H.B. 455 Peace Officer and Dispatcher Standards Amendments: transcript

Thank you Chair members of the committee. Um, I'm gonna be speaking to the first substitute. Great, Thank you. So currently, um, when it comes to post certification, there's a couple of interesting requirements. So if you are a juvenile and have had a juvenile conviction or a record, um, and, and you're seeking later in life to, um, join law enforcement or dispatch, or you go into corrections, um, there's a certain set of rules that comes to cooling off periods, determining if there's been, um, kind of adjustments in your character and determining whether or not you're qualified, um, to, um, to join post. And, but there is a, a different issue that if you're an adult or if you've been charged as an adult, then depending on the type of charge, um, there's in our statute some kind of older language that talks about whether or not you may have been, uh, con, uh, obtained whether or not you would've been, uh, uh, sent to a penitentiary, I believe is the words they use. And, uh, it doesn't exactly describe what that, uh, means, though. There's some expectation of what that falls under. But what this, what this bill is seeking to do is, I have a constituent that had approached me that had a job offer, um, from, uh, Salt Lake County and was looking to get into corrections and went through the post hiring process, spent several months going through background checks. He had disclosed that when he was 19, many, many years ago, more than 10 years ago, that he had charge on his record. And it was a plea in ab advance. And after a couple of years that it was dismissed. And he hasn't had any, um, interactions with law enforcement since. And, uh, he had this job offer with that, uh, background in mind and the agency was willing to hire. But when it came to the post process, he was denied because the code specifically states that there is no, um, there is no, uh, leniency or any discussion to be had, uh, for individuals to fall into this category. So looking at the juvenile standards and the time period that we put in there, and the reasons why we do that, the expectation of giving second chances to individuals that may have made dumb mistakes when they were younger, for example, and then applying that forward. We've crafted here what I believe is an extremely narrow, um, uh, avenue. The, uh, the bill states that it has to have at least 10 years passed, uh, since the, um, conviction. And they can't have any other convictions of any other criminal offenses, um, since, um, not including low level traffic violations. Um, they cannot be a restricted person. They have to be able to carry a firearm. They can't have, uh, ever been convicted, uh, regardless of the timeframe of any violent crime or any sexual crime. And, uh, under this narrow, uh, window, having spoken to posts, this would affect a very small handful, maybe three to five people, uh, annually that would otherwise be qualified. And that agencies may be willing to hire, depending on the role, um, but post cannot certify them. This would not change in any way the option for any agency to hire or not hire. There is no requirement on them to hire individuals if they go through a post certification. This creates no liability on any agency if they deny hiring and there is no appeal, um, if they deny hiring. But if you are seeking to be, uh, a role in dispatch, for example, or in corrections, um, you need to go through the post certification process just the same as law enforcement. And so this, um, this bill, uh, again, just establishes that, um, that, uh, framework to create a very narrow window since we don't have a lot of post applicants in their thirties. Um, we do have, we actually do have a lot actually now that are starting to, um, get into post later in life. But with the 10 year look back, we're really trying to capture that tiny gap between those juvenile convictions that are happening in the young teen, uh, ages. And that early teen or late teen, early twenties range where that 10 year timeframe has expired, which is much longer. It's three, it's two to three times longer than the juvenile cooling off period to determine is there, uh, evidence to show that a second chance may be warranted. And it still gives the agencies the opportunity to decide one way or another. I believe that covers the, the extent of this bill. Um, and I am, uh, make sure I'm just walking through all of this. The, um, oh, uh, in the substitute, the one change that was made at the request of both post and of, um, uh, the dispatch, uh, commission was to, um, take away, we originally under the, uh, initial, um, phrasing of this had, uh, put in discretion for post to decide whether or not, uh, to make the determination whether or not they could, um, certify those individuals. And they've asked that, that, that we just take away that discretion, allow them to certify those individuals and let the agencies decide if they would like to hire them or not. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

I, that makes a lot of sense to me that, that we would have that direction.

Yeah, I am. Thank you. Uh, Representative Monson. Thank you. I actually know someone who, uh, had a career, retired from that career is in their fifties and were, was in their fifties when they attended post, and this particular statute probably would've prevented him from going. So the question that I have for you, and we've talked about this previously, is there's been some concern about Brady expectations. Can you kind of maybe address what those are as you have someone there that

Is that better? Oh, yeah.

I moved from the kitchen to the hall. Oh. Um, well done. Can you speak to, there's, we, we've had discussions about the potential Brady implications. Can you speak to those, if they exist, what are they? Can they be resolved? Yes. Thank you very much for the question. And I believe, um, SWAP might be here in the room and, uh, had indicated to me that they're happy to come up and discuss that if they are here still, or, uh, I'd like to phone a friend if that's okay.

yeah.

