House committee approves amendment to HB 1596 to treat low-level THC possession as noncriminal citation for adults, infractions for juveniles
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The House Judiciary Committee voted to adopt amendments and give HB 1596 a do-pass recommendation as amended, converting many low-level tetrahydrocannabinol possession charges into noncriminal citations for adults and infractions for juveniles and setting a $150 fine for the new citation level.
BISMARCK, N.D. — The House Judiciary Committee on April 30 voted to adopt amendments to House Bill 1596 and recommended the bill pass as amended, changing how the state treats many low-level tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) possession cases.
The committee adopted the proposed amendment and then voted 11-1 (two members absent, not voting) to give HB 1596 a “do pass” as amended. The amendments shift many low-level THC possession cases away from class B misdemeanors and toward a system that treats adults with a noncriminal citation (a $150 fine under the amended language) and juveniles as subject to infractions handled in juvenile court.
Why it matters: Supporters said the change would reduce time and expense for courts, prosecutors and indigent defense by resolving the large number of low-level THC cases with a ticketing approach. Opponents warned the change weakens penalties and asked that repeat offenses be escalated to stronger sanctions.
What the amendments do: The committee’s amendment inserts a new section treating persons 18 and older differently than juveniles. Under discussion, the amendment: - Reclassifies many low-level THC possession cases so adults receive a noncriminal citation with a $150 fine if they accept the ticket; judges would not have discretion to reduce the minimum fine in that citation category as amended. - Treats minors under 18 under juvenile procedures and classifies comparable conduct as an infraction (not a criminal citation), keeping juvenile matters in juvenile court. - Clarifies lower weight thresholds for THC in oil/vapor form (referenced in committee discussion as the THC/oil quantities distinct from bulk plant material).
Committee debate and concerns: Representative Twit said he opposed lowering penalties, arguing the state’s jails and courts are full and penalties should be increased rather than reduced. Representative Olson and other members pressed repeatedly for clearer treatment of repeat offenders; Olson said she preferred escalating monetary penalties for second offenses rather than keeping a flat $150 fine.
Supporters, including Representative Vedder (who moved the amendments) and Representative Van Winkle (who seconded the do-pass motion), said most current prosecutions fall into this lowest category and that issuing a ticket would result in more consistent collection and fewer costly court cases. Representative Vedder said the committee heard testimony that about 94% of these cases were at the low level and that converting them to tickets would reduce workloads for law enforcement and the courts.
Statutory penalties discussed: Committee members cited existing penalty classes during debate: a class B misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of 30 days imprisonment, a fine of $1,500 or both; an infraction carries a maximum fine of $1,000. Committee members noted statute language that allows a repeat infraction offender (three infractions within one year) to be sentenced as if convicted of a class B misdemeanor.
Votes at a glance: The committee first adopted the proposed amendments (motion by Representative Vedder; seconded by Representative Wolf). The amendment adoption passed 11-1 with two members absent. The committee later voted to give HB 1596 a do pass as amended; that motion passed by the same 11-1 margin with two absent.
What’s next: The committee named a bill carrier to take HB 1596 to the full House. The bill, as amended, will advance to the House floor for further consideration. The committee also discussed related record-sealing language in the amendment and juvenile-handling provisions but did not alter the juvenile court standard established by the amendment.
Ending note: Committee members repeatedly emphasized they sought to reduce court workload while maintaining avenues to escalate repeated offenses; several members asked staff to clarify how nonpayment and repeat citations would be enforced under the new citation category.
