[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6114690,"mediaKeyId","2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af","parentId",2742571,"title","Bill would speed return of officers’ weapons after investigations; sponsors say it eases county burdens","audioSeconds",755,"startMs",9517000,"endMs",10272000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af&start=9517&end=10272","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af/thumbnail_9517000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6114690/Montana/Bill-would-speed-return-of-officers-weapons-after-investigations-sponsors-say-it-eases-county-burdens","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114690-58f155525379156ea86b547c86d69e08/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200534&Signature=i4t7P8JMap0Z8GZR8zXd01vqvB1G-niANoLR71qlrdDF2O2YQuW~NY8h0j-XPlwRLpdO-a57bQSoairbDD4mogz0iU4cD-f0puC2C~6M--6PjgrIv5Yz~Ve-9cxR5seuGOYNNadyxnhaTAFvpVtBvR3fYH5IJ4KKA2XkgLz-V2ECMExyjJK69KefHVzVICs7oEfdJG3vWncJZjig0GPzrRLknQFHopIoyXiTyUwbDVsjeNrFLrT0KVId1v6xTzctG121KIl11xCVlPfaYxeTQ5uW-022MiujMels2MILuusTB2xlHlpPq~8-QQxfb9HxQqIxJChvXWyZCfHZFFJgmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 288, introduced to expedite the return of law enforcement officers’ firearms after investigations conclude, drew short testimony during a March 10 House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Sponsor Rep. Gordon Hendrick (testifying as an ex‑mayor) and sheriff’s representatives described instances in which multiple department weapons were held for months or years while investigations, lab testing and coroner inquests proceeded. “Sometimes those weapons now with special scopes on pistols and rifles are over $2,000,” Hendrick said, arguing the prolonged evidence holds burden counties and officers and in some agencies forces deputies to use personal firearms or for counties to purchase replacements.

Supporters included the Montana Police Protective Association and sheriff’s groups, who told the committee that the bill does not alter chain‑of‑custody for evidence where criminal proceedings remain active but would allow weapons to be returned when investigations are complete and there are no pending appeals. The Montana Association of Chiefs of Police offered a “me too” of support.

Committee questions focused on potential impacts to defendants’ rights and evidence preservation. Several members asked whether returning a weapon could compromise a later test requested by defense counsel; sponsors and supporters said the bill preserves the ability to “call back” weapons or retain them where charges remain pending, and that the draft includes explicit exceptions to protect ongoing criminal or appellate processes.

The hearing record did not include formal committee action. Supporters asked the committee to approve the measure, saying it avoids undue financial burdens on officers and small counties while preserving investigative integrity when criminal matters remain open.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Mar 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 288 would require quicker return of officers’ duty weapons after investigations conclude, so long as there are no pending charges or appeals; law‑enforcement groups told the House Judiciary Committee March 10 that delays create equipment and training burdens for departments.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6114706,"Montana hearing on SB164 divides lawmakers, parents and medical groups over criminalizing gender-affirming treatments for minors",5824,173000,5997000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af&start=173&end=5997","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af/thumbnail_173000.jpg","/articles/6114706/Montana/Montana-hearing-on-SB164-divides-lawmakers-parents-and-medical-groups-over-criminalizing-gender-affirming-treatments-for-minors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114706-0a6928672b8f579d6c2cc932116c6f92/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200534&Signature=ZBq5jdc5jn-NnfgydPkbjiSysMvJ6-9khsegeB5XD~kSxur-M-wrztDrWZsxl4lxQXcjAVot~1kvUa1I10UUS2YImQAyGBLLwib6LOshTuzix2ItOiqOeKeSPCEWsNOmb9uXEchDIzPjIUDHSklM1Jt69dqq6-Xy-M7tmdxtfJus9YipbMIN2j4aH7sMKj4O2PiQ4RaAgV1cIijAcc2q531XuV0cPbtlyyCO-VdSmrPxrNa3pSjipcMvJGKDr060DPmyCOKSJUvNgJGV6c8yBEhDCMIJ-m5LX7OA2KcMs-g6x21RFwdRGF0IjBsD4c6w1A~sS4tFq9TCZ301GGUdOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 164 — a bill that would expand Montana’s child‑endangerment statute to make it a crime to provide puberty blockers, cross‑sex hormones or surgeries to anyone under 16 — prompted hours of testimony and sharply divided public comment during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on March 10.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Fuller, said the amendment to section 45‑5‑622 of the Montana Code Annotated is aimed at protecting children from “harmful and irreversible medical interventions.” “This is an amendment to section 45‑5‑622, outlining the endangerment of the welfare of children,” Fuller told the committee, and he argued in opening remarks that the proposed change is within the Legislature’s authority under Article V, Section 1 of the Montana Constitution.

