two and three, which contains fundamental flaws that undermine evidence-based policy, constitutional principles, and the efficient operation of Utah's criminal justice system. Regarding Provision three, the Board of Pardons already exercises strict scrutiny over early petition requests. Utah Department of Corrections provided a presentation in 2019 that released data from 2019 to 20 20 15 to 2019. The board approved 83 petitions over the five years, say that some time over the five years that it had accounted for. We have requested data from the Board of Pardons and patrol, um, pardons and Paroles CCJJ and the sponsor himself, uh, for this data that proves that that proves that child rape offenders do not get, uh, much less removed, uh, do not get pardons much less removed off of the sex offender registry. The pardon provisions are not supported by evidence claims that the board, uh, pardons and parole is acting as an expedited role off the registry are contradicted by data from 2019 despite repeated requests. You Close, I'm sorry, your time is up. Are you close? Uh, we respectfully urge the committee to reject HB one 10 in it, in its current form, request comprehensive data and require corrections impact analysis and preserve evidence-based individualized decision that making Thank you for retirement consideration.

Great. So I think you're conflating the difference between the two. The Board of Pardons and Parole does not remove individuals off of the sex offender registry. They pardon them. They may pardon, uh, at, as an extreme example, child rape, in which over the course of 30, 40 years, that has never been the case. They may pardon that, but they have never removed an individual off of the registry for that.

Yes, that's correct. Under consideration, they may remove somebody who has committed child rape, but in what case has that ever happened? That is the discretion that the Board of Pardons would, uh, consider under the, the, the five members there. That is a discretion that likely they would not ever consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I'm the Executive Director for the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. We'd like to thank the sponsor, Representative Clancy, for his thoughtful work in bringing this forward, uh, for addressing concerns, uh, in ensuring that there is public safety and accountability in all of our systems. Um, I'd like to thank, uh, all the other stakeholders in this area that have met together and worked. I know that, uh, SWAP has been engaged in a lot of conversations and we've seen a lot of agreement in this area among other stakeholders, uh, on how to move forward. And so, uh, we would urge you to support this substitute, uh, and for your vote.

There we go. Uh, can you hear me now? Yes, please proceed. Can you turn on your camera? I'm trying to, uh, okay. It's not turning on. I'll just have to what you

Uh, so, And may, may I finish what I was saying? No, um, It, it's not about the bill. I will just forward to you and then email my comment. That would be great. Thank you.

I'd like to move that we, um, adopt the second substitute to HB one 10.

Uh, just, uh, that it sounds like it, it satisfied a lot of the issues that were in the underlying bill and, um, with broad agreement, so, Alright.

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Representative Acton for the motion. Um, I just wanted to just to highlight and be, be very clear about what we're doing, um, with the, with respect to the sex offender, uh, pardon issue. So the registry removal process already exists. There are certain standards that are, uh, that we have passed as a legislature, certain review times and, and, and puzzle pieces. Everything from treatment and, and hearing from different people through the process that has a timeline for individuals who are on the, uh, uh, lifetime registry. There's a 10 year period and, and so on kind of goes down from there. All we're adopting here is that if someone is seeking to get off of the sex offender registry through the board of Pardons, that it's the same exact guidelines that already exist. And so it wouldn't make sense, I think, from a policy standpoint to have one track, if you will, that's very clearly been legislated. And we've set those guidelines and then to have another track that doesn't have those same guidelines. Um, so that, that's all we're doing here. We're not taking away the ability for the board to, to issue that. Pardon, if they feel it's appropriate on any, on any offense. Um, rather we're just making sure that it follows that same process. So, thank you, uh, to the committee for, for hearing me out on this.

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. I'm not, I'm not sure what that would be. Um, all we're, all I'm trying to do here, Madam Chair, is just make sure that we we're thinking, we're thinking clearly and following the same standards. I think if the argument were to change the standards on the register removal process, then we would look at this and do the same. All we're doing is making sure that there's parody in the process. And as you can see with the data in front of you, um, since the law went into effect every single year, the number of pardons that were granted that include a sex offense have gone, gone up every single year. And so that's, that's really what we're trying to address. Just making sure we're being thoughtful and, and, uh, transparent with, with the timeline here.

Um, second substitute to HB one 10 offender supervision amendments.

Madam Reading Clerk Second substitute house bill one 10 Offender supervision amendments by Representative Clancy. This bill was heard in judiciary with a vote of 10 0 1

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem motion to adopt third substitute House bill 1 1 0

Should be a pink, pink copy. We have it. The motion is to adopt third substitute house Bill one 10.

Yes, Mr. Speaker ProAm. The third substitute narrows the language about, uh, what I will present on in a minute about, uh, the Utah Department of Corrections. Having the ability to supervise individuals convicted of Class B misdemeanors, The motion is to adopt third substitute house. Bill one 10. Discussion to the motion.

