H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments: transcript

All right. Thank you Committee, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here, um, with Devin Kurtz and Joshua Reynolds. Joshua Reynolds, and, um, we are here to present HB three 70. And just really quickly, this bill requires DPS to establish a location monitoring program for sex offenders who do not, not provide a residential address as a, a registrant on the sex, kidnap and child abuse offender registry. So right now there are approximately 291 individuals out of about 10,000 who do not provide a, an address on the registry. So a small number, but, um, we estimate that about a quarter to a third of those individuals actually do have an address, but are just avoiding providing it, um, for, for various reasons. So this would require the monitoring, um, to begin one business day after. Uh, BCI notifies the offend that the entity, so law enforcement, that the offender cannot provide an address if they do provide an address, no monitoring will occur, will occur. But if they cannot, then monitoring will occur. It imposes penalties. If the offender fails to comply with the monitoring, it provides requirements for health, the monitoring program will operate, and it requires entities that are responsible for registering sex offenders, local law enforcement corrections courts to coordinate with TPS if an offender does not have a residential address. And then it requires a court that receives an affidavit seeking an arrest warrant to consider if appropriate an issue, an arrest warrant in a timely manner if there's probable cause of a violation. So, um, I'm gonna turn some time over, um, to Devin Kurtz and then to Mr. Reynolds.

Thank you. I'll, I'll keep my comments relatively brief as my colleague Joshua will, uh, get into the effectiveness of electronic monitoring. But, uh, and, and some of the research behind it. But, um, my emphasis would, I'd like to have on the, on the public safety angle of this, in that, uh, as representative Zen V said, this is a fairly small number of individuals. However, as a proportion of the homeless population, some portion of those without an address are in fact homeless. Um, and, and are most likely to be unsheltered homeless, uh, as they're not always able to access shelter or, or are, have a history of, of, of behavior in that shelter. So if, if they are in fact living outside, uh, possibly in proximity to other homeless individuals, we know that there's robust research on, uh, the rates of sexual offending against homeless individuals. You know, about half of homeless women are victims of sexual violence, and that overall, uh, they're about nine times as likely as the general population to be victims of sexual violence. Uh, obviously not all of that sexual violence is being committed by, by known sexual offenders. Um, but if I were a homeless woman, I, I I would much prefer to know that the individuals who are in fact known sexual offenders are being supervised at a comparable, uh, place as, as sex offenders who have an address. And, and this is a very, uh, intuitive way to do that.

Thank you, chair. I would like to address the, the concerns that I saw previously raised in the testimony that electronic monitoring is not effective and, and pushed back with the actual research that indicates strongly to the contrary. Uh, firstly, we have a study from California 2012 monitoring high risk sex offenders, specifically with GPS technology. And that study found that the arrest rate for those receiving electronic monitoring was 14% compared with 26% for those under only traditional supervision. Um, there was a very, very strongly sig uh, statistically significant relationship between the application of electronic monitoring and a reduction in arrests as well, uh, as a pretty powerful, uh, significance for a reduction in returns to custody. And this is important when addressing another concern that this bill may be punitive when it in fact is not. What this bill actually does is it addresses an existing, uh, unequal accountability mechanism whereby despite more than 97% of Utah sex offenders complying with the address requirement of the registry, there are some who do not. And this creates a pathway for commensurate elect or commensurate, uh, supervision that protects the citizens of Utah and can actually reduce, uh, returns to prison and incarceration for those sex offenders. Um, I would like to to point out a few other studies as well, uh, concerning effects, uh, potentially on mood psychological wellbeing. There's a recent study 2023 from New Zealand that addresses, uh, specifically this using dynamic risk assessment for offender reentry data. They found that there was not a, a significant reduction or harm to the psychological wellbeing of the offenders under electronic monitoring. That study also found more than a twofold reduction in re offenses. Uh, this, this was a study on general male offenders and that lowered rates of both violent and nonviolent offenses. Lastly, we have meta-analysis from the UK College of Policing that reviewed a number of American studies on electronic monitoring for sex offenders, which con confirms what some of these studies I've already shared mentioned that, uh, there is a strong indication that this is a very effective tool, not only at keeping the public safe, but helping these offenders turn over a new leaf to become safer, more productive members of society. And Mr. Mr. Chair, we're open to questions.

Thank you. Um, I'm wondering is, are we talking about like an ankle monitor? I don't know what modern monitors are they always ankle monitors? And

This bill, it's an ankle monitor, yes.

Okay. And are they bulky these days or are they really difficult? I mean, it doesn't matter. I guess I still, I still love the idea, but I just, I'm just wondering, I haven't seen one in so long, but, um, and is there a cost involved? I know sometimes we charge that to the individual who's monitoring.

