S.B. 125 Theft Amendments: transcript

I am on then. Thanks Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be able to present. I'll be, um, hopefully brief and brilliant. I'll leave the latter for your judgment. Um, but I will be brief. Um, SB 1 25, um, it came to my attention that there's, uh, a segment of our population that can't afford necessarily private transportation. So they use public transportation and that segments sometimes can be in circumstances where they have, um, negative impacts on their criminal record in the background. Um, and they take public transportation and on occasion they may not not pay for that ride. Should they be punished for that? Yep, they should. The question is, is under this particular section of code, should that be a felony for stealing a $10 ride? That's the question this committee needs to answer. And my contingent is that it shouldn't, and that's not what this section was ever intended to, to try to, to try to deter an individual on that circumstance. So background and, and legislative intent. The enhancement section of code, uh, at issue was created to deter repeat, high level theft behavior. It was designed to escalate penalties for, uh, pattern of criminal conduct that meaningfully harms the community. It was not, it was not drafted with a scenario of a $5, $8 or a $10 public transit ride in mind. What the bill does, the bill carves out a very low value public transportation service theft for automatic felony enhancement. That's what we're talking about. So it has, someone has a, a felony record in their background. Let's say it's eight years ago. 'cause you can go 10, let's say it's eight years ago, and they get on a public transportation and they don't pay for it. They could be facing a felony for a $5, $6, $10 ride. My contention is they should have, uh, the punishment but not a felony. So the question is, uh, can we carve this out so the punishment fits the crime and the, I think, I think we can, and I think I did. Um, the important comparison here is for the first time, if you were just rank and file normal guy and you happen to steal a, uh, a, um, a chand ride, you'd be, you'd be punished for a class B misdemeanor under this bill. A repeat offender would still face a higher penalty, a class A misdemeanor. The key is they wouldn't be facing a felony. It's as simple as that. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, mark Moffitt. On behalf of the Defense Lawyers Association, we really appreciate Senator Musselman bringing this bill. Um, the enhancing these petty theft of services claims to felonies has always been a difficult thing, uh, for defense lawyers and clients to deal with. Um, downtown and Salt Lake. The folks who basically can get caught up in this situation are generally people who are homeless, who are riding the trains to maybe stay out of the cold. Um, a lot of them are persistently and, uh, chronically mentally ill. Um, so we, we appreciate this bill. We think it places a cap on on the severity of these, uh, offenses, and we really appreciate Senator Musselman for bringing the bill. We would urge the committee support.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Carl Holland, executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. We think, uh, this bill makes sense. We think the sponsor for bringing it is a common sense limitation to make sure that the criminal penalties that we're bringing in court match the harm or lack of harm that is being done in the community. We thank the sponsor for working for us to get this to where it needs to be.

Dan, strong first. CCJ in the sentencing commission. Wanna thank the sponsor for letting us work for him? Um, Also problematic. Uh, no, we, uh, we also like the bill, uh, unsurprisingly with the other testimony you've heard for the same reason. So thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. I, uh, move that we pass out favorable SB 1 25 to the floor. That's in order. Would you like to speak to it? Yeah, I mean, I, I, I'm just thinking of one my favorite, uh, musicals, stories of, of lera. Jean Veja goes to prison for a loaf of bread. It kind of feels a little bit like that. So for stealing a loaf of bread. So I think it's good policy.

Uh, I just, thanks for the opportunity to present. I'll waive summation. Okay. I'll waive. Yeah. Okay.

I would, I would appreciate That. Thank you. Wait, talking too long here. Let's

Go. I'll make that motion.

All Mr. Chair. I suppose it's rare occasion that we have a bill presented that reduces penalties, but that's exactly what this bill does. Although it's a very, very, very, Can I cheer out loud? Yeah, sure. It's a very light touch. I I'm gonna explain generally what it does, and then we can get into the details of it, uh, as necessary. But in this, this particular section of code kinda, it, it deals with those that may be repeat offenders. They've committed a felony and they've done some felony theft. Again, the, or, or theft again, that, that can be, that second offense over a time period can be increased to a felony, even though it would normally under a, you know, a, a independent, uh, first time offense circumstance would be a, a misdemeanor. Well, it's, it's good reason for that. We're trying to prevent behavior, a pattern of behavior, but sometimes we have overrun overlap that's just not necessary. And I'll give you a, for example, we have a homeless population, and this is exactly, we're targeting this specifically to that a homeless population that, uh, let's say has a felony record. Some, some incident that happened one or nine years ago. And, um, they need to get on the train to go from Ogden to Salt Lake for employment or otherwise, if they didn't have money to pay for that, less than seven, $8 ride, um, and they were fined, they would be under the umbrella of being, uh, charged with a felony because of the second offense. This simply would only for that circumstance where the theft of service, service is purely for transportation, they would not be charged for a felony offense in that circumstance. Still a misdemeanor, but not a felony. The point is to very target in a very targeted way to, uh, re reduce the offense. But really more importantly, it's just meant to do exactly what it sounds like line the punishment, the actual harm of recidivism. This is not the, the group that we're going after. This isn't a repeat offense. They're not stealing a hundred thousand dollars rides or $5,000 rides. They're, they're taking a $7 ride and, and getting a felony offense. I've worked this all the way through the chain to try to make sure we had it right. And, uh, that's the bill. Mr. Chair,

