Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary panel backs amendment adding "knowingly" for assaults on first responders
Summary
The Judiciary Committee voted to adopt an amendment to HP 59 that adds the word "knowingly" to an offense involving first responders, prompting debate over redundancy with existing statutes and whether the change properly targets intentional wrongdoing.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on an amendment to HP 59 voted to adopt language that makes it a more serious offense when someone "knowingly" causes bodily injury to a first responder.
Supporters argued the change recognizes the increased risk facing firefighters, emergency medical personnel and police officers. "First responders, which we're seeing statewide nationwide, are in harm's way more than ever and we think this bill will help recognize that," said the senator who presented the amendment. Senator Abbas seconded the motion.
Opponents said the proposed language duplicates existing law and could be redundant. "The statute that this is adding to in its first line ... does say knowingly or recklessly cause a serious bodily injury to another, and it is adequately covered, and it's a class B felony," said Senator Aiden. Another colleague warned the amendment, as drafted, does not differentiate whether the officer was on duty and could criminalize acts where a defendant could not know the victim's status.
Senator Carson defended the change as a way to distinguish intentional attacks from other incidents: "It's always been my understanding that, you know, a police officer is a police officer 24 hours a day... There is some sort of notification. ... I have been told many times that they do identify themselves." Carson said the word "knowingly" draws a line between those who intend to harm and those who do not.
Committee discussion focused on whether the amendment created a new carve-out that elevates certain assaults to a class A level when the victim is a first responder and the actor acted knowingly. The panel debated ambiguity around off-duty officers and undercover personnel and the state's burden to prove intent when a defendant allegedly targeted someone because they were a law enforcement officer.
After discussion the committee moved the amendment and members voted in favor. The amendment was adopted; the transcript records the committee calling for the vote and members saying "Aye" when asked for support.
The committee did not record a formal roll-call tally in the excerpted discussion; the transcript records the motion to adopt the amendment and subsequent affirmative voice votes.
