S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments: transcript

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, thanks for opportunity to present as always. You got a big crowd here. It's, everybody's a bit quiet. I don't know. Maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad. I don't know. We were hoping you'd take a little while longer so we could play in some music. All right. Yeah. Um, so to give you a little bit of background on this bill, um, in looking at the section under human trafficking, we, we have a pretty heavy hand when it comes to human trafficking in our state and for good reason, right? You, you human traffick in our state, we're gonna, we're gonna throw, quote unquote the book at you. Um, but that book, just so you know, is 10 Years to Life. That's it. There's no other option. There's mandatory jail sentence that's a heavy hand. But for the human trafficker, the human trafficker, we think of when we hear the term, human trafficker deserves it, right? He's the guy that's putting, he's the guy or whatever it is that's putting bodies into a, into, into a van and, and maybe, maybe, uh, pushing young girls into, uh, sex trafficking. The book is deserved. The question is, when we do that, is there is possible that others might get brought into that, that don't rise to that description or level? That's where the nexus is. If I'm a farmer hiring who I think are legal migrant workers and that are not, guess what the penalty is tend to life. So maybe it wasn't as nuanced as we should have had it be. So to that end, we took this through the interim of which the committee members that are on this committee that set a term. You sat on this twice. This very version. Well, actually there is a sub. Is there a sub on the system? There is. Okay. Um, I'll speak to that. Uh, I always, now I'm confused. Do we talk, do we do? It's in the Senate. We do that first, but we can do that towards the end. I haven't been That long, Senator. I Know. Yeah. The Senate does it in a different order. I I I can, I can, You can speak to the sub if You'd like. I'll speak to the sub and then we can move it as you, you see fit. How's that? Yeah. So the sub does, there's, there's one, there's one part in the bill that I'll point out towards the end of my presentation that we, we, we, we may have had an unintended a possibility there. And so we fixed that unintended possibility. That's, and the stuff, I'll explain that bit. So with, with that though, we wanted to be more nuanced. And as we dove into it, we recognized that, that it was fairly, if we were gonna do this and do it nuanced, it was gonna take some effort and to really apply what we think is a surgical methodology so that the individual that is guilty of human trafficking, we could throw the right penalty at the right crime with, in that umbrella, uh, description. So we took it through interim. I actually, uh, presented this bill twice, with the exception of the little iteration that I'm gonna be talking about in the sub twice to this committee. Uh, once for you to chew on it a month later for you to look at it again and then vote on, then it Uintah the Senate. And as you know, committee bills have the option of, uh, skipping the Senate committee on the senate side, but they also have the option of going directly over from second reading. We have two readings in the Senate. I purposefully had this read on both calendars so that we could really dig into it and make sure the Senate was comfortable that passed unanimously, both second and third as well as as that. So I'm just giving the background of framing. We worked hand in hand primarily, um, with, uh, with the ags office and with defense attorneys in, in tr in, uh, crafting most of it. But we were getting input from others along the way through, um, phone calls and, and other meetings. So what you have before you is, is a result of that. So to boil it down, uh, to maybe more a fairly quick and simple definition, you have an introduction into mens of mens rea into the, into the bill. We did some other things in there to, to make sure people, we were in the right lanes. So there's basically a bifurcation. We deal with labor trafficking and we deal with sex trafficking separately. Although the penalties are somewhat the same, the descriptions are different. The things are just handled differently in both those lanes, which I think is probably appropriate. So the proper application, so both the jury, the prosecutors, defense attorneys, everybody involved knows this is for sex trafficking. And this is was for labor trafficking. Um, and then we applied reya. So, uh, if you're, I, I wanna be clear on the outset. If you are guilty of knowingly, um, participating in sex trafficking, the penalties are the same. We didn't reduce anything. So if you do it knowingly, it's all the same. So there's been some reservations, well, you're reducing penalties. We are indeed reducing penalties. And there's no other way to look at this bill overall without some level of reduction in penalties. There is, but if you do it knowingly, there isn't. It's only if you are doing it, uh, under mens rea recklessly. And that is, if that's how they prosecute and that's they're found it recklessly, then it would be a reduced sentence. There's also, we created a section of, of patronizing, so that wasn't defined in the other bill. And so if you're patron, what does that mean? So if I'm a farmer hiring labor, I'm patronizing labor trafficking, possibly. Right? The same would be on prostitution. The, the patronizing was never quite described in or owed code. It is now, although we could still prosecute, it would just be under that umbrella. Now we know patronizing labor, patronizing sex trafficking, or maybe I'm the, um, the, the, the recruiter that's defined. So those terms are now, instead of being just lost to an overall umbrella, they're specifically ly defined in the, in the bill. Um, in short, we revise, clarify where needed. Now the law where it is too broad, so the laws can be applied fairly and consistently. We base penalties on the severity of the person's criminal conduct. We sharpen it where it was too weak, and we modernize, reorganize, and bring clarity to Utah's entire trafficking code. This bill protects good faith employers, improves prosecution, prosecutorial precision, and strengthens the state's ability to combat actual trafficking. With that, that will be my presentation.

