H.B. 331 Criminal Offenses Modifications: transcript

HB 3 31 criminal offense offenses modifications. Are you going to present from here? I'll present right here. Okay, great. Do we have towel tall? And I'll be, uh, There's a co-presenter online, co-presenter Online. All righty. He's in Philadelphia today. I hope it's not snowing. I am. I will be speaking to the first substitute. Um, I'll unplug this for now. So Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair for, for hearing us out this morning. So, house Bill 3 31 is seeking to do a couple things. Um, the most important piece is that we're trying to make sure that we recognize when, um, the definition of terrorism is committing an act of violence, um, for political means. Uh, so a means to an end. I think that everyone can recognize that there are certain times when a crime is committed and maybe that the offense or the severity of the offense maybe doesn't match the magnitude of what is really seeking to be accomplished. So, house Bill 3 31 seeks to do a couple of those. I first wanna speak to the first substitute, um, particularly in one, uh, news headline that focused on, um, blocking cars during street protests. So talking with the A CLU and other stakeholders. What we've changed in this legislation is we've, rather than creating a new offense, we've clarified in the offense of unlawful detention that blocking someone's vehicle, uh, that prohibits them from moving freely on a street or a road, we clarify that that falls under the existing unlawful detention statute. So the reason for this, and, and I'll just give one example. There's obviously many, but in, in Provo, Utah, a couple of years ago, uh, where I represent, there was a street protest where, uh, a gentleman got blocked in their car. Uh, it became a very chaotic, uh, situation, and someone ended up shooting into the car as he was driving forward. So the purpose of this piece of legislation is really to bring clarity both to people who are protesting on the street and to drivers to make sure what's appropriate and what's not. And so, by sticking it under existing law and clarifying that, I think it actually brings clarity to that piece. So I'll go through just a couple of the highlights here, and then I want to give tall some opportunity to speak as well.

So, as I mentioned before, you may have, um, a crime that that doesn't quite fit, um, the severity of how it's being punished. And so if you look online 1 0 1 of first substitute, the first piece of this is unlawfully advancing foreign organizations and government. Um, so I want you to think about a situation where you may have a judge who's leaving a courthouse, and the judge is overseeing the case of, uh, a narcotics distribution case that involves a member of a drug cartel. And let's say a member of said drug cartel commits a threat of violence against a judge, blocks that judge in the parking lot with their car, in their car. Under Utah law, a threat of violence or unlawful detention would be a Class B misdemeanor. But what we would be, uh, seeking to do in house Bill 3 31 is ensuring that the severity of the, uh, punishment fits the crime. If you're intimidating a judge in or in on behalf of a cartel, um, that is significantly more impactful to public safety and the rule of law than solely a Class B misdemeanor. And so we did not wanna leave much to discretion, and that's where I'll plug this in really quickly. So in the bill, we talk about a designated foreign terrorist organization. And Jennifer, could I share my screen really quickly? Thank you. So this is, this is not up for debate, it's not up for interpretation. This is, these are designated foreign terrorist organizations that are identified by the State Department. And so you can see, um, this is on the State Department website. And if you are interested you, I can send you the link, but you can go and, uh, see when they were added to. Looks like my screen's glitching out a little bit. You can see when they were added to designated as a foreign terrorist organization. And then what you can do if you're, if you're wanting to learn more about why this would be, you can, um, search more. So, just a couple highlights here. So CJNG, we'll talk about CJNG in a little bit. This is one of the fastest growing cartels in Mexico, and we're seeing activity in the United States. Um, trend aua, this is a ven Venezuelan criminal gang, MS 13, I believe. Yeah, Barrio 18 is another criminal street gang, um, that's been designated as a foreign terrorist organization that we see a significant, uh, amount of activity here in Utah. Um, but it's also groups like ISIS or, or Boko Haram. Um, these are, these are organizations who have killed US service members in acts of terrorism abroad. So just wanted to highlight that for you as well. So when we're looking at the first substitute, and we're talking about a federally designated foreign terrorist organization, that's not something that's gonna be left up to debate or discretion. This is specifically designated by the federal government.