Yeah. And, and, and maybe this is a question can't be answered. I'm gonna vote for this bill for sure. Um, it seems like anytime I've seen a penalty increase, um, we see it itemized in the fiscal note and there's a projection that there's going to be x number of class A misdemeanors, X number of felonies, X number of people going to the prison, and it's itemized. And these fiscal numbers grow. Um, I noticed that the fiscal note they gave back to you, um, on under local government, it just says prosecutors decrease public defense, decrease, um, county jail's unknown. Um, and maybe this is an observation, maybe this is a question. It, it, it seems that when, when we've added a penalty, it's really easy to see what those numbers are, and they're pretty exact, but on, on a decrease, which is what this does. And I support what you're doing. It, they, they don't itemize it. Is, is, do you know why they didn't itemize it on that decrease? That's a fair question, and I don't know the answer, Senator. Um, it's, it's clearly small. Um, and I suppose this is a very, this is a very small Population. Yeah. And, and it may and may be more of a rhetorical question because, because it seems really easy when that fiscal note is going the other direction to itemize it, but it, it, it doesn't seem itemized on the decrease. I, I, I see where you're pointing out there. Thank you. Um, I don't have the answer, but I, I understand what you're saying.

Thank you Dan. Strong for sentencing commission and CCJJ. Uh, we had a chance to discuss this bill this week at the sentencing commission meeting. And, uh, we don't take public positions on legislation anymore. We usually relay our thoughts over to CCJJ and take it from there. But since this bill came up kind of in between those two meetings, I'll just say there was general support in the discussion from the room. Uh, people like that. Uh, Senator Musselman is working hard to dial this, uh, this in and a couple other bills this year as well, taking a really thoughtful approach on our, our criminal code. So, um, even the, you know, the prosecutors in the room and everybody agreed this was a helpful change, so thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, uh, members of the committee. My name is Carl Hall, executive director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors, uh, sponsor. This bill worked with us on this bill. Uh, he really did identify a subset of people that don't deserve this higher penalty. This is a common sense Bill. It makes total sense. Prosecutors are a hundred percent on board. We think that this is a great way that we're making sure our laws actually reflect, uh, the harm that people are doing or not doing to society. And we support this, uh, urge you to vote it through.

Thank you very much. Members of the committee, Steve Burton representing the, uh, Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. And, um, I just wanted to note the rare times when the prosecutors and the sentencing commission and the defense attorneys all agree, uh, we appreciate Senator Musselman's efforts on this. And, you know, bills like this are, are not super frequent, but, uh, we, we very much appreciate when they come about and do good for everyone. Thank you.

I move that we with that glowing endorsement from three pillars of our criminal justice system, I move that we recommend favorably SB 1 25.

Uh, thanks Mr. President Proti, I believe there should be a first sub on the system. Is there a first sub? I would like to move the first sub. Mr. Thank You. Will you explain the difference? Yeah, yeah. It's actually just a clarification. And, and on the sub itself, it goes down to, I believe line 94. It's describing what a theft is. And interesting enough, um, they had to clarify that as part of that theft, that you would take the item without paying the retail value. So they actually didn't have in there the fact that you didn't pay for it. So we're going to put that in there as a be to be abundantly clear. That's what theft is. That's it, that's all the sub does. Thank

I will. And this is on the sub? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yes, go ahead.

So theft of services actually incorporated, like if you jumped on a ski lift and so I, I like that part of that. That would, that's not the sub, That's not the sub that's in the, the underlying bill. Oh, the sub itself only does the item that I just pointed out. I'll, I'll explain the under. I like bill after the sub is adopted. May I follow up? Go ahead. Thanks. Um, so by taking that out, I, I'm not as supportive of this bill because that was the part of the bill. I like the theft of services. So is that still in the bill, that theft of services? Yeah,

That, that the only thing that the sub does is add that clarifying language on 94 that says when you steal something, you're stealing it without paying for the retail value. It's just a clarification that came in that was requested that has it, it has bearing on the underlying sub, but it doesn't change the, uh, or the underlying bill. It doesn't change what we're doing the underlying bill. So your question is, is still, I will explain in the, once the subject is adopted, that it does exactly what you were thinking that it did and it will continue to do so. So substitute one, changes theft of services to merchandise Senator Bussel line 9,900 and or 94. Line 94 says additional language without paying for retail value of merchandise. That's all. I'm not Mr. President, I'm sure I maybe clarify the question again 'cause I don't, I thi I think I a it was asked and answered, but I'm, I'm glad to keep answering.