And good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I'm members of the committee. I'm Brett Robinson, the Chief Policy Advisor for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office. Um, but we're also on the board for swap, and we've spoken with them as well. Um, and so the, the way that the Brady and Glio issues would work is if we were to become aware of this and, and first of all, um, swap and, and the, our office are not taking any position on this bill, um, whether the hiring filing decisions, that's completely up to the agencies and we, um, don't wanna weigh into that area. But when it comes to the information that would come to us through this bill, um, we would treat it just like any other information that we get concerning any other officer. And when we do become aware of information, we look at it and we have to determine whether or not it could reasonably impact, um, the legitimacy of a proceeding either through the sentence or the verdict. And if there's a possibility, then we'd have to, you know, when a case came up, um, we'd give that information to the prosecutor because it's a case by case analysis, and they'd have to look at it for material materiality and relevance in the context of their case for whether or not they'd actually even have to disclose that information. And if they determine that it might impact it based on that, they would disclose it. Um, but that doesn't mean even if they disclose it, that they would stipulate it to having it come in. And they might actually, you know, strenuously argue to keep it out of the proceedings. Um, but even if it did get admitted, it doesn't mean that we wouldn't hesitate to use that officer and still, um, use him as a witness and explain what we need to on the stand. Um, so we, in fact, with Representative Gwynn's bill from last year, we've conducted several hearings, um, to talk to individual officers who have material information. And we've let 'em know sometimes based on those, that we can see how this would not impact any case, in which case we don't even disclose it at all, um, or that it might impact certain cases. But even if it were to do that, we let those officers know that we would have no issues working with them, um, on a particular case or even explaining it in court if we had to. Um, so with that, um, we would treat it much like we do existing things that do come to our attention.

That does answer my question. And sometimes we don't ever know if our bills are working or not, so I appreciate the commentary, but it, it illustrates that this is not gonna be some monumental hurdle we're gonna have to overcome. I don't think it changes anything and relates to practice and gives others an ability to redeem themselves, if you will. So I appreciate it. Thanks.

Hi chair. Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, I wanted to highlight this proposal does not weaken public safety. It does not force law enforcement to hire anyone, and it does not open the door to people with, uh, recent or serious criminal conduct. I don't believe that this is a loophole, and I think we can all agree this, um, is not a lenient, um, uh, statute, uh, as there are many requirements for it. And 10 years is a meaningful amount of time across the country. Uh, agencies are struggling to recruit qualified officers. Utah's no exception. We need people who are committed to serve. Um, and here's something that I think a lot of law enforcement would agree with. The people who have overcome something, who have learned a valuable lesson, uh, who know what it means to rebuild their life, those people often become the best type of officers. Uh, we should not be turning those people away forever because of something that happened at 19, was dismissed, was expunged, and has not been repeated in more than a decade. I will close with this. Utah has invested heavily in expungement reform, reentry programs, diversion programs, and in restorative justice. Um, and we have said that through legislation, uh, when someone does the work, they deserve a path forward. Um, under that, the current post statute that has no meaning, um, I do believe that with this small carve out, uh, that could restore that meaning and align post with, uh, our values in the state of Utah. Thank you so much for your time.

My name is Kaumba Gonzalez. I am represented by Representative Mack, uh, Matt Ackerson And represent Yourself? Yes, and I rep am representing myself. Um, and my title is BSA Analyst at a bank.

off and you're comfortable again. Yeah, I figured I'd just leave it on, but I, I definitely, uh, uh, would rather have it off. Um, Nate Mutter, uh, chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, and, uh, unfortunately, uh, I have to speak in opposition to the bill as the law enforcement group, uh, voted to oppose. I, I think the primary concern for, for that group is, um, as it was said, a a few times, just the slowly chipping away of the standards to, to become certified, uh, a certified police officer. Um, uh, uh, outside of that, that, that's all I have to say. Uh, appreciate Representative MacPherson for, for coming to, to speak to the group and hearing the feedback from them and, uh, you know, taking a look at this issue for their, for, for his constituent. Um, and, uh, uh, that's all I have to say. Appreciate it. Thank you.

I move that we adopt first substitute of HB 4 55.

I move that we favorably recommend for substitute HB 4 55.