The second piece as online, one 16 of the first substitute. This is intentional concealment of identity while committing an offense in public. Once again, I'll briefly just, uh, show you this case law here. So in 2002, um, the Ku Klux Klan sued the city of New York and basically saying that their first amendment right of free speech to wear a mask, um, while, while doing a demonstration, they were, they were doing a, a, a parade, I believe, in New York City, was being prohibited by New York City's mask ordinance that basically, uh, it was, it was against their loitering ordinance. The district court held that, um, that was not protected speech while you were committing an offense. And so, in HB 3 31, if you'll look at the definition, um, this is, if you look on line 1 24, an actor commits intentional concealment of identity while committing an offense in public. If the actor intentionally or knowingly wears a mask or other facial, obscure or disguise with the intent to conceal the actor's identity from law enforcement, uh, or other government officials is in a public place. And then if you go down to line one 30, committing or attempting to commit a local, state or federal criminal offense, um, or congregating with other individuals who the actor knows are committing or attempting to commit a local, state, or federal offense. And so this offense is specific to when there's a crime being committed or, or an in in coa defense. And so, um, this is constitutional. And so once again, this is the difference between, uh, robbing, robbing a bank would be, uh, you know, robbery, felony to robbery. But doing so while you're in, uh, concealing your identity would be, uh, a separate offense. Um, and then finally we'll get to the, to the last part here.

So, uh, on line 1 35, in the first substitute unlawful deprivation of religious rights. And so this is a, this is actually, we, we've been working on this legislation, I should say, college for, um, several months now. Um, there's, there's been cases in the news where this has actually come to, to, to light recently. Um, but recognizing that, uh, citizens have constitutional rights, and one of those first amendment rights is your right to worship. And so if you're impeding someone's right to worship, you are depriving them of their constitutional right. And so this section is, if in concert with two or more individuals, they intentionally or knowingly deprive another individual of the right to enter or exit a house of worship. Um, the other piece here that we're saying is that, um, uh, on line one 50, if the court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has committed this, uh, violation, and the plaintiff was injured by the actor's violation, the court shall, uh, award the plaintiff reasonable attorney fees, compensatory damages or statutory damages of $2,000 or whichever is greater. And so this is Utah's taking a significant stand to say, citizens in Utah have the right to worship. If you're impeding that right to worship, um, then, uh, that is not appropriate and that will be punished by law. So finally, I'll just show you really quickly why this would be important. So as I mentioned before, so this is the, uh, new generation, uh, Calisco cartel, also known as cj NG. And so something that's interesting here as well, I want, I want you to see this picture. This is what citizens in Mexico, uh, are subjected to. So the question that, as Representative Miller and I have talked along with other groups, is to say, well, what does it mean to act on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization? Is this just I am friends with someone on Facebook, and now all of a sudden I'm getting looped into this? What I'm seeking to get at here is, so if you'll see these individuals who are, they are promoting that they are a part of this, uh, cartel, and in Mexico, um, judges, law enforcement, municipal and state leaders, um, when they are intimidated and subjected to the criminal behavior, these individuals are driving around in trucks with their logo on it. They're wearing shirts with their logo on it, which is part of the whole point. It's part of an intimidation process to stop people from doing their job, stop people from enforcing the law to intimidate judges and, and, and break down the rule of law. So I think that's just a good example of when we talk about, um, acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. Most terrorist organizations have a political goal in mind, and so therefore, they're, they're happy to publish that because they're trying to strike fear into the hearts of citizens and trying to impact the rule of law.

So, with that, I want to give a couple minutes to, uh, tall, my co-presenter, uh, who's joining us today from Philadelphia. And then we're happy to take any questions and, and discussion.