Yeah, they do. And to be clear, if I use that as kind of a opposite clarifi colorful clarification of two opposite ends of the pool, you know, farmer hiring laborers and a somebody throwing, you know, young women in a van. But if the farmer is knowingly participating in labor trafficking, meaning he's hiring and he knows they are the same penalties, apply.

Oh, thank you Mr. Chair. That's actually was what I was gonna ask of what, what the mens rea meant in that. So does that mean that if you know it, knowingly do it versus not knowingly? Is that the distinction?

That's the simplest form of the distinction. Yeah. It both require a guilty act, which would be acting, right. Um, but, uh, guilty mind if you know that's what's happening. Or if you say we're a contractor and didn't know that the people that were funneled there were that right. Were not legal. It'd be a different, still a penalty, but not the same as an active human trafficker. That's what we're trying to, to distinguish.

I should also clarify, even if, even if you're found guilty, I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Oh, you're good. Add to this. Um, even if you're found guilty recklessly, we're still talking felony here. Yeah. Nobody's walking on this. It's still a felony. We're just talking. Do we go, do we throw somebody in prison for life? It is just not the same as the people that are trafficking the young girls from Asia that we caught in the massage parlors.

Well, that just brought up another question. So is it, would it still be that, that 10 year minimum though, regardless, or does it still be minimum,

The minimum if you were under, under knowingly the all that would remain the same on the minimum standards that wouldn't under recklessly. What's the, is there's no minimum under recklessly or it Would be whatever is currently under the law as it pertains to that particular penalty? Felony, that particular felony, Felony, 30 degree felony. I don't think there's minimum. There's not, there wouldn't be minimums. Okay. Thank you. That'd be up to the judge, I guess I Suppose outside of the recommendations for that particular felony.

Uh, yes. I appreciate you making sure that this is all clarified. This committee's worked really hard to make sure that the, uh, human trafficking, sex trafficking are, are really, um, and drug trafficking are serious offenses here in Utah.

I have a question regarding line 1807 in here. Um, it is aggravated human smuggling and there is a definition for a family member. Would you just describe where being a family member with these offenses, um, is, is included in And just for pe for people to clarify.

So, human smuggling is a different crime, although it's in this section. We didn't touch human smuggling. Human smuggling is a separate crime punishable under the current code of human smuggling. So if you fall under the deaf and of human smuggling, then we didn't adjust that code. I don't know. That probably doesn't answer your question. 'cause I don't, um, maybe I didn't understand your question, Dr.