That's a really good question. And so under this bill, um, seeing as some of these individuals are in indigenous circumstances, the state would pay the cost of the ankle monitor wouldn't be incumbent on the individual.

Okay. And the, the question I have there is, I mean, for those who may be just avoiding reporting where they live, I don't know. I mean, I guess they would still have to undergo the, um, having one on, which would be maybe a deterrent to, it may encourage them to just report where they live, so. Okay. Thank you.

That's, that is the idea. Thank you. Yes, it's, it's the idea that it would be more convenient to report the address where they live than to have an ankle monitor if they do have an address.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, just a quick question. Um, once the offender, uh, stabilizes gets a regular address, that ankle monitor could be removed. Absolutely. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

So right now, the sheriffs will periodically in most counties, um, do a review of those sex offender registrants in their county. And, um, we'll try to verify. But for, there's really no action that is taken on individuals who it's assumed they're indigent because they don't have an address on the registry.

Yeah, and this is for, oh, sorry. Uh, if I could just just add briefly. So the registry is broken into, uh, and it varies by state, but in Utah there are those who are, uh, without an address, which would be, um, on the registry, there's a section that says un mappable offenders. And those are offenders who tend to be, uh, either input an incorrect address that doesn't exist, uh, and hasn't been, been reviewed yet, or, um, have not, have not placed an address in that, or are listed as homeless or transient. And, and so for that last category, they, they actually did input something. They just did not input an address. Uh, that's a, a smaller portion than the ones who just did not provide an address. Uh, but, but the hope here would be as, as, uh, has been mentioned earlier that, that those who do have an address, uh, probably don't have a lease, probably don't have some sort of formal arrangement, but are staying in the same place indoors every night, uh, perhaps couch surfing or something like that, that they would then provide that address, uh, rather than, you know, they're, they're technically, um, perhaps compliant to some degree because they don't have a permanent address. Uh, but they are still staying in a place on a regular basis.

Unsheltered. Sure, sure. So, so those, um, those were from, from two other studies, one by by UCSF, that, um, is the largest study of unsheltered homeless, uh, individuals. And, uh, of, of the women that they interviewed, which is, I mean, thousands of women, um, half of them said that they had been victims of, of sexual violence, uh, particularly during the duration that they were living on the street Fi 50%. Yes. I think it was, it was 48. Uh, but, but yeah. Uh, about about half. Um, now that, that is not to say that of all homeless women, uh, that is specifically unsheltered homeless women, uh, which obviously is at, at a often an increased risk of, of criminal violence versus a a a, a single sex or family shelter where, where rates of, of, of all types of, of crime are much lower. Uh, and then the San Diego District Attorney's Office also released, uh, substantial data on, on both the rates of, of victimization among, um, homeless individuals as well as, uh, the, the kind of propensity to commit those crimes. And unfortunately, homeless individuals are both much more likely to be victims of crime, uh, by the order of magnitude of about a dozen times as likely to commit most major crime or to be victims of most major crimes. But they often are hundreds of times as likely to commit most major crimes. So there's obviously a gender disparity there. It's men who are committing the majority of, of those violent crimes. Uh, but too often those crimes are against other homeless individuals and especially homeless women.

Correct, representative. Okay. And, and, uh, just following up on my colleague's point, uh, earlier about victims, if I may, one thing that's important to note is another demographic that's really disproportionately targeted by, uh, reoffenders, which would be children. There's another study, the, the Tennessee Border of Probation and Parole Study on electronic monitoring. And one thing that's sort of buried in the tables is the fact that 87.5% of victims of new offenses were age 18 and under, and nearly half were age 12 and under. So when we're talking about protecting people, we're talking about protecting the most but vulnerable, whether they be unsheltered, homeless children and such. Thank you Chair.

Yeah, you bet. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name's Tracy Glover. I'm the Kanosh County Sheriff and the President of the Utah Sheriff's Association. Uh, the, uh, the sub on this bill involves some responsibility, some new responsibilities for sheriffs, and, uh, we appreciate, uh, representative Libe for involving us in the discussion as she got to that sub. Um, we think this is a good, a matter of good public policy. Um, this is a group of people that's sort of lost in the mix, I guess. And so in this regard, I think we'll be able to make a difference. Um, it, there is probably gonna be some costs with it. Our hope is, is that as we start the monitoring, the cost might be a little higher. Our hope is within a couple years we'll get people to comply and then the number will be much smaller and, uh, we think that may be the case. And so, uh, we appreciate some changes that, uh, the representative made to the bill, uh, that we asked for, and just the involvement in the collaboration. And with that, we would support the bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I'm the Executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. We wanna thank the sponsor for bringing this bill. Uh, we hope that it, uh, will improve our, uh, ability to monitor people who might cause, uh, some sort of risk to our community, uh, and that we can sort of figure out better ways that we can monitor these populations that have been difficult to monitor in the past. And we can figure out which ones, uh, are just suffering from homelessness, experiencing that homelessness versus which ones are trying to avoid registry requirements, uh, by being able to drill down in those different categories through this program. We think it's a creative solution and, uh, we support the bill.