Thank you. Uh, uh, to the chair of the, of the committee, vice chair and, uh, and members of the committee. Uh, good morning from Philadelphia. I just want to, uh, add a few brief points to, uh, representative Clancy's presentation. One is that, uh, bill 3 31, as constructed does not criminalize, uh, any expressive behaviors anew. It, it takes behaviors that are already subject to criminal punishment, uh, in ways that are compliant with the First Amendment, uh, and the principles of the freedom of speech, um, and recognizes when there are exacerbating factors, uh, that ought to be treated more seriously. So it's, uh, it, it does not change anyone's, uh, rights. It just recognizes when certain violations of rights are more serious. Uh, a great example of that, um, has to do with when hostile foreign regimes and, uh, terror organizations try to use, uh, mass law breaking in order to intimidate, uh, and coerce Americans into adopting unpopular positions. Uh, this has happened in recent memory. In, uh, April of 2024, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization, put out, uh, a statement telling, uh, Americans who are sympathetic to the IRGC to go block roads and create disruptions, uh, in order to intimidate and coerce, uh, Americans to, uh, take a softer stance towards, uh, the IRGC, to, to pressure, uh, Americans in order to pressure their elected officials. Uh, that follows the logic of terrorism. It does not seek to persuade anyone. Uh, it does seek to intimidate people into, uh, changing their views. And it just demonstrates the way in which there is a spectrum of seriousness, uh, that disorderly conduct, uh, as a, as a crime does not, uh, does not fully encapsulate. When one person blocks a road that's annoying, but not the end of the world. Maybe that's appropriate for it to be a misdemeanor when 10 people do it, that's getting dangerous when a hundred people do it in order to advance the interests of a hostile foreign terrorist organization. That is a very serious thing. Uh, and this bill reflects that. I just wanna say one more thing about, uh, criticisms of this bill that are inevitable that it, uh, can cramp Americans, uh, free speech rights. Uh, it actually does the opposite because when you think about an ongoing, uh, political debate and discussion in which, uh, imagine there are two camps, one protests and debates in accordance with the strictures of the First Amendment. It does so in a fully legal way, and the other one plays fast and loose with the rules and says, we are willing to violate certain, uh, criminal prohibitions in order to get our way. So one group protests on the sidewalk and doesn't impede traffic and the other, uh, impedes traffic blocks roads and says, we are not going to stop doing this until we get our way. So, who has the upper hand in this? It's obviously the people who block the roads and are willing to play fast and loose with the rules because they are, uh, holding law abiding citizens effectively, hostage to their demands. Therefore, uh, challenging the people who want to abide by the law to either match them in tactic or lose. Um, so that that ratcheting effect is deleterious to free speech, genuine protest, genuine democratic, uh, democratic discourse, uh, debate, uh, et cetera. Um, and with that, I, uh, I will end my presentation.

Thank you. Tall. Thank you. Tall. And, um, once again, speaking to the first substitute, um, we, uh, the A CLU gave some language, uh, basically saying that, uh, for, for the Roadblocking Thatt was talking about, uh, we've, we've put that under and clarified that under the existing unlawful detention, making sure that it's more clear for, for people who are, uh, protesting and then for people who are gonna be impacted by it. And then for law enforcement as well, we think that this makes sense. But, um, with that Madam Chair, I'm happy to take any questions and, and have a good discussion.

Thank you. Um, I just had a question. I I really like this. I think that especially over the last few years, we've definitely seen the need for a bill like this. One of the questions that I have is that in this section about blocking people from entering or leaving a church, I'm wondering about, um, people who go into churches and disrupt their meetings in the actual church themselves. So they may not be stopping the people going in or out, but they're definitely infringing on their rights to worship. And I'm wondering if that's something that you've thought about or might think about, um, as we saw a group recently going into strep, um, worship, worship services in another state.

Yeah, it's a, it's a great question. Uh, tall, do you, do you want to, uh, talk about that and then I can kinda refer to the legislation here?

Uh, yes. Uh, that's an excellent point. And to some extent that is covered by, by federal law and by the law of trespass. Um, those are, so, those are already illegal, um, to the extent that, uh, penalties ought to be raised for those laws for, for Utah state laws and local laws against trespass when they are done, uh, in ways that are especially destructive, um, that that is not covered by, by this bill as written. Uh, but it, it would be a, I think, a worthwhile project to take up.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, and I would just say that particular, in particular, this is, this is about prohibiting someone from entering or exiting a house of worship and, um, with the, with the purpose of preventing the individual from exercising their first amendment right to worship. Um, but, uh, we definitely would be happy to, to work with you and, and look at that. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a question for Mr. Fort Gang and a and a few for the bill sponsor, um, Mr. Fort Gang. Uh, you, you mentioned, um, that, uh, there's intent of the bill here for instances when, when protestors, uh, in a group block off a roadway, uh, and, and, and block traffic and do so in the interests of a, of a terrorist organization, which I thought was very specific. Do you have any examples of, of, of when this has happened, uh, in, in recent history or anything that you would anticipate happening that you'd wanna prevent?

Uh, yes, representative, uh, when the, uh, April 15th, 2024, when the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps put out, uh, statements saying, we want you to go, uh, block roads to advance our interests groups across the country, um, did so, uh, most prominently in Chicago, and I believe in San Francisco, there may have been similar demonstrations in Utah that simply did not make the news, maybe because they didn't garner enough individuals, uh, to make a difference. But, but that is, uh, well documented. There. There are also, uh, there have been many instances of groups, um, blocking roads while evincing support for designated foreign terrorist organizations through particular insignia or language, uh, that would be up to, uh, to prosecutors to figure out whether there's sufficient evidence to, to add that exacerbating factor. Um, I don't think that there's anything imminent on the horizon. There's nothing that, you know, coming across the, the transom that says, this is gonna happen tomorrow. Uh, but it is an ongoing, uh, live tactic of some of these, uh, hostile foreign organizations.