Ballard. Um, it specifically has in starting in line 1806, aggravated human smuggling. And it describes including, I apologize

Members, I apologize. I, I, I apologize. I'm looking at the, you're looking at the sub. Yeah, and I'm not Oh, so That's why no wonder you were confused.

just because, and, and I'm gonna clarify perhaps my question, uh, because sometimes, uh, these offenses happen because there's a family member who is engaged or involved in these things and take advantage of, of other family members or children, um, for these crimes. And so just wanted to have you help, help clarify this for aggravated humans smuggling in the role that family members, um, would, or what the result would be for them to be involved. Uh, I apologize. It's not coming up fast. I would like it here.

Um, in 1806, starting an, an aggravated human smuggling, um, offense that is described in also, it includes family members as, as part of this. And so I'm just wondering how this fits in with some of the other charges or is it on top of, um, how or what is added when it becomes a family member?

So as using this section, family member means an individual parent, grandparent, sibling or other individual.

I'm trying to look at the other lines here related to the individual by, I can't even know that word or affinity to the second degree. So down in 1832, it is, it says it is a separate offense. So if they are, my, my, I guess my question is, is if they are, if they are, uh, prosecuted for human smuggling and they are also a family member, is that a, an additional, uh, penalty consequence, um, sentencing?

So one of the, one of the, one of the reasons that we, that we specifically went into this section and tried to clarify is so there wasn't stacking right. And that's what you're getting at, right? I'm asking if there is stacking Yeah. And I, and as I understand it, that, that you cannot stack as I understand it. But that may be something we could clarify further.

Um, yeah, I, I think it is important because it does say that it is a separate offense. And so when, when, uh, there is stacking, I, I think that's what I, what I'm wanting to know because as I, as I mentioned, uh, sometimes it's because there's a family member who has access to, to these individuals, whether they be young, whether they be, um, those with disabilities or otherwise. And I'm wanting to know if that adds an additional, uh, penalty to the, to the sentencing.

I'm looking to phone a friend. I'm hoping that somebody might be able to answer that question in public comment. If not, we'll answer it.

We're, uh, we're gonna keep that in the background and we're contacting the drafting attorney just to see if we can make sure we get clarity for you. Um, I did clarify that the penalty for the third degree felony is zero five. Right? Depending on the circumstances for if it were recklessly.

Yeah, thanks. You just lost your crowd. I guess he didn't like what you were saying. Senator Musselman And What The class of children have departed the room. We're back to normal size In this class. Are you listening?

I, I was not paying attention to the Room. Yeah, apparently not. So

I'll wait to ask my question till you're ready.

I'm ready. We're we got a phone, the friend is being phoned.

I see. Um, okay, so just 'cause I'm a little bit of a slow study on some of these things. Currently, any of these, any of these offenses are tend to life. So if somebody,

No, that's not quite right. Not quite right. If You knowingly do them, they are tend delight Knowingly. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay. So currently if you do them unknowingly, what is the penalty?

That, that's where the men's rea applies. That's where you have a third degree. It's, it's just a lesser penalty. That's the point of,

Is that what your bill is doing? Or is that what No,

That's the point of the bill. That's absolutely what the Bill does. That's okay. That's what we're trying to change here.

That's right. Yes. Okay.

So does, does a business say get treated differently than perhaps say a household or something like that?

Uh, if you, if you're hiring, so if You're talking criminal, that criminal activity is criminal activity, right? Doesn't matter how you're performing or what guys you're performing on or individually, you're gonna be charged with the criminal activity. It doesn't matter if it's a business or you're an individual. If you're okay individually, You're gonna be charged. So let's say

somebody goes down to Home Depot and hires some people standing there wanting to get some work. Mm-hmm. Does that apply here at all?

Could, and there's some, there's some people there and said, Hey, I need a hole dug in my backyard or whatever, pay you a hundred bucks. A guy jumps in your car and you take 'em to your house and dig a hole. That's, that's the point of my bill, uh, representative. The, if you went down and did that and they were illegal, you potentially could have, could have gotten 10 years to life. Yeah. That's potential.