I'll waive. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm colleagues, uh, house Bill 1 1 0 is an important public safety bill that makes sure that we have the tools at different steps of our criminal justice system to help make our community safer. This Bill does three things that'll highlight very briefly. The first is, it allows the Utah Department of Corrections to supervise individuals, limited amount of individuals who have been convicted of a Class B misdemeanor. Currently, uh, probation, uh, for Class B misdemeanors can only exist at the county level. There are resources coming online and, uh, with appropriations from the state where there could be opportunities for a meaningful, very brief period of time for probation with supportive services through the state of Utah, this bill will allow the state to implement that. The second is on parole violations that the Board of Pardon reviews. Right now, the Board of Pardons will only see a name, uh, an an an offense. So an individual is, uh, is violates their parole for committing vehicle theft. Now, under house Bill one 10, the Board of Pardons will have the opportunity and will need to look at the, the facts of the, uh, facts of the case and the facts of the new offense. So rather Juab than just seeing a, uh, uh, an offense name of vehicle theft, the Board of Pardons will actually be able to take a look at the facts of the case, which may mean less supervision if they accidentally took mom's vehicle for a joy ride. And it's a misunderstanding, or if this was part of a, a broader criminal enterprise. And so there need to be a higher level of violation on parole. The final piece, Mr. Speaker Pro tem is, is, uh, rectifying an issue with, uh, pardons for individuals convicted of sex crimes that lands them on the sex offender registry. So currently under statute, the Utah legislature has created a, a, a path for individuals to be removed from the sex offender registry. That path has been heavily debated, heavily scrutinized and amended year after year, um, through this body and with our, our partner body in the Senate. In 2021, there was legislation that passed without a committee in the house that allowed what many of us saw as a common sense piece. If someone was pardoned for an offense that landed them on the sex offender registry, they would be removed from the sex offender registry. Most of us thinking that pardons are about factual innocence, it would make sense that if we're taking someone, if we're, if the state of Utah is forgiving someone for a, a crime and saying that this crime never happened, then naturally we would follow up with that, with that consequence. But what this created was a dual track system for individuals to be removed from the sex offender registry, the first track, which has been created and scrutinized heavily by the legislature. The registry removal process has timelines built into that. So if an individual is convicted of a offense that lands someone on the lifetime registry, there's an, uh, there's a time period on that, uh, path. Similarly, if there's a 10 year or a non lifetime registry, there's also a, uh, uh, a a year restriction on when they can petition to get removed from the registry. All this bill does is put that same timeframe standards onto the Board of Pardons removal process. So would it make sense that we would have one process to get off of the sex offender registry? That's robust, that's been debated. There's timelines, there's evidence, there's hearings, and then another with no time timeframe or any, it would be completely up to the board's discretion. This substitute that's in front of you today is supported by the Board of Pardons. I think we found a good way forward that can keep, keep our community safe and have some common sense while we do it. So that concludes my presentation. Mr. Speaker Prote.

to the bill Representative MacPherson. Thank you Mr. Speaker Prote, will the sponsor yield do a question? The

Uh, I have a question about the fiscal note. I know that the prior version had a significant fiscal note. Can you speak to, I note, see an updated fiscal note on this substitute? I wonder if you could speak to that.

Yes. So the thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm, and I appreciate my good colleague from West Valley City. Hi. Highlighting the many zeros that were on the original fiscal note. So the, so what was being interpreted by the courts was the ability to send anyone convicted of a Class B misdemeanor to the Utah Department of Corrections to be supervised. What the third substitute says is, if capacity allows. So once again, this is a clarification. We anticipate that this will, uh, the Utah Department of Corrections has indicated that this will be a zero fiscal impact. The Board of Pardons has indicated to me that this will be a zero fiscal impact, but because we were able to catch that change late, um, that is why it's not reflected in front of you today.