Um, let me ask a follow up. Uh, so in a situation where, um, there's a protest in favor of Palestinian rights, people are wearing kafis, could a prosecutor interpret this law as being a pro terrorist because Hamas also wears kafi, and that's a symbol in common?

Yeah, that's, that's a really, uh, interesting question. Uh, I, I'm not an expert in the, the meaning of the kafi a in particular, um, I would say if they're wearing the, the Hamas bandana, perhaps that would be, uh, a clear indication. But a kafi a that could be, uh, conceivably related to, uh, a movement that is not related to a prescribed terrorist organization, I think would not be subject, uh, to this enhancement. There may still be criminal penalties associated with the unlawful action, uh, but the enhancement, uh, would not be applicable.

And so let me ask just one final clarifying question. So the intent that I'm gathering here is that, uh, the, um, there has to be a direct correlation. Uh, the, uh, the intent is that, uh, the protestors or whoever is directly advancing the interests, um, that there, there's either a, a directive, um, or, or a very meaningful direct intent, uh, to act in coordination with, uh, a designated to terrorist organization. Is that my understanding?

Uh, yes. I would say coordination or really overwhelming evidence of intent to advance their interests, not merely to express support for the organization, uh, in, in a, in a way that would be, uh, that doesn't advance their interests.

Okay. No, that's very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Fort gang. Those are all the questions, and that also answers the questions I was gonna ask the, uh, bill sponsor. I appreciate it.

Mayors, I just respond to one of those thoughts. So, um, in gang investigations, and I'm sure you're familiar with this as well, many times prosecutors will attempt to make a link between, uh, a certain activity that's taken place and a criminal street gang, and they'll in and, um, in enumerated in Utah code, there are certain identifiers, it's three or more of a certain identifier that you'd have to meet that threshold of evidence. Um, but what we're seeing in particularly in, um, and I would say the, the similar piece, and I think you tried to see what I'm, what I was trying to highlight with the CJ Eng G is my intent of the bill is that many times, you know, for criminal street gangs, the evidence presented might be an Instagram story of someone pointing a gun with throwing up the gang sign and claiming to be a member of the gang, claiming they're gonna shoot someone on behalf of the gang. To me, that's, that's kind of the intent. Where as well, when you look at the foreign terrorist organizations, so if you look at Barrio 18 or whatever it might be, I think there's op, there's, there are cases where, uh, and that's where I think what you're trying to see with the, the political motive of this is to say, if you're claiming that you're committing this crime on behalf of this organization, we should be able to address that in the law. Um, I recognize that, I think when, when Representative Miller and I have talked and, and the A CLU and other groups saying, we don't want this dragnet to just pull people in and say, you're doing this and we're gonna make this nebulous linkage to a foreign terrorist organization. But many times, and I, and I agree, that's not what I want as well, but many times there are people who are committing these crimes overtly sharing that this is why they're doing it for this intent on behalf of this group. That's, that's my hope, and that's my intent with, with this legislation. I'm good. That My question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, may I ask a question of the sponsor? Yes, thank you. Okay. I, I totally understand why you're running this bill. It makes sense to me. Um, but there are some things that I do have questions about. How do we distinguish between unlawful road obstruction and a protest where people are trying to follow the guidelines, um, but maybe they get stuck in the crosswalk and we know how it is when there's a lot of people crossing at the same time and the light turns. Um, we may have 50 people or so caught in the middle of the crosswalk. Do they now get a felony?