Okay. So under this bill now, I'm potentially a third degree Potentially, yeah. Or, yeah, I don't know. I I, I Do you think that that's worse or better? I think that's a better, well better shot at. So I'm kind of feeling like both are pretty, uh, well,

not both knowingly is different. What you're describing probably is unlikely prosecuted under that circumstance. So that's an extreme ex circumstance. There's that possibility.

And I'm painting these really divergent pictures. There's probably something more in the middle where they would actually pursue prosecution, right? Where an individual hires somebody that is, that they should have known but didn't, or maybe they could have known but didn't know Right. In that circumstance, how would you know? Right. So, yeah.

Okay. You're, You're digging even further down, I suppose.

And, uh, well, I'm going, can't, we can't apply every single case and there has to be some prosecutorial discretion. But does that case get applied to this? Or maybe there's another law that, that I I think you misunderstanding. So they could apply if it was applied before in that circumstance, which I don't, again, I'm not saying that it would, I don't think it would've, that would've, what they would've had to pursue would've been tend to life. Now they could pursue a lesser penalty. Do I think they would in that case? No, I don't.

Okay. Okay. I'm just wondering if, if even a felony's still pretty harsh versus a misdemeanor of some type or something. Uh, depending upon, you know, the severity. 'cause I, I mean, I can see that scenario happening as people go find someone, someone on the side of the road that needs some work. And I'm happy to let you do some work for me. So anyway, just a thought. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Mark Moffitt. I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and I'm here on behalf of the Utah Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Um, we are here to speak in support of the bill. And the reason we're here to speak in support of the bill is that we worked, we were one of the stakeholders that worked very, uh, closely with Senator Musselman on this particular bill. One of the concerns going into the drafting of this bill was the breadth of the original criminal, uh, human trafficking statute. Um, the, the, the, the previous criminal, the current pri human trafficking statute is broad in its application. And it was, it had the potential to bring within its ambit at a first degree felony level, um, individuals that we would not think of as human traffickers. Um, Senator Representative Strong, to your question, to, to Senator Musselman say that I am, I'm, I'm doing work in my yard and I go to Home Depot, I would have to know that those people that I hired were victims of human trafficking, um, or be reckless as to whether or not they were basically trafficked individuals being brought here against their will. Um, and, and I, I don't think that that, that, uh, Senator Musselman's bill would really get to that because the likelihood that, that an individual such as myself would have that awareness is really, really remote. And I think that that's what, when he talked about, um, prosecutorial discretion entering the picture, it's unlikely that, that, that I would be charged with that level of offense. However, there are other situations where, um, you know, people are coming for work or people are saying, listen, I've got workers. I've got people, maybe you should hire them. And then they're bringing people, and you're not being careful about who these people are, or importantly, who the people are that are bringing them to your farm or to your place of business to work. And that's where the recklessness or knowing element comes in. And so, um, that's how I see this thing working. Um, there was a lot of discussion that went into, um, this issue of mens rea and if you're knowing that you're involved in this or intentionally involved in it, then you're gonna get hammered. Um, we kind of wanted it to be a little bit different, but Senator Musselman said, no, um, we're gonna keep it at that level. Um, but when it came to recklessness and recklessness is defined under the law as you, you're consciously disregarding a known risk that a condition exists or a result will occur, that you're, you're, you're, you're knowing that something is out there and or you're, you're, you're aware that it could be, and you're kind of blowing it off. That's where the recklessness, uh, standard comes in.