I I can ask offline, but, uh, the first one said theft of services and then when we turn it into merchandise is merchandise is still the same type of thing as a service. So that was my concern. So I can ask you offline. Thank you.

Thanks Mr. President Prom. Um, so this section of code is meant to, is meant to prevent, um, kind of habitual theft, especially theft of, of, you know, maybe a little larger scale where we're talking higher, um, degrees of, of activity, felony activity. And it was pointed out to me that there's, there's a population that that, uh, in from my area and as well as Salt Lake of individuals that, um, may be put in a circumstance where they have taken a, a ride on UTA or tracks and, um, they had a position of where they would theft of service of a $8 ride. Well, in that circumstance, that individual could be put in a put in a circumstance where they would be, uh, could, could, um, have being, uh, charged with a felony offense for stealing that $8. Right? And that's not the intent of this section. So this section, what this, this bill does in, in, in simplest form is simply, uh, um, allows for that to be, um, carved out. So on lines 68, um, when it says the service or other public transition service that portion is, is carved out. So bottom line, this is, is in essence a lowering, although it doesn't say specifically, it's a lowering of penalty, it carves that out. So overall it's a lowering of, of penalties. And it does come on the list that we have received of concern of, of expanding, of, of, um, you know, possible expansion of, of, of penalties. But this is an actual lowering or the net, the net, the net result of it is a lowering of penalty. That concludes my presentation.

I move that the SB 1 3 5 first substitute be read for a third time

lemme clarify the vote.

Thank you. Motion to Uncer Senate bill 65. Motion is to Uncer Senate bill 65, minimum basic tax rate amendments.

President ProAm, without re giving my whole speech, we already amended this, um, before I circled it on second. So this already has the amendment that directs the, the interest payments to the school districts.

This is the, this is the bill just to remind, um, Mr. Speaker or Mr. President Proti rather that, um, I'd presented earlier and, and, and just kind give some background for an individual that a certain body of the individuals that, uh, may reside in along the Wasatch front that may, um, steal a ride on UTA, um, there's a circumstance where there's a section of code trying to deal with, uh, repeat offenders or the, or offenders that have had felony level thefts or felonies on the records where they commit some other equivalent crime to re help try to prevent that kind of repetitive theft to, uh, kind of increase the penalty on that repeat, even if it's a lesser, uh, penalty or lesser theft. Um, this is a circumstance that that code just didn't contemplate. And that is a, literally an $8 ride. Um, to, to ramp it up to a felony is, is, is just too much, uh, a road too far. This would reduce it to a, uh, class A misdemeanor. So it doesn't negate the penalty. It's still a Class A misdemeanor. If you were to steal a ride on UTA, it'd be a class B misdemeanor for a first offense. But for individuals that were, may have a felony offense and they would steal the right on on, on UTA instead of a class B misdemeanor. If there was a first offense 'cause they had that felony, it would now be a Class A instead of another felony, which just perpetuates the problems for these individuals. It's appropriate, it's proportionate and it's, it's good policy. With that, I'll, I'll rest, Not turn there. It's now had to hit it five times. Got to turn on.

I would move that first substitute SB 1 25 Theft of amendments be passed.

Thank you, Mr. President Proti, I'd like to make a motion to encircle Senate bill 1 0 2 And the motion is to encircle Senate Bill 1 0 2, animal Control First Responder Amendments.

Thank you Mr. President Pro tem and members of the body.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm representatives. This one adjusts a a piece of our code that maybe wasn't intended to be carried out this way. Um, essentially when someone has a conviction for a prior theft, and think of this in terms of, uh, what we see sometimes with our homeless population, um, right now, uh, if they take a ride without paying for it on one of our trains or on anything on UTA, that's automatically classified as a felony. The problem with that is we end up, uh, creating additional, uh, charges that are not necessary, uh, in order to actually help that person get the services they need, get rehabilitated. A misdemeanor is just fine in that case for us to be able to do that. Um, taking a ride on a on a bus shouldn't necessarily automatically be a felony. Certainly we have the option to charge them appropriately if we, uh, take a more, uh, reasonable route and don't clog up our system with, uh, felonies that really aren't worthy of that for a $5 ride. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.