Uh, that's a great question, Representative Mauga. So in substitute one, this falls under existing law, which would be 76, 5, 3 or four unlawful detention. This is a class B misdemeanor. We try to be very specific with, uh, the language here. And so I'll read, I'll read it to you and see if it maybe, uh, clears up some of that. It says, an actor commits unlawful detention if the actor, and this is important intentionally or knowingly without authority of law and against the will of an individual. And then we go to subsection two, prevents the individual from freely traveling on a street or highway. And so this, uh, piece comes into play when it's intentionally or knowingly without authority of law and against the will of an individual. So it's, that's where I'd say there's, there's multiple levels to get to where, you know, saying, I, my intent is I'm trying to cross the street and the, and the light ran out versus surrounding someone, blocking someone into a vehicle. Um, and even then, uh, with the substitute, this would be, uh, under the existing unlawful detention code.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one, um, one question going back to the deprivation of religious rights. Um, so it creates a third degree felony. Um, and, and I'm just, I have a question about why it's with two or more individuals and why, why we wouldn't do this if it's one person doing it. I, I think the two or more is more of a practical concern wherein if you're looking at blocking, uh, parishioners from entering a church practically, you would probably need more than one individual to, to do so. Um, I, I, I think that's, that's the other piece too, in terms of, uh, you know, where, where it may go from trespassing. So someone's been told to leave and they're not leaving at church grounds. Now when you have two or more individuals, this is kind of rising to the level where this would, this seemed to be more an appropriate intervention there. Um, that's kind of what, what Mr. Forgan talked about, where, you know, there, there are some existing laws where, you know, trespassing, disorderly conduct, et cetera. If it's one person making a ruckus, they're not leaving when they're being asked to leave. But if this is a concerted effort to deprive individuals of their First Amendment rights worship, that's, that's kind of where we see the need for, uh, a law that makes more sense.

Ellen. Ellen Brady. Ellen Brady. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Um, yes, I had earlier sent you an email, and I won't read the whole thing. My primary concern is putting this in context of the current environment where we have a president, um, declaring people engaging in First Amendment protests as being terrorists. Um, we also have a paramilitary organization, um, turned loose on our population that are engaging in many of the activities and actions that you are attempting to pres to prevent, um, from the civilian population. They're smashing windows, dragging people out of cars, um, arresting people without warrants, um, shooting American citizens, um, and basically running rampant. Yet, um, this body would not consider a bill, uh, that prevented them from invading a place of worship, A school, a courthouse, um, would not prevent them from wearing masks. Um, yet they're clearly out there trying to dox public, the public that is engaged in any kind of protest. So I'm deeply concerned about this. I mean, it's one thing when you're talking about, um, the kinds of examples that you gave, but yet the language, um, would seem to be there to bleed over into a, an incredible invasion of our First Amendment rights. And so I would oppose this bill.

Okay. Just turned on video, I mean, uh, audio. Audio and video. Hi, there, we Can see you. My name is Taj Becker, and I first want to thank Representative Clancy, uh, from the great city of Provo for, um, concern regarding public safety and this American democracy. I think it's important that we all recognize that, uh, the law be applied equally to all parties. My concern, um, also as a physician is the, uh, vague terminology and potential expansive interpretation of some of these terms, um, including, uh, face coverings. There are some people from a medical standpoint that need to wear a mask, and, for example, if they need to protect themselves from potentially fatal chemical irritants, especially if they have asthma or something like that, could also be potentially charged in an expansive interpretation of issues. Additionally, um, I think it might be helpful to make an amendment and create a separate, uh, cause of action, a state cause of action, uh, against federal agents and supervisors who knowingly, recklessly or purposefully violate the constitutional rights of our civilians, of our citizens of the great state of Utah. Uh, I, I think that would, uh, allow us to, uh, ad address some of the concerns about federal actors, uh, violating our civil rights. And so, I, I therefore oppose this bill as written, but I do appreciate, uh, uh, Representative Clancy, your, your intentions and concerns. Um, additionally, um, I I would just mention there is an executive order, uh, 1 4 2 0 2. Are any of you all familiar with that, that creates a division of anti-Christian bias? Is my time up? It

Okay. Yeah. So I just think the committee members ought to be aware of that. Uh, and unfortunately, uh, certain churches are not considered Christian by definition. I don't know what implications this has for this bill, if any at all. But you might want to look into that executive order. Thank you for your concerns, your time and your efforts.

First. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so we need to adopt first sub, um, I move that we adopt substitute one, uh, two HB three 30, uh, 3 31.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, and I like this bill a lot, and I like that. Um, so I looked up the First Amendment because I know that's the one that deals with protest, and it says the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress. And that is, um, the model that, that, you know, the right to protest stems from. And we do, we do have that right, and we do cherish that, right? But we also cherish a lot of other rights, religious rights and, and so forth and, and public safety. And so I really like this bill, and I think it addresses a lot of problems that have emerged over the years since the sixties, really. So I appreciate you for bringing this forward. Thanks.

I move that we favorably recommend HB 3 31 as substituted to the full house for consideration.