Yes. Someone has been brought for this specific reason, versus I go to Home Depot and there's a guy, Hey, I'll pay a hundred bucks, come do this. He looks like he's there on his own. He hasn't been trafficked in here, or, you know, someone's cleaning homes or Right. Or whatever, and I need my home cleaned. You come clean my home. Uh, they're, they're not necessarily trafficked versus being trafficked. Even if they were here say illegally, they weren't trafficked here. That's correct. Okay. So that's the separation. Okay. Thank you. And Representative Ballard, you had some questions and I may try to answer them. So, human smuggling is a second degree felony. Aggravated human smuggling occurs when you're, you're smuggling individuals and they're seriously injured or killed in the result as a result of the trafficking activity that's makes it a first degree felony. I think you were asking whether or not, whether or not the individual is a family member being trafficked is an aggravating factor. And, uh, I, I'm not sure that it is currently. Thank You. Thank you. I'd urge I urge the committee to support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Brett Robinson. I'm with the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and we encourage our support of this bill as well. Um, we're very grateful for Senator Musselman and the clarity he's brought to this area of the law. We believe that now with these changes that have been made, that we will be able to be much more precise in our charging and resolution decisions, um, which will, uh, inevitably result in more just outcomes for those who are involved in this. Um, and we, with that, we encourage your support of that. Bill, I'm gonna ask you, do you wanna explain Yeah, Go ahead. I'm gonna, with the chair's clarity, uh, it was in cooperation with their office that we made the adjustment of the substitution, so I'm just gonna ask him to bring a little bit of clarity to that. So is that okay? Okay.

Absolutely. Happy to do that. And, and just talking a little bit about patronizing a victim of human trafficking for labor. There are three different versions, um, in this bill. It's for adults, for vulnerable adults, and for children. And they do have different levels of men's rea. Um, and we've talked about some of those here. But for, for example, for patronizing a victim of human trafficking, for labor for an adult, um, it has a level of men's rea for knowing which is a second degree felony. If it's reckless, then it's a third degree felony. And if it's with criminal negligence, it's a class A misdemeanor. Now, when somebody, um, is going to be taking advantage of labor that they should know is trafficked, what we don't want to have happen with this is that we don't wanna discourage people from actually doing some investigation and finding out if that person's actually trafficked because they would be held to a higher standard if they knew and disregarded it, or if they knew outright that that person was trafficked. And so to discourage that potential outcome, um, with the substitution, it would allow for a one step enhancement for those crimes that are done with either recklessness or criminal negligence. So, on a second, um, conviction, they couldn't get the benefit of willful, um, ignorance about the status Of the labor that they're using.

So if I can add to that, just because I'm, I'm not a lawyer, and he is, and he gave all the technical aspects. In other words, if you do it once, you're not in so bad of trouble, you do it twice, you're developing a pattern and you're gonna get in worse trouble. Fair enough. Okay. That's what the, that's what the sub really does.

Good afternoon. I'm Megan Mills. I'm with here with the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Um, we are also very grateful for this bill. I think it's a very common sense Bill that takes, um, the prior law that applied something in an almost arbitrary fashion. Right. I have you speak into the mic a little more? Yes, yes. Thank You. What I was saying is this is a really common sense Bill. Um, the, the sponsor is recognizing that there are different harms that occur and additionally different states of mind for the suspect. So, um, we absolutely support this bill and we're grateful for all of the work that's been done on it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes.

Mr. Chair Craig Peterson. I'm with the Utah Attorney General's Office. I am the Director of the Justice Division. I have been part of this conversation with Senator Musselman in our office and pretty much all the stakeholders from the beginning. We are in support of the bill. We believe it addresses a lot of issues that need to be addressed. We actually think it'll make, uh, as stated before, uh, prosecutions more precise, which actually makes them simpler for us. It also removes some of the broadness of the statute, uh, that was creating some overreach. And we think this is solid. Uh, when we go to the questions, uh, that we had, uh, what, what is trafficking? I think, uh, you have it precisely. This is what we're trying to address is those that are making money off the backs of others. And so when you're talking labor trafficking, you're talking someone that is bringing people in, producing them to, for the labor, but then they're take reaping all the rewards and profits from the labor of these people. And it applies everywhere. Drug trafficking, sex trafficking, it's the same thing. Whether, whether you're the pimp or the drug cartel, you are profiting off the trafficking. Others are, are doing. And we think this is more precisely addresses those areas for us, particularly in the areas of sex trafficking and labor trafficking. Thank you. We encourage your support. Thank you.

Yeah. I, uh, um, move that we adopt the first substitute of SB 30.