Supporters, who included a mix of parents, self‑described whistleblowers and conservative legal groups, told the committee that medical interventions such as puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones can cause lasting physical and psychological harm. Derek A. Streicher of the Montana Family Foundation described a February study he said analyzed “more than 100,000 individuals” and that he read as showing higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation among people who underwent surgery. Jamie Reed, who identified herself as a former pediatric gender‑medicine worker and whistleblower, described patients she said suffered complications and urged criminal penalties so doctors would be deterred from providing those treatments.

Opponents — including large medical organizations, civil‑liberties groups and many parents and clinicians — said the bill would criminalize standard medical practice and interfere with parental authority and patient privacy. Dr. Lauren Wilson, a pediatrician speaking for the Montana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Montana Academy of Family Physicians, told the committee the bill’s language is unclear and could sweep in medically necessary treatments for non‑trans conditions such as precocious puberty or pituitary disorders. “This is a poorly written bill that potentially could criminalize the use of these medications in other circumstances,” she said. The ACLU of Montana and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana urged the committee to oppose the measure as harmful and unconstitutional.

Committee members repeatedly questioned witnesses about scope and implementation. Several members asked whether the bill would affect treatment for intersex children or for ordinary endocrine disorders; witnesses including Dr. Wilson and Child and Family Services staff said the draft language lacks an explicit intersex exception and could create confusion for clinicians. Senator Fuller and others replied that the criminal elements in the bill require proof of the sponsor’s stated intent — for example, treatment “for the purpose of altering appearance” or to “affirm the child’s perception” of gender — and said prosecutorial discretion would limit prosecutions.

No formal committee action was recorded during the hearing. Testimony stretched through much of the morning and into the afternoon, with more than three dozen speakers for and against the bill. Supporters said criminal penalties are necessary to protect minors; opponents said the proposal would chill medical practice and risk patient safety by deterring physicians from treating vulnerable children. The committee closed the SB164 hearing near midday and moved on to other bills without reporting a recommendation on the measure.","Senate Bill 164 — a bill that would expand Montana’s child‑endangerment statute to make it a crime to provide puberty blockers, cross‑sex hormones or surgeries to anyone under 16 — prompted hours of testimony and sharply divided public comment during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on March 10.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6114694,"Committee hears push to reverse 2017 theft changes as retailers, law enforcement back SB19; advocates warn of jail expansions",1152,8039000,9191000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af&start=8039&end=9191","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af/thumbnail_8039000.jpg","/articles/6114694/Montana/Committee-hears-push-to-reverse-2017-theft-changes-as-retailers-law-enforcement-back-SB19-advocates-warn-of-jail-expansions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114694-1d478832c0a233f4dd9ee18646777ed3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200534&Signature=cPg9NsDR6eJtw0FL3-IFaRrURDiE5fMrDbddMis4rXx7naRnmD44TT7jOtT3RHKH6zmL~hN5pqCVy4aDTtEhqxxpPRKtyYwxAQLR5aTHOSmo1xUmNS5R2tAvWIvknUFfQwgvbVo2biKfLubuSr~9JXpJWBohw3KcQbahjBv09gmqn01Rdn8UGFO6Nzi4sAM-5ULf36dDmIC2XREwcbr7uwSGYz-WEnCVlXWmde--v5y1GsBswdieg2bmubT5bPhx98EbtaVAvjqJVE3SD5TF2XSjSZWP12E6EIVI3tvElN6lFReAAD38fbC5-ie5uSyOlOVi8Ga3aJse8t9PNzmDqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 19, described by its sponsor as a roll‑back of changes enacted in 2017, drew competing testimony Thursday about whether tougher theft penalties would reduce retail crime or simply increase incarceration of poor people.

Sponsor Sen. Barry Usher told the House Judiciary Committee the bill restores higher penalties for theft and removes the dollar threshold from the statute’s “common scheme” definition. He said House Bill 133 in 2017 unintentionally incentivized criminals because misdemeanor penalties were limited — creating a situation in which organized thieves could steal up to a threshold and face only small fines.