Yeah, I will. I, um, I, I really appreciate the sponsor for, for his work, um, on this, uh, bill Law and Order, um, is, is fundamental, um, to preserving our, our, um, peace and and prosperity and freedoms in our nation. Um, and I think there was important clarity that was made, um, from this, uh, from this piece of legislation. Um, I, uh, I appreciate the work that's been done, the thought that's been put into it and would urge my colleagues to support it.

Sure. And I, and I appreciate that we, uh, this legislation is, is constitutionally sound if you're interested in reading, uh, particularly about the masking piece. Um, this legislation only talks about when there's a commission of a crime, and the case law is Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan versus, uh, Bernard Kerick, who was the police commissioner of NYPD at the time. If you look at it, it's a 2002. It's, it's very interesting. And it, and it ponders these exact questions, um, that you, that you mentioned, Representative Thompson, Representative Acton. Um, so, uh, we, we appreciate this. We're trying to be specific. I think you can tell with the, at least my intent, and I'm happy if, if we feel, if there's members of the committee who feel like we haven't got there yet. I totally, totally continue, want to continue to work on this. But recognizing that if, if someone's intimidating a judge, essentially waving the flag of a foreign terrorist organization to influence our laws and our public safety, um, we should have laws that address that and making sure that we, we can call a spade a spade. And that's what I'm hoping that this legislation can do. So I appreciate the motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I oppose this bill, but I, I do want to clarify that I, I appreciate the sponsor and the presentation here. Uh, clarifying the intent of the bill. And I feel a lot better about this bill, knowing the intent, um, after reading the initial language, um, ultimately my concerns are that it, we're dealing with very sensitive subject matter. If, uh, we're expanding a definition and formalizing what a terrorist is, uh, I think that has to be very limited in scope, very narrowly tar tailored. Um, my fear comes from the fact that, uh, terrorism is a very charged word, um, and is used to paint people with a broad brush, particularly people you don't agree with. Um, and there have been a lot of protests happening around the country for various reasons. Um, and I've seen that a lot of members of the federal government trying to articulate without investigation that some of these people are, are terrorists or are acting as domestic terrorists. Um, and I worry about the implications because that can quickly spiral outta control. Um, what I do appreciate from the presentation here is that the goal here is not to create a broad net to just capture anyone you disagree with politically as a terrorist, but to be very focused and specific about those acting in coordination with designated foreign terrorist organizations. Um, what I hope to see here is a cranking on language that reflects the testimony that we heard today. Uh, Mr. Fort Gang talked about, he used words like coordination, overwhelming evidence. Um, those are the kinds of language that we added to the statute, I think would help ameliorate some of the political concerns, um, that I have. Uh, 'cause what I'm kind of worried about as I look through lines 89 through 91, where someone commits a, a local or state crime that advance the interests of a foreign terrorist organization, I can foresee a prosecutor, um, seeing a, a group of people that are fighting for Palestinian rights, uh, fighting against or, or, or protesting against, uh, the Israeli siege and Gaza, and, uh, claiming that because they're jaywalking overflowing into the street and, uh, their, uh, interests in opposing the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is consistent with Hamas. Say, even though it's not directly related, uh, that that then becomes a third degree felony from an infraction. Jaywalking. And that's what I'm worried about. Uh, so on those grounds, I oppose it. But if we could crank down on language, uh, I would, I would really appreciate from the sponsor and that that could, that could sway my, my vote. Uh, come, uh, come time to vote on this on the floor. Thank you.

I'll waive maker the motion. I'll waive.

For substitute house bill 3 31 Criminal offenses modifications by Representative Clancy. This bill was heard in judiciary with the vote of 7 2 2.

You Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle

Yes. Working with the good representative from Salt Lake City and the Defense Bar to clarify, uh, intent when, uh, dealing with individuals who are working on behalf of forest foreign terrorist organizations.

You, Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt second substitute HB 3, 3 1. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it? Yes, Mr. Speaker, uh, this is, uh, the culmination of a collaborative effort between, uh, myself and defense attorneys and the good representative from Salt Lake City.