I would. Um, and this is a really interesting bill. I had a long conversation with the sponsor a few days ago. Um, I, I fully recognize law enforcement's concerns about lessening restrictions, but I think what this bill does is make a situation where there has been a mistake or a misunderstanding and not ruin someone's career chances for life. I, I appreciate this bill. I think it's the, the tone that we need to set. Um, I've, I've worked at places that have hired law enforcement officers, and the pool is not as big as it should be. And to leave something like this in place that's going to limit the pool for no reason is, is a mistake. And so I ask for your support on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also rise in support, and I wanna give a parallel example. It's not this bill, but it's a parallel example that when you talk about restorative justice, when you talk about how cases are dismissed for one reason or another, those inmates in our correctional facilities, if they are, uh, given a writeup, but it's later found to be no evidence or, or not guilty, they keep it on the record forever. So it literally puts control into that. The hands of that, um, security officer, if they don't like them, or for whatever reason, they do a writeup. And when they, when that individual goes to the board, every single writeup is listed, even if it was dismissed, even if they were found not guilty. And so I think this is, this is another parallel example of, you know, if some, if this is the case, and especially for someone who's younger, especially if it's been 10 years, especially if it's been dismissed or expunged, right? I mean, we, um, I I really hope that somebody doesn't keep a list of my challenges and issues for all of my life if, if I've worked hard to make some changes and adjustments. And so I really respect that this legislation allows individual agencies to make those, that determination, um, uh, regarding the case, regarding the circumstance. And so I think this is really important for, um, for individuals and also for our agency. So thank you.

You, Mr. Chair. I rise in support as well. I have a friend of mine that I met in college that, uh, spent some time in federal prison. And after my friend came out, Uintah Law School, I actually met this person in college, Uintah Law School, and is now a very contributing member of society as an attorney, as a defense attorney. And I'm really grateful that he was able to go and make those improvements in his life and contribute and help other people. So I see this as the same. Thank you.

I'll just say, and I'm, I've said this for years, there has to be a path to redemption. There has to be like, there's all sorts of, uh, reasons why we, we look to increase. I just increase penalties today on, on another bill. And at the same time, like the goal is not just to penalize.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be very brief 'cause I appreciate all the comments here. Uh, this bill is trying to be very, very narrow, um, and not take away any rights of any agency. I, I very much respect our law enforcement agencies and all the hard work they do. Um, and I don't think that we should force any of them to change any of their standards at all. Um, and, and this doesn't seek to do that. It just, uh, to allow those agencies that do, um, want to work with these individuals or if they would like to work in corrections or in dispatch where those person, uh, those post certifications are also needed. This provides a way forward for someone that may have had mistakes in the past that's really seeking a very noble profession and some that the types of people that I think we've talked about that might be best suited for those types of roles to not be excluded because of, of such, uh, past history. So I thank the committee for their, uh, consideration.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. I apologize for my tardiness. It's that time obsession. Um, this bill is pretty, uh, simple. Um, but I think it could be impactful for a handful of people. Just to put some context, I was contacted by a, uh, constituent of mine when he was a teenager. He had, um, a conviction, uh, for receiving stolen property. Uh, he was purchasing items online and selling them. He didn't know they were stolen. He, uh, lived on his own, had a public defender. Public defender convinced him to take a plea in Aban, which he took and was told after 18 months, he'd have no further. Uh, it would basically as though it never happened. And it was in fact dismissed after that 18 months. Uh, fast forward 11, almost 12 years. He's had no further, uh, interaction with law enforcement. Good guy. He is interested in a job in corrections. He gets a job offer from Salt Lake County. And corrections discovers though that post has some really archaic language in there when it comes to who can, who can get post certified. And currently to just lay out the landscape today, if you're a juvenile and you've had certain types of convictions, there is a, uh, mandatory waiting period where they have to assume that you don't have any further interaction with law enforcement. Um, and if that period has been waived, then you may under cer certain circumstances become post certified. It still leaves it up to every, um, uh, police department, dispatch office, and also to a corrections office on whether or not they'd like to hire that individual. But at least post can continue with the certification. What this bill seeks to do is just provide that same sort of level in a much more stringent way to those that are past the juvenile. So we're talking about those that are probably in the 18, 19, maybe even 20-year-old range. What this does essentially is says that if you've had a, uh, any of these convictions that qualify and that have at least 10 years old, they have to be both. Um, though they have to be either expunged or dismissed. Um, they cannot be a, uh, violent crime of any kind, and they cannot be a sexual crime of any time, of any kind. You have to be a, you cannot be a restricted person. You have to be legally able to carry a firearm. You can't have any further, um, uh, interaction with law enforcement, no other convictions or arrests. If you meet all this requirement, essentially, and it's been at least 10 years, um, since that, uh, time period, then in that circumstance that post may certify you essentially, and it's still up to a, uh, agency to determine whether or not they'd like to hire you, whether in corrections, dispatchers, 'cause even dispatchers, uh, over the phone need to be post certified, um, or even in law enforcement. Um, I believe this, uh, has been set up to be very narrowly tailored. We've worked very closely with Post to identify the smallest sort of narrow window where this would apply. They have told me that it would be a handful, maybe five people a year that would potentially qualify under this. So it's not a huge shift, but it would allow, uh, certain individuals that would otherwise be qualified and would in most cases, already being, uh, offered a job that they would con be able to continue with, uh, certification at least. And I believe that's the entirety of the bill.