Chair, uh, chair members of the committee. My name is, uh, Felix Espinoza. For I am here on behalf of Utah for rational sex offense laws, uh, in opposition to HB three 70. And just a few questions for the record. Uh, on Utah's publicly available sex offense registry, how many registrants are currently, currently lack a fixed residential address location unknown. As of January 15th, 2026, it was 214. I understand that the number was 2 91, uh, called out by, uh, representative earlier. Um, that could possibly have been from last year. I don't know, uh, where that's referenced from as it was stated that an estimate quarter to a third are purposely avoiding, uh, providing address. This would be labeled as absconded on the, uh, registry, um, to which the sheriff's, uh, departments, uh, in the counties actually update to on the registry now, to the number that was provided, 2 91, that would, uh, represent 72 to 87 people that this bill addresses. Out of the 10,000, over 10,000 people that are on the registry section 53 29, 44 0 6 of this bill applies only to offenses committed after July 1st. What is the rationale for this approach and why not a apply it retroactively as opposed to, uh, July 1st if this was really a public safety issue, um, for the cases that people are purposely avoiding, uh, providing that address. Uh, again, this would be listed as abed in 2025 on the public, uh, registry. That was only about three people. Uh, last question. For a p and p and private companies, what is the installation fee and, uh, for the GPS monitoring and how much does each cost per day? For AP and P, that installation fee is $150, uh, plus $6 per day, uh, for private companies, that's $150 plus $15 a day. Now that's, uh, uh, annually, 5,600, uh, for private companies. And then 2300 for, uh, for A PMP.

No, I would not. Okay.

I'm trying to articulate the fact that if this was really a public safety issue as presented, moving forward, then, uh, the legislation, the bill should, uh, look at, um, providing it retroactively. Why isn't that the case? My, my question would be, uh, providing, uh, an explanation as to why that's not the case here. Okay.

Uh, yes, that's correct. So one of the questions I did have, um, how many property managers utilize Utah's Good landlord program, which effectively bars registrants, uh, from providing, uh, housing? So the question that this bill doesn't address, it doesn't address speaking specifically to what causes homelessness within the population. For registrants, they already find it very difficult to find housing. So that lack within this bill, uh, is something that should be addressed primarily before you start looking at ankle monitoring. People who are homeless, they can't afford to, uh, to pay for it. And since they can't, the state is going to levy the cost.

This is one of the attempts that, uh, the registry laws is, uh, trying to address, it's trying to prevent laws like this from passing where they do not, uh, provide root cause analysis, root cause issues, and root cause address. So when we're trying to look at, uh, addressing the sex offense legislation, cause uh, bills, this is one of them.

Uh, some of the registry laws that we are looking at, uh, would be, um, tied to, uh, would be tied to, um, registrants allowed in, um, park access. That's one of them. Uh, moving to a three-tiered system where right now it is only two tiered. You have, uh, people who are on the registry for 10 years or, uh, 20 years at a lifetime. So moving down from a, from a, uh, from a conviction based registry down to a, a tier based registry that implements, implements three tiers, um, that, uh, further moves it toward the federal, uh, federal, um, uh, federal laws, uh, when applying to Sorna. So those are some of the bills that we're trying to, uh, actively move to, uh, forward with.

Some of them, yes. Not entirely. All Utah for rational sex offense believes that the registry serves a purpose. Um, there are people that are on it that deserve, uh, to be on it as far as publicly available and accessible. Uh, that is something that we are also looking at approaching from not allowing full public access to every single individual that is on the registry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so there, um, you've alluded to the, the thought or the idea that there's not a public safety threat. Um, you, you've kind of talked the numbers down and my my question to you is, um, what number of people who don't have an address, um, that may be homeless or otherwise, um, that are, that that should have an address for the sex offender registry, what number would equal a public safety risk in your mind?