Thank you colleagues. Thank you Mr. Speaker. And thank you colleagues, um, colleagues, the, the definition of terrorism is committing acts of violence for a political goal. HB 3 31 ensures that we have the checks and balances in our system to properly address acts of terrorism that occur right here in Utah. So this bill does a couple of things, and as I mentioned in before, as we adopted the second substitute, we've been working hard with stakeholders, particularly defense attorneys and civil liberties groups that were, um, concerned about the original iteration of this legislation to make it, uh, common sense for everyone. Uh, many of you, Mr. Speaker, have seen that what's taking place in Mexico, uh, this week. Um, the leader of a cartel group called the, uh, hico, new Generation cartel was killed this week. And that has caused all sorts of, of chaos and destruction, uh, particularly in those areas. Something that's interesting about this terrorist group is that when they commit these acts of terrorism, uh, not only do they wear masks, but they also mark themselves almost like jerseys would wear for a football team. And the purpose for that is to show citizens, law enforcement and individuals who are just trying to live their life to try and exert power and influence over individuals who are, who are living their life. And so, um, uh, this legislation creates the offense of unlawfully advancing forest terrorist organizations. And so a foreign terrorist organization is not a discretionary term. It's not up for debate. It is a list that's identified by the State Department that includes, uh, groups that are fighting American service members and groups who have killed US citizens, uh, abroad and at home. This also, um, there's been lots of discussion about masks in this legislation, and I want to be clear, particularly in the second substitute about what this does. So when an individual is committing a crime of a Class B misdemeanor or higher, this in creates another penalty for wearing a mask to conceal their identity while they're committing a crime. And so there's been debates and discussions about, uh, because there's many legitimate purposes and reasons that people want to wear a mask, this is only when there's being a crime that's been committed. We've also been very clear about what it means to hit this threshold, and we have, I identified a very high evidentiary standard that an individual would have to be actively coordinating with a foreign terrorist organization to hit this mark. The final piece that this does in the bill, Mr. Speaker, is it ensures that, uh, Utah citizens have the ability for their first amendment right to worship, uh, to not be infringed. And so this creates a penalty for two or more individuals that, uh, block entrance into individuals trying to enter a house of worship and to, uh, exercise their free exercise of religion. And so, um, once again, this is an example of putting into place the guardrails necessary to protect Utah citizens, civil, civil rights, civil liberties, and make sure that we are doing it appropriately, constitutionally, and more than anything, ensure that we are free from influence from groups that seek to do us harm. Finally, I'll just, I want to answer the question about why. So why would it be different if, uh, someone that's experiencing crisis, um, threatens a judge versus someone that threatens a judge on behalf of a, let's say, a, a drug cartel? And that judge is overseeing an a narcotics case where members of that drug cartel are being tried? Our system should be able to delineate and recognize the difference between those two acts and second substitute HB 3 31, um, allows us to do that, Mr. Speaker. And with that, I will yield to any questions.

My mistake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a Little delay, just so you know, there's a little delay, so I apologize. Rising support of the bill, wanna thank the good sponsor from Provo? At first, I had concerns about the bill and, uh, opposed it. And then I had a meaningful discussion with him and, uh, and, uh, he really worked with us. Uh, we, we really drilled down on the intent here, uh, which is, uh, to, uh, focus on those furthering, uh, uh, legitimately nefarious out of country groups that want to infiltrate and hurt, hurt people within our boundaries. Um, originally I thought this was, uh, intended to curb protest, and that wasn't the intent at all. Uh, I think that, uh, there's some really good language in this bill, and it, it drills down into a very specific intent. And so I, now, I, uh, I, I support the bill, uh, and encourage the rest of this body to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would sum by just saying that terrorism is violence that has an explicit goal to curb the civil rights and civil liberties of Utahans. This bill allows us to, uh, deal with terrorism in an appropriate manner, recognizing that these crimes when committed on coordinating on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization that is killing our service members or attacking US citizens, that that is a higher bar and it should be treated as such. I would appreciate your support on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Thank

You, Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt second substitute HB 3, 3 1.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, uh, this is, uh, the culmination of a collaborative effort between, uh, myself and defense attorneys and the good representative from Salt Lake City.

