Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Threats topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bills to broaden prosecution of school threats; substitute adds mental-health screening and restitution
Summary
Two related bills — HB233 and HB356 (substitute) — were reported favorably after sponsors said they would remove the "credible and imminent" requirement for second-degree terrorist-threat prosecutions, elevate repeat offenses, and add requirements for psychological evaluation and restitution when the accused is a student.
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a package of bills aimed at strengthening prosecution of threats against schools and adding safeguards for affected students. Representative Baker's HB233 removes the statutory requirement that a second-degree terrorist threat be both "credible and imminent" in order to be prosecuted; under the change a threat could be prosecuted without proof of imminence, and a second or subsequent offense would be elevated to a Class D felony.
Representative Woods's HB356, and a committee substitute worked with prosecutors, mirrors much of Baker's intent while adding definitions and procedural safeguards. Woods told the committee the substitute clarifies the meaning of a "credible threat" and expands the code to make prosecution more uniform across jurisdictions. "We are putting the term credible threat in the code ... which will allow all the jurisdictions to be able to prosecute uniformly across the state," Woods said.
The Woods substitute also includes provisions intended to address student welfare and costs associated with responses to threats. It authorizes psychological evaluation and counseling for students who commit threats before a school readmits them and directs courts to order restitution to cover costs incurred by law enforcement and school districts in responding to hoaxes.
Katie Langer of the Office of Prosecution Services told the committee the substitute was drafted with district attorneys to make prosecution more consistent statewide. Sponsors emphasized the bills are designed as deterrents and to reduce disruption; one sponsor said local schools had experienced repeated lockdowns and heightened anxiety among students after hoax threats.
The committee adopted the substitute and reported the bills favorably; members urged the sponsors to reconcile remaining language differences to avoid conflicting court interpretations and asked for agreement on final statutory language before floor action.
Ending: Committee members said they would continue working with prosecutors and the sponsors to harmonize language so enforcement is consistent across the state. The substitute was given a favorable report to the full Senate.