So the idea that, um, people who are on the registry are homeless, that is a complete contradiction of what the public registry is for. If they are homeless, we don't know what their, their status, uh, and their location, uh, is at. Now as far as, uh, ankle monitoring and GPS monitoring to an exact number, our concern and our approach would be to address the root causes of what's causing, what's allowing them to become homeless in the first place. So to the number, uh, we don't have that answer. The answer would be to address the root causes and to assist those who are on the registry trying to find housing in instances like Utah's Good landlord program that specifically bars, uh, them from entering housing, whether they're an individual person, they're, they're, they have a wife or a spouse, or there are, um, registrants who are family with families, families from three to five. So as two year number, I will not answer that question.

Okay. That's not my number. I'm just, I'm just asking what number would create a public safety threat, um, in the meantime. And, and I don't, I don't disagree with some of the things you're saying in the meantime. Um, do you feel that there should be something done to mitigate risk to the public, or, or do you think things should just stay as is and, um, and, and then work to address the issues you're concerned with?

Yes. In the meantime, address the local homeless shelters that refuse to, uh, allow people who are, uh, on the registry access to their facilities. There are a number of homeless facilities that refuse access because they are a multitude of, um, uh, family, uh, uh, where families go for, uh, for shelter. But there are, uh, locations that specifically address and bars, um, uh, registered offenders from entering those homeless facilities. Now, as to h how we address those registrants, that's, that's something that, uh, uh, representative, uh, Tyler Clancy in moving forward with his position as a homeless service, uh, director in about a month would need to also address too. And we look forward to working with him in regards to that.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sorry about that. I would say to point of clarification, Representative Thompson and to Mr. Espinoza, my understanding is that it's just Utah law that doesn't allow, um, individuals on the sex offender registry, uh, that are convicted of an offense against a child to be, uh, in a certain area restriction against proximity. I don't think it's our providers necessarily trying to, you know, slight, slight anyone on the registry. That's, that's my understanding.

Correct. And we understand that. But as a whole, uh, that's what part of our organization is trying to address.

Yeah. Um, I, motion to strike line 6 81 and 6 82.

I Motion to amend and strike line 6 81 and 6 82.

I would motion to adopt the first sub,

I just need this for now. Yes. Sorry. I, I, I withdraw my first motion to amend. Okay.

I'll waive. All right.

Thank you. I motion to amend

Yes. Thank you. Um, I would like to strike line 6 81 and 6 82.

And then also, um, see where it says, oh no, it would just take away, oh, yeah. And then on 6 78 to strike A,

Uh, 6 8 1 6 8 2. And then on 6, 7, 8. Strike just the letter A in and,

I think that having those lines in there creates some ambiguity onto who it actually applies to and making the program uniform for all, all people who would qualify under this

Thank you. Um, I, I appreciate this motion. There may be a slight issue with it, so I am thinking through this, but if there is, we can fix it on the floor. I will commit to do that, but I I just appreciate that, um, that it was brought to our attention because I, I do wanna make sure that we're immediately addressing public safety issues.

Mr. Chair, I've got

No problem. Thank you. And I, I'm assuming this is what the sponsor was alluding to, but if I could just get clarification, um, was that concern about the retroactivity, Mr. Chair?

Thank you. So, um, yes, there was a concern expressed about a potential expost facto issue, but it's not clear how high that risk is that it would be violating some sort of expost fact.

Perfect. That was my

Question. Question. And our attorneys are shaking their heads no. So, Okay. So great. I think we're okay.

Um, thank you. Sorry. No, you don't need to apologize Mr. Chair. I just jumped in 'cause I, what, what popped into my head here is, um, those that are currently on the registry, um, I mean, if you're on the registry, their, their agent should be able to inform them of the change. But there's, if there's not a, a kickoff date where from this point forward, this is the rule. There's a lot of people already on the registry that would have to be educated. Violation of failure to register is third degree felonies, a zero to five for each month that you don't do it. Um, and so I'm kind of worried that people don't know. I mean, just 'cause we pass a law doesn't mean that it just magically imparts into the brains of people. And so I, I like the idea of having a commencement date. And, and so I'll, I'll pose the amendment. I'm sorry, but, uh, I wanna put that, uh, uh, uh, analysis on the record.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I just wanted to make a clarification. Now, I'm not making a formal legal opinion, but generally with stuff like this, with the omission of line 6 81 and 6 82, it says that for offenses committed on or after July 1st, 2026, they would be, uh, going forward would be subject to this. Yes. But this removal doesn't make this law retroactive where it'll go back and undo things that have already happened. So the Utah law requires that if something's gonna be retroactive, it still has to be, uh, specifically put into the statute that's retroactive. If you look at the very end on line 8 41, this bill takes effect on May 6th, 2026. So on May 6th, 2026, the way I read it, anybody who, uh, who has, uh, whether they've committed the conduct prior or whenever they committed this conduct, would then be subject to these regulations, which I think would be in line with a lot of the stuff that we do, is that if people have committed it, they may be subject to these type of things. So I think I'm not as worried about the ex post facto. Maybe there is something there I'm not aware of. Um, I haven't done any, you know, thorough research on it, but I, I don't think, I think the fact that there's an effective date on May 6th, 2026, that this conduct will apply to everybody going forward, I think is, uh, I think is good and it's not gonna have any implications for people, um, that have already been serving time.