Um, sure. Um, it, I'm not an expert in this area, but sounds like we've just given some tears that, uh, that judges can work with based upon what's actually happened and it's looks like, sounds like good legislation. So

Uh, yes. Make a motion to pass out favorably SB 31st sub human trafficking exploitation and smuggling amendments with the favorable recommendation.

I would, I actually have some really, um, humbling statistics of what's going on in Utah, and that is in 2024, we had 71 internet crimes against children and 179 in 2025. But the internet crimes against Children task force, which often lead to those children being taken across state lines or trafficked or picked up in one way or another. Um, we have agents spread all across the state of Utah for those protections. Um, child victims of human trafficking in 2022 to 2024. We've had seven children up to 12, um, every single year that we have been able to prosecute. Um, and so I just wanna say that in between 2020 and 2024 in Utah, um, an average of 19 minors and 73 adults, um, are, are trafficked. And so I just wanna say I appreciate you putting some attention to these really, what, what are very severe crimes, um, against the most vul vulnerable. And so really appreciate your, your, the language that you put in this bill.

Just quickly. Hey, listen, it's a, it's a tough lift in our state. It's, it's far easier to increase penalties in a bill than it is to overall do a decrease in penalties. It's way harder. But we've done this in a very nuanced and thoughtful way where the truly bad actors are still being punished and fully punished. In fact, we think in a more, in a more exact and precise way, and yet still protect the individuals that maybe are potentially caught up in human trafficking that just shouldn't be. And, and, and, and those folks being prosecuted or not prosecuted for that matter appropriately. So,

Thanks, Mr. President. Um, this committee Bill is the result of extensive discussions between myself, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and, and the attorneys general's office. We've met multiple, multiple times in joint discussions and one-on-one discussions, um, just by way of procedure for, uh, for you, Mr. President. We actually presented this once in committee, in, in the form that you see it now, prior to asking for a vote and allowed the committee members to look at it over a month and consider it based on my presentation and then represent it before asking their vote so they could fully, um, understand and fully wrap their heads around, um, the changes that were made in a, in a nutshell, this will take me a few moments. I, I want to, I wanna make sure I fully address the breadth and width of the bill, but in order to protect real victims of, of trafficking, I wanted to ensure while we were doing that, that the honest employees using legal, uh, migrant labor was not unintentionally swept up into criminal liability. And to that end, we made the following changes. And at first, honestly, Mr. President, I thought that we could make a simple change and I realized the problems that was before us. Um, over time, the Utah's trafficking statutes have become a patchwork of broad definitions, mixed mens rea standards and overlapping offenses. This has created two problems. First, the law sometimes makes it difficult to prosecute actual traffickers, um, those who coerce, exploit, and profit from vulnerable individuals. But second, the law is so broad in places that good faith employers, especially those using legal migrant workers, have worried that they could be accused of trafficking for conduct that is normal legal and, and the norm, of course, uh, of, of doing business. Um, the bill fixes primarily two issues. First, the bill provides an updated and more specific description of offenses of human trafficking. These revisions apply to both the labor based human trafficking offenses as well as sexual exploitation. Trafficking offenses changes include better and more workable definitions and fewer open-ended, uh, descriptions of prohibited conduct. These changes will allow for a better understanding and application of what is and what is not criminal human trafficking. Second, the, the bill provides new penalty structures for human trafficking offenses. For instance, the bill applies a higher penalty to conduct that the trafficker does knowingly with a lower penalty for conduct for that which is done recklessly. This will allow us to punish, uh, knowing conduct more severely. In addition for sexual exploitation, human trafficking offenses, more severe penalties are applied to conduct paid in sex acts. While activities such as sexual explicit performance would have lesser penalties under the current law, they're just treated equally. Third, the bill creates, uh, new patronizing offenses for people who use labor from someone who may be trafficked. That is, this is the idea. The idea is to create a liability for people who know or should have known that the labor they were using is being provided by someone who is trafficked. These are new, new offenses captured conduct that is currently just not addressed under law. Um, in short, uh, we revise, clarify, and were needed narrow the law where it was too broad so that these laws can be applied fairly and consistently. We base penalties on the severity of the person's criminal conduct. We sharpen it where, uh, where it is too weak and we modernize, recognize, and bring clarity to Utah's entire trafficking code. This, uh, bill protects good faith employers, improve prosecution decision or precision, and strengthen the state's ability to combat actual trafficking. Mr. President

Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Senator Musselman, will you yield? I will. Mr. President. Go ahead. Senator McKay, Is there a, is there a crosswalk of some kind or document that can show how these have changed as we're reading through it? It's tough as we're chasing through those to try and see how one relates to the other. I'm just wanna make sure, as I read the, as I was listening to the explanation, it sounded like we were taking some sexually explicit behavior, uh, that a minor might be a victim of and making it, um, a lesser crime or some of those things. And so I just wanted to see if there was, you know, maybe more information we could be provided before we pass this all the way across

Mr. President, Senator Vickers. I, I do have a kind of a chart that shows what the previous law was and what it is now that I could share with, um, my seatmate that there's quite a bit of data there. Um, whether or not I can answer a specific question, I can try to do, so if there's a specific question on a particular item or I can sit down with the, with the good, uh, senator and, and kind of go over it verse by verse and show the differences.

I I can, yeah, that'll work. Okay. Why don't we do that? That helps, helps a Ton. Yeah, I'm my hand too. That's great.

Uh, call question Mr. President. Go ahead. Uh, move that the SB 30 human trafficking exploitation be moved to the third reading Calendar. I think we have The

Thanks Mr. President. I, I'm gonna reiterate a couple of things that I gave in the second reading just to make sure that the body recognizes procedurally how we'd done things as it as it pertains to the interim committee. As I can know, there can be some reservations there. I presented the bill, the bill that you have before, you once had the committee consider it, and then waited a full month with interchange with the committee and other parties then presented it again before I asked for the vote. So they had two full opportunities to consider it and still got a unanimous vote. But that being said, I, I recognize even after presentation there was appropriate maybe concerns because, uh, without just being perfectly clear in its entirety, this is a overall reduction in penalties. But let me clarify something, Mr. President, as it pertains to mens rea and we applied mens rea in this bill, that's the really the differentiating factor as it pertains to knowingly, if you knowingly committed human trafficking, either in the two bifurcated pathways that I created, one for human trafficking, for labor, and one for human trafficking, for, uh, sexual exploitation. Um, if you did it knowingly, the same penalties that we've always had applies and they're heavy. It's tend to life with mandatory jail sentence. These are big, heavy penalties where we created a men rea application is there's a potential for, uh, recklessly to be considered. And you might say, well, what doesn't that just give an opportunity for the, for maybe someone to, um, give excuse as to why they were there and, and not knowingly. It's a, it, you could spend a hundred different circumstances, but to be clear, even under that circumstance, um, it's still one to 15. It's still a heavy penalty. So let me, let me just kind of walk through mens rea just for a couple of quick seconds and then, and as it applies in this bill, and then I'll answer any questions. Um, I just wanted to clarify, justice requires this punishment, uh, scale with, with scale and intent. Someone who knowingly traffics another human being is morally and legally different from someone who is a reckless. And the law should say so explicitly. SB uh, 30 does not excuse knowing contact, it sharpens a penalty. Recklessness is not decriminalized, it remains a felony. Additionally, under SB 30 reduces penalties for knowing, uh, traffickers. Yes, if someone knowingly participates in the human trafficking under 30, they face the same penalties they did before. But it recognizes and clarifies this does not, it doesn't soften under recklessly. Um, and I want to add one other item. Um, as it pertains to patronizing, this was kind of a section that was at best vague or just didn't exist in our, our previous, um, our previous code or the code as it stands now because demand fields trafficking current law leaves a gap. And so we created in SB 30 that it recognize that trafficking does not occur in a vacuum. People who knowingly or recklessly use traffic labor contribute to the harm. These new offenses allow for the state to hold those accountable while scaling penalties to their level of awareness. So with that, I'll, I'll yield the questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Um, I just wanted to thank the sponsor. I had some questions, uh, yesterday as we ran through the bill and he did a great job of helping, uh, dissuade the, the difference between those two. And I will say that without a reckless standard in, uh, in statute as it relates to this criminal obligation, um, or a criminal behavior, it's, it's definitely important to separate between those that are doing a behavior that is, that is knowingly or, you know, they have actual knowledge versus what, you know, the Utah's general definition of, of recklessness means aware of, but consciously disregard a substantial or unjustifiable risk. The disregard must be a gross deviation from the standard of care. So what I like about creating these two different legal standards, uh, which is we actually have throughout the code in so many different ways, it's the difference between manslaughter and murder. But when you look at this, this is an appropriate way to balance these punishments so that you have knowingly, uh, you know, having a different standard in a different obligation. And believe it or not, I mean 10 years to life as a possible sentence is a lot. But then if you take someone who is just reckless and create this secondary standard, it it, it avoids the catch up of having every those that are reckless, also experiencing the same punishment of those who are knowingly committing a crime. And I think that value of that benefit, uh, on the criminal standpoint as it was, uh, as the sponsor explained, I think is very valuable as we look at this area. It's a tough subject matter, but I wanna thank the sponsor for helping me answer my questions and, and, uh, I support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a question about line 5 37, uh, where it states human trafficking of a child for commercial sexual exploitation. And so I guess I'm concerned that it, when we narrow the definition to commercial that we are going to, we don't care if someone is, um, you know, exploiting children not for profit. So I'm just wondering why they chose the word commercial instead of just leaving it plain human trafficking.

