S.B. 99 Emergency Reporting Offense Amendments: transcript

Okay. I need one of

Nope. Um, Mr. Chair, I'm back even though I don't typically present a lot of bills, but you know, previously it was, uh, uh, two, you know, two of my constituents who reached out with issues. And in this one it was, uh, somebody who was in my, uh, singles ward. Didn't, didn't you pass like 22 bills last session? Yeah. I just don't know how many of 'em came through judiciary. Oh, I see. Not very many. Okay. Yeah. Uh, anyhow, so she's a prosecutor in Orem now, and so she was dealing with, uh, with this specific situation, Mr. Chair and committee. In 2024, Utahans made about 900,000 emergency calls to 9 1 1. But also in 2024, they placed over 2 million non-emergency calls to 9 1 1. These non-emergency calls cost our state money, but they also have the potential to cost response time and ultimately utahans their lives. So when Utahans call 9 1 1 for non-emergency or for an emergency every second matters, and that a delay even a few minutes or seconds, responds to worse outcomes for those in need of urgent care. So this bill gives law enforcement tools to take action if a caller repeatedly calls 9 1 1, abusing the system to report non-emergencies. And a non-emergency might be there's a truck parked in front of my house, or my neighbor's dog is barking too loud. Um, the chronic abusers of the system have been reported to call dozens of time during the same day, putting a significant strain on the system that keeps us all safe. So, uh, this bill would create a Class B misdemeanor, which we think is the appropriate level of offense. It's lower than the higher level for swatting calls, which also puts lives more directly in jeopardy. And it's in line with laws in similar other states. Uh, like in North Carolina. It's lower than Nevada's, uh, line for this. So the Utah Communications Authority has announced they're moving towards using AI to answer these kinds of emergency calls, but this bill would be an important gap, uh, close an important gap in our com in our criminal code. And, uh, unless my co-presenter here from SWAP wants to, uh, say anything else,

No, I think that, uh, Mr. Speaker, members of the committee, Carl Holland, executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors, this is a bill that looked a little bit, uh, different in previous iterations. Um, but we met with, uh, several stakeholders. We looked at the bill ourselves. We felt like this is a good balance to not chill, uh, 9 1 1 emergency calls, but also to help to ease some of the burden on the system.

Hello. Um, I'm Audrey Barr and I'm in Salt Lake City or reside in Salt Lake City. Not there currently. Um, the, the presenting senator spoke to this criminalizing, repeated, repeated, um, incidences of wrongly calling 9 1 1. I was just looking at the bill and I wondered if the senator could point to where it's repeated. It looked to me like a single incidence of, um, of calling 9 1 1 for a non-emergency could result in a misdemeanor. Um, so, and I, I guess I just also wanted to point out that I hope that this bill takes into account people with developmental disabilities people, um, with lower reading comprehension, people who don't speak English as a first language, and people who might not understand, uh, the, the line between your neighbor's dog barking all night being an emergency and, um, seeing, uh, a, a roadblock in the freeway being an emergency. I, I, I, I hope that that's been considered and in the bill and how, how that would be prosecuted. Thanks.

Thank you, Dan Strong here for the sentencing Commission and CCJJ. Um, just wanted to thank Senator Fillmore for, uh, the sub. There were a couple of issues, um, somewhat along the lines of the last comment that we raised after our meeting, and I believe those are addressed in the sub, which essentially requires a warning before enforcement, um, that the person had had done it repeatedly. So thank you for those changes, and we did support the sub. Thank you. And then, um, Mr. Chair?

Is Senator Escamilla. I apologize. I I do have a question for Mr. Strong. Oh, question for Mr. Strong. Um, a Strong question. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to do this. Um, so I, I, I see the sub that I know we will be adopting that gives that extra two, you know, like consistent of two or more connected, I mean like repeated a, any concerns on the individuals with cognitive or mental disabilities in engaging in this process. We talked about that also at the commission meetings.

There is an intent requirement that the individual know or reasonably should know that what they're calling about, that there's no actual or perceived emergency crime or other circumstance jeopardizing public safety. Um, I mean, it's possible that reasonably should know, could be potentially exp somewhat expansive. But I think that that is, that's kind of consistent with other statutes we see in this realm is how, how it treats those sorts of things. So if the person was, Let me just say, I think it gives the judge the discretion they need. So. Perfect.

Thank you. But yeah, I just wanna make sure we want, you know, we are conscious that there may be individuals with different ways of interpreting this piece and shouldn't be penalized if they happen to be, have a disability or otherwise dealing with other issues. So, thank you. Thanks for that answer.

Yep. Yeah, so Seth Stewart, uh, Utah County, and I, I do have some concerns still with the language of, um, reasonably should know in particular. Um, I, I, I think that belief and good faith are something that should be honored. We do already have a mechanism for prosecuting cases criminally, uh, for example, of making intentional false false claims to 9 1 1 emergency services and so on. And for false witness, generally, um, it falls short of a standard of where it prosecutes men's, uh, without mens rea, without the intent of misleading, without the intent of, of being a burden. And I, I think this, uh, this is a little bit, um, steep of a penalty. I think, um, notwithstanding, yes, we can make the argument that our law enforcement officers are spread thin, but that's kind of a variable thing over time. And, uh, more indicative perhaps of just kind of a societal issue with earlier constable and citizen police models. This would be a lot more sustainable. And I think an appropriate way to deal with it under those circumstances would be just follow the model of the boy who cried wolf. You know, if there's a, a, a, a bad actor, whether it's intentional or not, or just somebody who's burdensome, you could categorize that as a nuisance, right? And you could just, uh, you know, reduce your sensitivity to that. And in the cybersecurity field, there's a denial of service attack, which is when somebody is, is constantly making calls to a service or website and an effort to take it down. Um, innocent, harmless, unintentional, uh, emergency claims can have the appearance of having that same effect in this department. And I think there are some mitigation strategies that could be taken such as, you know, just, you know, re reduction in responsiveness, which would be an unfortunate side effect that people, the public should be informed of. Uh, so I think the solution is, is information and, uh, Juab just some mitigation through those, uh, channels and not criminal liability. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, may I make a motion you may to re delete entitle and Body Senate bill 99 and replace? You

Uh, I And he's gonna vote Yes, I think so. Now I'll move to delete entitle and Body Senate bill 99 and replace it with first substitute Senate bill 99. Alright.

Uh, yeah, it's actually, we kind of covered it over the testimony, but it, uh, makes it so it's specific to 9 1 1 that it has to be, there has to be a warning given first. Did I miss something? I think those, those are the key things. Uh, and It expanded the definition of an emergency, uh, so that it was not just an emergency, but some other crime or circumstance that jeopardize public safety. Just so that's an expansive category to encourage people to call 9 1 1 when they need To. Thank you. Alright.

Uh, I'd make a motion that we favorably Recommend first substitute Senate bill 99.

Uh, no. Mr. Chair, I, I asked to be on the next Agenda. I forgot.

Senator Fillmore. Thank You Mr. President. Representative Monson and I are running bills on similar topics and his bill is moving faster through the process than this one. So we'll be substituting this language into his bill and running it at a later time, making this bill obsolete and duplicative and unnecessary and adding to the very high bill count. I therefore move to strike the enacting clause.

Yes. Uh, took me 11 Sessions to get here.

I can tell. Maybe overnight.