Mr. Chair. Yes. May I say yes, madam Chair? Of course. I apologize to the committee for taking some time on this. Um, I'm happy to just leave the bill as is and if there is an issue, we can address it in a sub on the floor very quickly. Um, and, and actually have our brilliant legal minds on the committee really look at it intensely. So, um, maybe while I appreciate the motion, maybe we could just leave it as is.

To withdraw.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I move the, uh, to will we favorably recommend first substitute of House Bill three 70 to the house floor for their consideration.

Uh, it is briefly. It's a good bill. Uh, I've represented, uh, uh, people in the sex offender registry that are unhoused. Um, it's a complicated thing for their monitoring agents. Um, and, uh, as I mentioned earlier, the third degree felony if you fail to register for every month, and, uh, people are unhoused often either blow it off or, or don't know that, uh, they still have to report and then they, they show up and their new housing becomes the Utah State Prison. This creates a stop debt gap for, for a, an overlooked, uh, uh, population that's, uh, in a catch 22 and it resolves that catch 22. So I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this legislation.

I really appreciate the committee's time on this important issue. Thank you.

And I have with me Devin Kurtz with the Cicero Institute, and he'll be helping me present. Do you wanna start out? He looks like a Deon Kurtz. So

Thank you. Uh, thank, thank you for, for having me. Uh, this bill is one that has actually, uh, moved in in a couple of other states as well as, but I, sorry, I'm reminded that even though I said your name and she said your name, you also need to say your name, Sorry. And who you're with. I'm Devin Kurtz and I'm the policy director at the Cicero Institute. I live here in, in Salt Lake, but my organization does work across the country and is based in Austin, Texas. This bill addresses a crucial gap in the sex offender registry right now. When a sex offender provides an address, uh, they are, uh, held to a different standard than those who do not provide an address, who must check in and a different cadence. But ultimately, in the interim, um, when they're checking in with law enforcement, we don't know where they are. So, uh, a number of states, about seven so far this year have, have moved to address this gap. Um, representative Libe has has crafted a, a very targeted bill to, to fill this gap and provide for GPS monitoring for those who cannot provide an address. Uh, the many of the individuals who do not provide an address do in fact have a place where they're staying on a, a, a daily basis. But, uh, we don't know where that is. So this GPS monitoring would provide an incentive for them to do so. And then for those who do not have an address, it provides a means of figuring out where they are. In the interim. In the House committee, we also heard of, uh, from Representative Miller, who, who spoke very eloquently about how this actually makes it easier for sex offenders without an address to comply with the registry versus having to remember every 45 to 90 days to check in in person. And we also have a sub that inserts the words knowingly in the language that would make it a crime to not comply with the program because there are some individuals who simply will not know, um, they're either severely mentally ill or there are other issues that, that make it impossible for them to comply. And we don't wanna be, um, insensitive to those. Uh, in addition, uh, the substitute removes the language that's specific to a city in a county of the first class, et cetera, that Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County came to an agreement and are, and they believe that they'll be able to coordinate and collaborate to make this happen. So with that, we're open to questions.

Chair, member of the committee. My name is Felix Espinoza on behalf of Utah for rational sex offense laws in opposition to HP three 70. Representative Livi co presented her bill before the House Judiciary Committee, and today with the C Institute or an organization that was promoted GPS monitoring of homeless registrants. It is not a Utah agency, does not manage Utah's registry and has no formal role in Utah's criminal justice policy. The California 2012 study cited by representative Liz beyond the house floor, was conducted specifically on high risk sex registrants under active supervision. The population for wom, the evidence was developed, and the population that's bill targets are not the same. If 291 registrants without addresses represent a genuine and immediate public safety, uh, crisis, why is the bill perspective After July 1st and not retroactive physical note, A PMP monitoring cost of $150, uh, per installation, uh, $6 a day, 2000 annually per person. Private providers cost $150 installation per person, $15 a day, 5,600 annually per person cost paid by the state perspective versus retroactive. If there is a danger now, why the May 6th enforcement? All right. Uh, the registry has two distinct classifications for registries. Without addressing this location unknown. For those who cannot secure housing and absconding for those intentionally invading registry, these are not the same problem. And this bill treats them identically. Finally, one objective of UTR SOL's mission is to help those on their registry find housing. Presently, we collaborate with a small network of private property owners willing to rent to individuals on the registry. Over the course of the last nine months, approximately 175 registrants have reached out to I'm US for housing.