So we, we have paralleling sections of code. There's sections of code that deal with, um, non-commercial or human trafficking exploitation of Myers. They're, they're heavy penalties as well. Those still can be prosecuted for. This doesn't touch any of that. What this does is align with federal statute on a accepted definition so that it's better for prosecutors so that there's clear definable what is human trafficking? Human trafficking is about profit. That's it. That is the sole purpose. There's all sorts of nastiness that comes with it, of course, but it's about profit. It's the commercialization of human beings. It's the exact definition we need. But it doesn't undermine any other segment of code that can be prosecuted for, for that matter. It wouldn't undermine the ability to prosecute under this section of code. It actually makes it better.

follow up, follow up. I may have A follow up question. Please go ahead. So I agree that it is predominantly about profit. Um, but what about just self gratification with no money exchanged? You said that there is parallel code that covers that. So we're okay. Senator? Yes. Oh, excuse me, Mr. President.

Yeah, for certain there's child rape, which is on the books. There's sexual exploitation, there's all sorts of different sections of code that they go after. Most specifically though, child rape.

And then I'm gonna emotion, I would just sum up with our, our current code is, is heavy handed, but that's not what this bill is primarily about. It's about being more precise. It's a little too vague, it's a little too broad. And because of that broadness, it does actually weaken prosecutor prosecutor's ability to go after, uh, a specific action or a specific ill in our community because defense attorneys can argue these ambiguities. And by isolating and being very specific in the code, it weakens their ability to argue ambiguous ambi ambiguity. But it also gives the ability for the prosecutor to go after directly, uh, the, the, the actions that we find most reprehensible. And for that. But on the, uh, one other point, and that is for the individual that I'm really concerned about the individual that gets caught up in this, the farmer that hires a guy to pick some apples and then realizes he's human trafficked, all of a sudden he can be swept up into tend to life and that's not okay and we need to fix it. This bill does that.

Thank Mr. President. Uh, as we discussed yesterday, this is, uh, came out of committee, interim committee,

This was a, uh, sub that I ran in a house committee, so yeah.

Thank you Mr. President. I'm gonna move to Concur.