Retail interests, convenience‑store and petroleum associations, sheriffs and many county attorneys spoke in support. Brad Griffin of the Montana Retail Association and Kevin Downs, Lewis & Clark County attorney, argued that the 2017 law made many thefts non‑jailable and that prosecutors and investigators lacked a workable deterrent. “We wouldn’t have our beer locked up in the case of some stores if they weren’t being stolen,” Griffin told the committee, supporting a tougher statutory response.

Opponents included the ACLU of Montana, the Montana Budget & Policy Center, Catalyst Montana and others who said the measure would expand jail use for low‑level, nonviolent thefts often tied to poverty, substance use or homelessness. Nicole Gomez of Catalyst highlighted Missoula judges’ observations that many first‑time thefts involve small‑value items such as food or diapers, and said jailing those people does not address the root causes of theft.

Officials from the Department of Corrections and the Office of the State Public Defender offered technical testimony about expected workload and costs. The state public defender estimated added workload equivalent to several full‑time positions if county jail time is reintroduced for first‑offense thefts; the fiscal note accompanying the bill projects additional costs to counties and the state.

Committee members asked whether increased penalties deter theft and how the change would affect county jail capacity. Supporters said lifting the misdemeanor‑only ceiling would help deter organized retail theft rings and allow prosecutors to track repeat offenders; opponents said evidence shows penalties alone rarely reduce property crime and warned of overcrowded jails and strain on county budgets. The committee closed the SB19 hearing without taking a vote.","Senate Bill 19 would raise penalties for theft and restore mandatory county jail time for certain misdemeanor thefts; the House Judiciary hearing on March 10 drew retailers, county attorneys and sheriffs in favor and civil‑justice groups opposed.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":81,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6114699,"Proponents call SB218 a 'detransitioners' remedy; medical groups warn of chilling effect on providers",2025,8022000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af&start=5997&end=8022","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af/thumbnail_5997000.jpg","/articles/6114699/Montana/Proponents-call-SB218-a-detransitioners-remedy-medical-groups-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-providers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114699-c88a90a80569d158099b25683e496a9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200534&Signature=eGR9LIS5RnAwTKnGaaLIPNxigbWdgdo6vZOctJ-wDgvp3Kh2Ajc2BcAmXGlVZyJD~OF79T~SvYF5iUFyzXTXd8q8HJX5mfjLgIncIiW9DcqKzEdTqyfDNfTxVhs35TSbG24l0S9JakN2dgr0nK7~ddcj2-7OKixaZvkm2xuX-ojIEb2uYYp-yGIVFHrIocf0OUdXrXcPfCjbYNwzsFD~981y9XS7kQuoRl1NeB9WKz0jskjV7PZkcW0BgHe2FddqqZ-sQ8dipXiFOL6KNj2TLClXp0bMZ2Yd2NE7LAGHgcBNgGt3ZN0d1X2PGZnejbPC8yZhirNoEBH2vtneG1S63w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 218, filed as an act to provide a private cause of action for injuries caused by certain medical interventions for gender dysphoria and to set a statute of limitations, drew extensive testimony March 10 before the House Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor Sen. John Fuller told the committee the bill would allow civil suits for people injured by medical treatments for gender dysphoria, with a 25‑year statute of limitations and enumerated exceptions for “non‑psychological medical intervention.” He said the change is intended to give harmed patients adequate time to seek redress.

Proponents included multiple people who said they had detransitioned after receiving hormones or surgery and described long‑term physical and psychological harms. Jamie Reed, who testified earlier as a whistleblower, said the bill would let harmed patients “have their day in court.” Several witnesses described complications from surgeries and hormone treatments and said existing malpractice time limits prevented legal claims.

Opponents — including the Montana Academy of Family Physicians, the Montana Medical Freedom Alliance, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana and leading physician witnesses — argued the bill is unprecedented in its punitive reach and would gut malpractice rules. Dr. Lauren Wilson, representing pediatric and family physician groups, explained that the measure would impose strict liability, extend the statute of limitations to 25 years, allow punitive awards and attorneys’ fees, and potentially make physicians uninsurable. She argued that current malpractice statutes already provide redress for negligence and warned that the change would “chill” practice and worsen provider shortages in rural Montana.

Several physicians and medical groups said the existing clinical pathways and consent standards apply and that if a provider is negligent, current malpractice remedies already exist. Opponents raised concerns about the bill’s practical effects on workforce and patient access: Montana already designates many counties as health workforce shortage areas, they said, and punitive extensions of liability could drive doctors out of the state.