My name's Justin Nels Wood, and good morning. I'm a citizen of the United States, and I'm here to represent other citizens who will be affected by this bill. I'm an also adjusted impacted individual who has been convicted of a sex offense. I'm a father, a brother, a son, and a friend, and most importantly, human being. Just like all the people who will be affected by this legislation. I stand here in opposition of the house Bill three 70. Pub public safety is my top priority, just as it is yours. I want my family safe. Just like you want your family safe. Sexual offending is a serious and harmful issue. There is no minimizing that. But I do have one question. Um, is the bill truly necessary? What percentage of these individuals who are homeless and on the registry are actually committing new sexual offenses while they're out there? Not technical violations, but actual new crimes that are of a sex nature. Is it a 5%, 3%, 10% before we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement a program and hundreds of thousand dollars more annually to maintain it, we should know the data. I'm curious as to why the original fiscal estimated amount was over $3 million, yet substitute one has revised it to the number just under 700,000. Why such a dramatic change? We know that they, overwhelming majority of sexual offenses occur within our a person's home or their existing influence. Uh, circle of influence, not strangers. So this is this. So this policy addresses the primary risk, uh, or focusing on a small subset without clear evidence that it improves public safety. Thank

Chair and committee. Uh, good afternoon. I'm Kyle r Corio. I'm res representing myself in opposition of House Bill three 70. I'm a homeless veteran and someone who committed a sex offense in the past and is not currently offending. I take responsibility for my past and I care deeply about public safety as well. I earned a degree in aerospace engineering, served as an Air Force officer. Following my military service, I worked as in flight test as both a contractor and a government civilian on classified programs, the F 35 and F 16, which are aircraft central to Utah's defense Mission. While incarcerated, I earned two additional technical certificates to better prepare myself and contribute positively. Despite those qualifications and that effort, I'm currently homeless and unable to secure stable employment. If someone with this background cannot overcome the barriers attached to registry status, it illustrates how steep those barriers are. House Bill three 70 is like placing a bandage over a deep gash. It increases monitoring, but it does not treat the underlying wound. The lack of viable housing and employment pathways for people required to register stability, reduces risk housing, reduces risk employment, reduces risk. Surveillance without stability, does not create safety. If our goals safer communities, we must focus on what actually produces safety, stability, not surveillance alone is what ultimately protects our communities.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Eric Jepsen. I'm a criminal justice student, uh, standing here in opposition to house Bill three 70. Uh, this bill would require electronic monitoring for homeless registrants. And I understand the instinct behind it. Homelessness feels like instability and instability feels like risk, but the data tells a much more complicated story. Research funded by the National Institute of Justice found that electronic monitoring can reduce supervision failures by roughly 30% when used as part of structured supervision that matters. Monitoring can be a useful tool, but a tool is not a solution. National research shows that about 70% of homeless shelters do not accept sex fence registrants. Studies on residency re restrictions show that in some cities, housing availability res for registrants can drop to as little as 5%. There is no statewide audit in Utah tracking how many treatment programs, shelters or affordable housing complexes deny entry. But the broader research makes one thing clear. Barriers to housing and treatment are widespread as someone is homeless because they're excluded from shelter treatment and housing options. Adding an ankle monitor does not solve that instability. It tracks it. Electronic monitoring works best when paired with stability treatment and structured supervision without addressing housing access and treatment barriers. This bill risks expanding surveillance without reducing the root causes of homelessness. If public safety is the goal, then we should invest in what reduces risk. Stable housing, access to treatment and structured supervision monitoring can be a part of that framework, but it cannot replace it. House Bill three 70 focuses on control without addressing access. That imbalance does not move us towards safer communities. We cannot monitor our way out of homelessness. If we want safer communities.

Adam Peterson. Uh, I'm in opposition of this. Bill did one of the things,

Uh, it seems, it seems like they've got a lot of data driving this. Um, but one of the things is like, one, are we putting this on the homeless? And why are we making them pay for it? And I understand there's a hardship clause, you know, but who's gonna decide that? And the people who aren't complying with AP and P, they're already going to prison. You know, and this monitor's not gonna solve the underlying issue that homelessness is the problem. Finding housing is the problem. And we could, we could better spend our money providing homes, getting the homeless off the street, giving them stability, getting them into jobs, and they could pay taxes. Which in the end, that's what we should be doing. We should find ways to have solid reentry plans for each one of these people. So that's what I have to say about that.