Thank you. Chair Committee. Uh, Nate Mutter, chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee. Um, our, our group remains neutral on this bill, but we certainly appreciate Representative MacPherson and his willingness to come talk to the group, uh, in our big meeting, go over the bill and, and, uh, take, take some of our feedback and, and implemented that and into the, uh, to the version you have in front of you. Um, and so we just appreciate his willingness to work with us. Thank you.

Hello, chair. Uh, thank you members of the committee for letting me speak today. Uh, I just wanted to highlight this proposal. Oh, Uh, your name in Kaumba Gonzalez. Uh, constituent of the state of Utah, representing myself. Okay. I wanna highlight this proposal does not weaken public safety. It does not force law enforcement to hire anyone, and it does not open the door to anyone with recent or serious criminal conduct. And by no means is it lenient as I think we can all agree that 10 years is a meaningful amount of time across the country. Agencies are struggling to recruit qualified officers. Uh, Utah's no exception to that. We need people who are committed and are deeply motivated to serve their communities. And here's something that a lot of law enforcement would agree with. The people who have overcome something, who have learned a valuable lesson, who know what it means to rebuild their life. Uh, those people often become the best types of officers. Uh, we should not be turning those people away forever because of something that happened at 19, was dismissed, was expunged, and has not been repeated in more than a decade. I will close with this. Utah has he, uh, invested heavily in expungement reform and reentry programs. And in restorative justice, we have said through legislation that when someone does the work, uh, they deserve a path forward. But under the current post statute that has no meaning, uh, this small carve out would realign Utah's values. Thank you so much.

I had, I guess maybe a clarifying question. I was thinking of, um, how often does this occur? So after speaking with Post, it sounds like that, um, at most there's a handful of individuals that would, um, every year potentially fall under this. Um, maybe five, maybe 10, um, out of thousands. So it's a very small list that would otherwise be hired or be qualified. But if not for the statutory requirement, You know, and I, I kind of, I obviously believe in the repentant process and wonder, you know, is there, I I guess a follow up question to that, those that, how do you screen the ones that may or may not be, you know, totally repentant, I guess with a better way to put it that

I, that's a very good question. Thank you. Originally, under the first version of this bill, we actually put, um, uh, into the hands of post and into the dispatch, uh, commissioned the, uh, ability to kind of screen and determine for themselves. Um, and they asked that, that we remove that we, they actually said if they meet the qualifications, they would like to just be able to train them. But it's up to the law enforcement agency. They go through a typically a very in depth background process on these individuals, sometimes contacting neighbors. In fact, in my constituent, he went through a five month process where they contacted all of his neighbors and his family. They went through all of his records, um, they talked to his employers and, and that was a pretty in depth long process. He was offered a job, um, with, uh, corrections. Um, and it wasn't Intel after the end of that entire process that they discovered that, um, under this kind of little scene rule that he couldn't be post certified. And that would mean that they wouldn't be able to hire him.

Um, I just think this is a great bill and I appreciate the provisions that have been put in place to find the balance, uh, between protections and second chances. And I move that we send this out with the favorable recommendation.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, pro temp colleagues. This bill, um, addresses an issue and it comes to hiring from post. Currently, if you are a juvenile and you have a, um, certain convictions from your cr uh, from your juvenile record, those are not counted after a certain cooling off period. There's an assumption that after a number of years, usually around three to four years, that if you haven't committed any additional crimes, that they will actually consider you for certain types of employment in, uh, post, which is used for qualifying employees for both, um, law enforcement officers for corrections and as dispatchers for, uh, some of our emergency services. Um, currently though, that does not apply to adults. And so we have, I actually was approached by a constituent who had a conviction when he was 19 and had a plea in abeyance. And under that plea, his conviction was dismissed. And 20, uh, I'm sorry, 12 years later now, um, without any criminal, uh, background or history, it has an interest and has a job offer to work in corrections. And currently the statute doesn't allow any, uh, post to consider certifying any individual with certain convictions regardless. So what this does is creates a very narrow pathway saying that if it's been more than 10 years, if it's not a violent crime, not a sexual crime, if the charges have been at least dismissed or expunged, if they have a, um, they're not a restricted person, they can carry a firearm. Under all these circumstances, this allows posts to certify and train those individuals. It still does not require any agency to have to hire them. So this would allow those agencies that would like to hire these individuals with these backgrounds to have that opportunity to send them through post if they would like to be in, uh, corrections, or if they'd like to be a dispatcher, they can deal with that. Um, this, uh, bill has, um, been through a a lot of, uh, changes, um, but under its current form, uh, there doesn't appear to be any strong opposition to this. It is a second chance opportunity and I'm open to any questions.