I'll waive. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Pro

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm colleagues, uh, house Bill 1 1 0 is an important public safety bill that makes sure that we have the tools at different steps of our criminal justice system to help make our community safer. This Bill does three things that'll highlight very briefly. The first is, it allows the Utah Department of Corrections to supervise individuals, limited amount of individuals who have been convicted of a Class B misdemeanor. Currently, uh, probation, uh, for Class B misdemeanors can only exist at the county level. There are resources coming online and, uh, with appropriations from the state where there could be opportunities for a meaningful, very brief period of time for probation with supportive services through the state of Utah, this bill will allow the state to implement that. The second is on parole violations that the Board of Pardon reviews. Right now, the Board of Pardons will only see a name, uh, an an an offense. So an individual is, uh, is violates their parole for committing vehicle theft. Now, under house Bill one 10, the Board of Pardons will have the opportunity and will need to look at the, the facts of the, uh, facts of the case and the facts of the new offense. So rather Juab than just seeing a, uh, uh, an offense name of vehicle theft, the Board of Pardons will actually be able to take a look at the facts of the case, which may mean less supervision if they accidentally took mom's vehicle for a joy ride. And it's a misunderstanding, or if this was part of a, a broader criminal enterprise. And so there need to be a higher level of violation on parole. The final piece, Mr. Speaker Pro tem is, is, uh, rectifying an issue with, uh, pardons for individuals convicted of sex crimes that lands them on the sex offender registry. So currently under statute, the Utah legislature has created a, a, a path for individuals to be removed from the sex offender registry. That path has been heavily debated, heavily scrutinized and amended year after year, um, through this body and with our, our partner body in the Senate. In 2021, there was legislation that passed without a committee in the house that allowed what many of us saw as a common sense piece. If someone was pardoned for an offense that landed them on the sex offender registry, they would be removed from the sex offender registry. Most of us thinking that pardons are about factual innocence, it would make sense that if we're taking someone, if we're, if the state of Utah is forgiving someone for a, a crime and saying that this crime never happened, then naturally we would follow up with that, with that consequence. But what this created was a dual track system for individuals to be removed from the sex offender registry, the first track, which has been created and scrutinized heavily by the legislature. The registry removal process has timelines built into that. So if an individual is convicted of a offense that lands someone on the lifetime registry, there's an, uh, there's a time period on that, uh, path. Similarly, if there's a 10 year or a non lifetime registry, there's also a, uh, uh, a a year restriction on when they can petition to get removed from the registry. All this bill does is put that same timeframe standards onto the Board of Pardons removal process. So would it make sense that we would have one process to get off of the sex offender registry? That's robust, that's been debated. There's timelines, there's evidence, there's hearings, and then another with no time timeframe or any, it would be completely up to the board's discretion. This substitute that's in front of you today is supported by the Board of Pardons. I think we found a good way forward that can keep, keep our community safe and have some common sense while we do it. So that concludes my presentation. Mr. Speaker Prote.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Prote, will the sponsor yield do a question? The Sponsor yield? Yes. Mr. Speaker Pro Ahead. Uh, I have a question about the fiscal note. I know that the prior version had a significant fiscal note. Can you speak to, I note, see an updated fiscal note on this substitute? I wonder if you could speak to that.

Yes. So the thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm, and I appreciate my good colleague from West Valley City. Hi. Highlighting the many zeros that were on the original fiscal note. So the, so what was being interpreted by the courts was the ability to send anyone convicted of a Class B misdemeanor to the Utah Department of Corrections to be supervised. What the third substitute says is, if capacity allows. So once again, this is a clarification. We anticipate that this will, uh, the Utah Department of Corrections has indicated that this will be a zero fiscal impact. The Board of Pardons has indicated to me that this will be a zero fiscal impact, but because we were able to catch that change late, um, that is why it's not reflected in front of you today.

I'll waive. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Pro Summation is waived.

Um, this bill addresses the provisions related to the supervision of offenders. It allows the court order division of adult probation and parole services individuals convicted of a Class B misdemeanor. It requires the board, if, if, if considering whether parole offender has been previously paroled the offender ability to revoke due to new criminal criminal offense. Um, I know Representative Clancy's work with stakeholders. I'm not aware of any opposition to this bill. With that, I'm open for questions.

I'm gonna go to you for a motion. Yeah, I'll, I'll waive summation to move this bill. Be read for a third time.

Give Mr. President a motion to table on third, third substitute house Bill one 10. Physical impact.

Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to encircle, uh, first substitute house bill 87 if I may please. I think we have a motion to Uncer first substitute house bill 87 Animal victim amendments.

Uh, thank you again, Mr. President. I do have an amendment that I would like to introduce.

improves supervision for high risk offenders. These are your Class B misdemeanor offenders. It reinforces accountability and victims consideration on parole violations. And then it adds guardrails to register on Pardon requests. But before I do that, so I don't get a, a bad look, I need to, I need to move the sixth substitute. Sorry that, that's a mistake of my part. So my motion is to delete, embody and title third substitute house bill one 10 and replace it with six substitute. And I can speak to that. Mr. President ProAm.

Yeah. And, and, and thank you. And the substitute, um, worked, worked on the fiscal note as well and it enhanced more cooperation with the county sheriffs, but it did actually bring down that fiscal note. Um, fiscal note's not high and we're actually not adding any increases in penalties. What we're really trying to do is just tackle these, these high risk offenders with Class B misdemeanors without 'em open for questions and would urge support.

Thank you. I'm gonna waive summation and under suspension of the rules. I'll I move that this bill pass.

Six, substitute house bill one 10. Offender modifications by Representative Clancy.

Representative Clancy. Thank you you Mr. Speaker. Motion to concur with the Senate amendments.

Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker, uh, colleagues the sixth substitute, uh, represents a, uh, a consensus reach by the Utah Department of Corrections, the Board of Pardon and parole, and many other stakeholders to strengthen public safety. Make sure that the Board of Pardons has more decision making, has more information when they're making decision about, uh, parolees, and also ensures that the Department of Corrections can help with high utilizers in the criminal justice system by being able to supervise them on probation currently that would only be, uh, allowable with, uh, by county sheriffs. And this also makes sure that we put a requisite timeline on individuals who are receiving pardons for sex offenses that land them on the sex offender registry. Currently we have a bifurcated process where there's a registry removal process that has certain timelines and right now the Board of Pardons process doesn't have those same timelines allowing people to get off the registry earlier than they would normally allow to be under code. And so, uh, this bill HB one 10, make sure that the, that is, uh, uh, aligned as well. Thank you Mr. Speaker.