Thank you, Senator. My name is Joffrey Mayer. Um, I am not a justice individual. I have no criminal background. Um, and I feel, uh, deeply concerned that we are creating a subclass of people. Homelessness does not make a person less than anybody else or deserving of your rights. Sex offense does not make a person less than a human being. Um, and so I appreciate the competence in the room and where everyone's heart is at. And I, I believe that, um, people who are homeless and on the registry or not, um, especially this, the sex offenders are already in compliance. There is no gap to fill because if there was a gap to fill fill, they would already be in prison and costing the taxpayers, according to the Utah legislature, $44,000 a year. So it doesn't make sense to put that money towards to charge taxpayers. Thank you. That money? Yeah. Thank you.

Go ahead. Good afternoon. I'm Heather Richie. I am a citizen. I am a child advocate. And, um, I've had opportunity of speaking at the United Nations on this and on abduction. Um, the, I would say that these bills are important to move forward because there are so many that get lost in the cracks, and those victims need some justice. And, um, I have had a personal experience where I've seen family members who have been affected by sex offense. And, um, they are the ones that slipped through the cracks. And so to see that, um, they were not stood up for, and that their, um, their victim, their victimizers are continuously in their, um, creating prob more problems in their lives. I just feel like I'm thankful for those who do uphold laws like this. I think maybe the budget doesn't have to be as much. And also giving them programs that would help them and educate them are important. Um, I feel like hurting people hurt people. And so to get past that, um, they need, they need a lot of guidance and, and counseling. But I do support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I would recommend favorably, I would recommend House Bill three 70 for Senator. There's a first Amendment I think that needs to be adopted. You need, okay. I will move.

That is the one that inserts knowingly and takes the language out. That refers to the county of a first class in the, the city and the

That was the result of the, there was, I actually, this was a new process for me to learn in my 10th year in the legislature, but, um, we found that the fiscal analyst had actually missed a part in the bill. And so that affected what the fiscal note was in the first place. And so we challenged it and were able to get it amended to better reflect the actual language in the bill. So it didn't require a change in the bill, it just lowered the fiscal note. Um, but this, this shouldn't change the fiscal note, this, this most recent change, this just was coordinating language that one county had asked for and then changed their mind on.

Yes. Yeah, so Devin may have more data on it, but, um, we have actually shown in studies, and I think it's pretty much every study has shown that for those sex offenders, high risk sex offenders that are re receiving the, the monitoring, the electronic monitoring, their recidivism rate was 14% compared to 26% for those under traditional supervision. So the recidivism rate dropped significantly for those on monitoring. Um, and there was a, so there was another study that showed that for offender reentry data, that there was no significant harm to psychological, psychological wellbeing under electronic monitoring. And they observed twofold reductions in re-offense for general male offenders. So those were two studies that we specifically looked at.

I'll, uh, I move that we recommend HB three 71st substitute as amended.

Yeah. And then to the, to the concern that we heard from a lot of the, uh, the, and I'll be brief, but the commenters about, um, homelessness. This isn't specifically targeted homeless individuals. This is targeted at individuals who do not provide an address to the registry.

So homeless women are nine times more. Um, they have more of a chance of being sexually assaulted than women in the general population. And so, and there are an, a disproportionate amount of homeless, um, men who are sex offenders. And so what this does is it also notifies homeless women who is a sex offender if they have a monitor on. And that's helpful. Um, I'm sure that homeless women, women would want to know this. So that's an important part of this. And there's an estimate that at least a quarter to, if not a third of the individuals who do not provide an address to the registry actually have an address. They're just not providing it. And this will help motivate them to do so.

