Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary tells committee S‑9’s after‑hours emergency relief orders are administrable; staff flag a statutory cross‑reference
Summary
On March 19, Chief Superior Judge Zote told the committee the courts can absorb the caseload S‑9 would create and recommended an effective date of Sept. 1 to resolve contracts and training. Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs staff raised a possible statutory cross‑reference that legislative counsel must fix.
Chief Superior Judge Zote testified March 19 during continued hearings on S‑9 that the judiciary can absorb the additional workload the bill would create and recommended an effective date of Sept. 1 to allow time for staffing and contract adjustments.
"In 2024, there were 32 civil assault matters filed. We do have the capacity to be able to absorb that," Judge Zote said, adding that the Sept. 1 effective date would let courts address after‑hours staffing and any contract issues. He told committee members the court could use staff or contracted authorized persons to process after‑hours requests and that training is ongoing for those roles.
Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs told the committee prosecutors and sheriffs support S‑9 and do not expect service of the orders to present capacity problems. "We completely understand the need for it, and that this is a gap that needs to be filled," McManus said.
Committee members asked about how many requests for relief are filed during business hours versus after hours and whether adding stalking to the statute was feasible. Judge Zote said the courts could not add stalking provisions at this time. He also said the judiciary does not anticipate a significant budget impact from the expected low number of after‑hours filings but would return to the committee if caseloads rose.
Members questioned who would serve as the "authorized person" to receive after‑hours requests. Judge Zote said that may be a court employee on call or a contractor hired by the court administrator's office; those individuals receive ongoing training. When asked whether training includes trauma‑informed approaches, Zote said Lori Canty of the court administrator's office would know the specifics and that Judge Suntag had previously worked with training groups.
McManus flagged a potential statutory inconsistency. She said a sentence in "51 34" (as read during the hearing) currently states that stalking or assault orders "shall be filed during regular court hours," and suggested legislative counsel cross‑check that language with S‑9 so procedures align. Committee staff agreed to follow up with legislative counsel to reconcile the cross‑reference.
No formal votes or amendments were recorded in the hearing excerpt provided. Committee members thanked witnesses and indicated staff would coordinate wording fixes with legislative counsel and relevant court staff.
The committee will consider the testimony and any statutory clarifications before proceeding further on S‑9.