The hearing featured extensive, often emotional testimony from people who identified as detransitioners or family members of people who died, and from clinicians describing both the risks and the benefits of care. Supporters called the bill a necessary accountability tool; opponents said it was a targeted attempt to curtail access to care and a misuse of malpractice law that would have substantial implications for medical practice in Montana. The committee did not take action on SB218 during the hearing.","Senate Bill 218 would create a private civil cause of action for injuries allegedly caused by medical interventions for gender dysphoria and extend the statute of limitations to 25 years; the House Judiciary hearing on March 10 featured emotional testimony from detransitioners and sharp warnings from medical groups.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6114685,"Montana House committee hears Senate Bill 359 hands‑free driving proposal after fatal crashes; sponsors and safety groups urge passage",660,10290000,10950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af&start=10290&end=10950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742571-7ff931fab022402b937789085ef7a2af/thumbnail_10290000.jpg","/articles/6114685/Montana/Montana-House-committee-hears-Senate-Bill-359-handsfree-driving-proposal-after-fatal-crashes-sponsors-and-safety-groups-urge-passage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114685-dfbf647b5149409bb2b4fb7a6a8ad501/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200534&Signature=GEnFFBFYgN5g0kD6EEUa065OihHDtQHBMifyf3-qhFMDbMov-5EJfsgxLsUpjDlMEsExEnZ8Mc9o3Pdqe3jbld3ARuDA0KRn6spv4mRdud4RiirVyvhgCy1BdO--rqWiHyoQdoyku2RHDkT7lkObMMOyMBeeUzcjoISDkaE4uJfvpThya3B46ChdAoeP4oMQMAV6LeHoE88THGRFlb7OvLVxmP97c~B0eGnzmZNnDO4RYIB5XRprCNUqTHRO0Zs2y8PQVDEOAeebN~xg6CUNkm3vd3LKD64SwY2eFbUko4cbwrFFWNlcEmmkkgHfkRWB0e04SG3oFXi7-f~koKot6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 359, a proposal to require hands‑free operation of mobile communications devices while driving, drew broad testimony from family members of crash victims, public‑safety officials and safety advocates during a March 10 House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Sponsor Sen. Sarah Novak said the bill is not a cell‑phone ban but a hands‑free requirement intended to reduce distraction. Novak said she teaches driver education and introduced the bill after a former student, Chloe Worrell, was killed in 2021 by a driver the sponsor said was distracted by social‑media use. “This bill is not a cell phone ban. It is simply a hands free bill,” Novak told the committee.

Family members of crash victims and local emergency responders described fatal and life‑altering wrecks they attributed to phone distraction. Chloe Worrell’s parents and several first responders gave emotional testimony urging lawmakers to adopt a statewide standard.

Public‑safety groups, including the Association of Montana Troopers, Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, Montana chiefs and local fire and EMS organizations, expressed support. Transportation officials and safety advocates cited federal and state crash data: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures cited at the hearing included thousands of distracted‑driving fatalities nationally and a substantial number in Montana; witnesses emphasized that reading a text can remove a driver’s eyes from the road for about five seconds — roughly the distance of a football field at highway speeds.

Industry witnesses including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and several insurers and trade associations supported the measure and highlighted hands‑free technology options — from simple phone‑to‑radio Bluetooth devices to integrated vehicle voice systems — while noting that some vehicle touchscreens and interfaces can themselves be distracting. Representative committee questions probed whether in‑dash touchscreen controls and integrated vehicle interfaces should be exempt; the sponsor resisted broadening the bill to sweep in every possible distraction, saying the draft intentionally targets mobile device use and allows law‑enforcement and workplace exemptions.

The hearing record included no committee vote. Supporters urged passage as a safety measure to reduce crashes attributable to distracted driving; opponents were not prominent in the hearing record.","Senate Bill 359 would require drivers to use hands‑free technologies for mobile communication; it is not a total cell‑phone ban. The bill received broad support from families of crash victims, law enforcement associations, safety advocates, insurers and automakers at a March 10 House Judiciary hearing, with witnesses citing distraction","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would speed return of officers’ weapons after investigations; sponsors say it eases county burdens

Montana hearing on SB164 divides lawmakers, parents and medical groups over criminalizing gender-affirming treatments for minors

Committee hears push to reverse 2017 theft changes as retailers, law enforcement back SB19; advocates warn of jail expansions

Proponents call SB218 a 'detransitioners' remedy; medical groups warn of chilling effect on providers

Montana House committee hears Senate Bill 359 hands‑free driving proposal after fatal crashes; sponsors and safety groups urge passage