Uh, Or Brady, should I say Brady? Either way. Um, the, uh, so there was some discussion about, uh, that kind of shifted this from, uh, the point of this bill regarding trying to say this is about, uh, homelessness and providing stability for those that are homeless, as opposed to, this is about monitoring, which is ordered, and there's a gap in terms of how we're able to monitor with the idea that, uh, of attempting to increase public protection. Now, with regards to homelessness, let's not forget that, you know, we just received our budget. It's got about $44 million towards stability for the homeless. And that doesn't even include the other sources of income. That's just state dollars. It doesn't include local and federal, which looks to be just as a total about $189 million for our homeless populations in the state of Utah alone, that's $189 million. That's a lot of dollars going towards stability for the homeless population. So I don't want to, you know, that is not this bill that, and it's a non-sequitur, including that issue within the purview of this bill. This bill is to enforce what is already the law, which is compliance with monitoring the location of people. And if they do not have homes, how do we monitor it? Particularly in areas where, you know, the, the rate of sexual assault within our homeless community is incredibly high. And so understanding where people are, uh, particularly when there are crimes being done that are under-reported unreported, unresolved, you know, and, and not prosecuted that should be prosecuted within our homeless populations is just, you know, I know that the, that some that are on the sex offender registry feel like they are being targeted through this. But I can tell you that those that are in the homeless populations who are subject to abuse, sexual assault, and that may not always be the, the sex offender registry, but it very well could be those that are, that are unmonitored and, you know, in violation of the law as is. This provides a good solution for that. And so, you know, I, I want to make sure that we're staying on target with what the bill is about and what it's not about. And so with that, I encourage your support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill establishes a location monitoring program for sex offenders who do not provide an address on the registration. Um, on the six sex, kidnap and child abuse offender registry, currently there are approximately 291 individuals out of 10,000 who do not provide an address on the residency. And it is on the register, excuse me. And it is estimated that about a quarter to a third of those individuals actually have an address but are avoiding providing it. So the modern monitoring would begin one business day after there's notification that the offend, um, to the offender that law enforcement requires an address if the offender provides the address. No monitoring occurs. If they cannot provide an address, monitoring will initiate. Uh, it is, um, if they're living outside, possibly near other homeless individuals. Research shows high rates of sexual offending against homeless individuals and about half of homeless women, if not more, are repeat victims of sexual violence. And so it's really important that the homeless women on the streets and also homeless men know who is a sex offender. That, that there is monitoring that's occurring just like every other person that's on the registry. So a 2012 California study monitoring high risk sex offenders with GGPS technology found that the arrest rate for those receiving electronic monitoring was 14% compared with 26% for those under traditional supervision. And there was a statistically significant relationship between electronic monitoring, monitoring and a reduction in arrests as well as a significant reduction in returns to custody. There was also a 2023 New Zealand study that used dynamic risk assessment for offender registry data found they found no significant risk of psychological well, um, of harm to psychological wellbeing while under electronic monitoring. So policing, um, reviewing multiple American studies, it confirms that electronic monitoring is effective at keeping the public safe and helping offenders become safer, more productive members of society. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to questions.

Thank you Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield to a question. I

Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Em, um, could you address the fiscal note? There's um, I I know the underlying bill had a, uh, a fiscal note in the substitute. I I'm not seeing it yet. So I'm just curious if there were any changes between the substitute and the underlying bill that would, uh, change that fiscal note.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure why it's not online. It, um, was released Friday after. No, I will check into that. But there, the fiscal note did change, but not because of a change in the language from the substitute. It changed because there was an appeal because there was a, a misunderstanding about what the bill actually required. So the fiscal notice significantly lower.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, I think this is a really great bill, but because I had promised my constituents that I would not be voting for a bill that had rulemaking authority in it and which this one does, I will not be voting for it. Thank you.

Waive. Thank you. Mr. Speaker

Thank you. So this bill establishes a location monitoring, uh, program for sex offenders who do not provide a residential address, um, as a registrant on the offender registry. So currently there are 291 individuals out of about 10,000 who do not provide an address on the registry. Um, one of the thing it's estimated about a quarter to a third of those individuals actually have an address but are avoiding providing it. And then it's also estimated that those in the homeless population, uh, you know, whether they are committing crimes or not, there's actually a much, much higher incidence of sexual assault within our homeless population. And so what this does is it basically does an ankle monitoring if you do not have an address to, uh, uh, to provide for purposes of people who are supposed to, who we're supposed to be able to track and know where they are. So with that, I'm open to any questions. Thank you. See no question. Oh, Senator Riebe.

Mr. President? Um, right now we don't have the bill on the board, so I'm not sure if there, if there was a problem reading it in or and it's not listed in the online. I showed on my, on my board there. Here. Oh go. Thank you. Thank you.

Re Yeah, thank you. Wanna make Sure the bill's in front of us, which it is. And if anyone wants me to slow it down, if they didn't, didn't see it. And I can hold on for just a second. Just speak now. Otherwise we'll, we'll proceed. I think, uh, it was all announced and everything and it being on the board isn't an issue but I just wanna make sure there's any concerns on it. Thank

to use Senator Brammer for a motion. Alright, I'll move the question. Thank you.

Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Ramer Bus Colmore. Ms. Camilla Fillmore Grover Harper Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson. Juab Juab Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton.

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

Thank you Mr. Speakers. So what the amendments did was just add knowingly to the, um, the crime of not reporting for the sex offender registry. Um, and this is important as it had to, we had to establish mens rea according to constitutional law and then it also took out the language. There was an agreement between, um, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County and then they came to a different agreement. So it took out some language that was, um, pertinent to the first agreement, but now all the counties agree and everything is copacetic and we should all vote for this.