Thank you colleagues. Thank you Mr. Speaker. And thank you colleagues, um, colleagues, the, the definition of terrorism is committing acts of violence for a political goal. HB 3 31 ensures that we have the checks and balances in our system to properly address acts of terrorism that occur right here in Utah. So this bill does a couple of things, and as I mentioned in before, as we adopted the second substitute, we've been working hard with stakeholders, particularly defense attorneys and civil liberties groups that were, um, concerned about the original iteration of this legislation to make it, uh, common sense for everyone. Uh, many of you, Mr. Speaker, have seen that what's taking place in Mexico, uh, this week. Um, the leader of a cartel group called the, uh, hico, new Generation cartel was killed this week. And that has caused all sorts of, of chaos and destruction, uh, particularly in those areas. Something that's interesting about this terrorist group is that when they commit these acts of terrorism, uh, not only do they wear masks, but they also mark themselves almost like jerseys would wear for a football team. And the purpose for that is to show citizens, law enforcement and individuals who are just trying to live their life to try and exert power and influence over individuals who are, who are living their life. And so, um, uh, this legislation creates the offense of unlawfully advancing forest terrorist organizations. And so a foreign terrorist organization is not a discretionary term. It's not up for debate. It is a list that's identified by the State Department that includes, uh, groups that are fighting American service members and groups who have killed US citizens, uh, abroad and at home. This also, um, there's been lots of discussion about masks in this legislation, and I want to be clear, particularly in the second substitute about what this does. So when an individual is committing a crime of a Class B misdemeanor or higher, this in creates another penalty for wearing a mask to conceal their identity while they're committing a crime. And so there's been debates and discussions about, uh, because there's many legitimate purposes and reasons that people want to wear a mask, this is only when there's being a crime that's been committed. We've also been very clear about what it means to hit this threshold, and we have, I identified a very high evidentiary standard that an individual would have to be actively coordinating with a foreign terrorist organization to hit this mark. The final piece that this does in the bill, Mr. Speaker, is it ensures that, uh, Utah citizens have the ability for their first amendment right to worship, uh, to not be infringed. And so this creates a penalty for two or more individuals that, uh, block entrance into individuals trying to enter a house of worship and to, uh, exercise their free exercise of religion. And so, um, once again, this is an example of putting into place the guardrails necessary to protect Utah citizens, civil, civil rights, civil liberties, and make sure that we are doing it appropriately, constitutionally, and more than anything, ensure that we are free from influence from groups that seek to do us harm. Finally, I'll just, I want to answer the question about why. So why would it be different if, uh, someone that's experiencing crisis, um, threatens a judge versus someone that threatens a judge on behalf of a, let's say, a, a drug cartel? And that judge is overseeing an a narcotics case where members of that drug cartel are being tried? Our system should be able to delineate and recognize the difference between those two acts and second substitute HB 3 31, um, allows us to do that, Mr. Speaker. And with that, I will yield to any questions.

My mistake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a Little delay, just so you know, there's a little delay, so I apologize. Rising support of the bill, wanna thank the good sponsor from Provo? At first, I had concerns about the bill and, uh, opposed it. And then I had a meaningful discussion with him and, uh, and, uh, he really worked with us. Uh, we, we really drilled down on the intent here, uh, which is, uh, to, uh, focus on those furthering, uh, uh, legitimately nefarious out of country groups that want to infiltrate and hurt, hurt people within our boundaries. Um, originally I thought this was, uh, intended to curb protest, and that wasn't the intent at all. Uh, I think that, uh, there's some really good language in this bill, and it, it drills down into a very specific intent. And so I, now, I, uh, I, I support the bill, uh, and encourage the rest of this body to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would sum by just saying that terrorism is violence that has an explicit goal to curb the civil rights and civil liberties of Utahans. This bill allows us to, uh, deal with terrorism in an appropriate manner, recognizing that these crimes when committed on coordinating on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization that is killing our service members or attacking US citizens, that that is a higher bar and it should be treated as such. I would appreciate your support on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Thank

Yes. Thank you. Um, the background in this bill, uh, talks a little bit about terrorism that we've seen happening here and there and around the United States. Uh, HB 3 31 creates the offense of unlawfully advancing foreign terrorist organizations. This is a list identified by the State Department and those who are fighting US service members who have killed US citizens. It also creates another penalty for those committed crime and wearing a mask. This only applies to individuals who, individuals who are concealing their identity while committing a crime, a class B misdemeanor or higher. And ensures Utah citizens the first amendment right to worship is not infringed, creates a penalty for two or more individuals who block people trying to enter a house of worship. The bottom line is HB 3 31 puts into place the guardrails necessary to protect Utah citizens' rights, civil liberties, and make sure we are free from foreign groups that seek to do us harm. Why is this needed? Well, if an individual experiencing a crisis threatens a judge that is fundamentally different from someone who's threatened a judge on behalf of drug cartel, especially if the judge is working on a case, we, a member of the cartel being tried, our system should be able to differentiate between the two. And people have asked, is this infringe upon the people's right to protest? And no it does not. And that is the bill. Thank you for the presentation.

I call the question and ask that second house bill 2 3 31 pass.