House Judiciary hears package of corrections reform bills; votes to hold all for further study

The House Committee on Judiciary met April 3 in the House lounge to hear testimony on a package of bills addressing conditions and policy in Rhode Island correctional facilities. Lawmakers and dozens of witnesses discussed measures ranging from body-worn cameras for correctional officers and restrictions on restrictive housing (solitary confinement) to free communication for incarcerated people, a pathway for sentence reconsideration, and steps to improve reentry services and access to vital records. The committee then approved a procedural motion to hold all bills for further study.

Why it matters: The bills touch on issues that advocates and state officials say affect public safety, medical care, correctional staffing and the ability of people returning from prison to regain employment and housing. Witnesses urged the committee to prioritize transparency, lower barriers to family contact, and create avenues for judicial review of long sentences; the Department of Corrections cautioned that some measures should not be codified while RIDOC is still implementing policy changes under federal oversight.

The committee action and next step A motion "to hold the bills for further study" was offered at the start of the hearing and, after being seconded, passed by voice vote. Committee chair recorded the voice vote as "The ayes have it." The motion was described repeatedly at the opening of the hearing as procedural and non-substantive: "a vote in favor of holding all bills for further study is not substantive," the chair explained when reading the motion into the record.

What lawmakers and witnesses discussed (in order of prominence) - Body cameras for correctional officers (House Bill 5928, "Willie Washington Junior Act"): Representative Morales, sponsor, framed the bill as a transparency and accountability measure following multiple deaths in custody. Morales said the bill would require officers to activate cameras when engaging with incarcerated people and would "provide clarity, accountability, and when necessary, justice." Testimony from family members of people who died, formerly incarcerated witnesses and college students cited examples they say demonstrate the need for on-body audio-visual records; advocates pointed to studies and recent out-of-state prosecutions where footage changed case outcomes. The ACLU of Rhode Island supported body cameras with caveats on privacy protections for people in custody; several witnesses urged implementation details (activation rules, storage, privacy controls) be specified.

- Free communications (House Bill 5350): Multiple witnesses, including Jacqueline Kennedy (a formerly incarcerated person), Heather Gaydos (Reentry Services manager, RIDOC) and representatives of Worth Rises and the Rhode Island Freedom Collective, urged the committee to require free phone/video communications between incarcerated people and their families. Witnesses said high costs impose severe financial burdens on low-income families and harm reentry prospects; Worth Rises provided an estimate in committee testimony that providing free calls statewide could cost roughly $436,000 per year and that Rhode Island families currently pay more than $1,100,000 annually. RIDOC staff described existing partnerships that provide free Social Security cards and DMV vouchers but said telephone contracts are vendor-managed.

- Sentencing Reconsideration Act (House Bill 5362): Representative Casimaro introduced a measure creating a judicial pathway for people serving lengthy sentences (eligibility after 10 years) to petition for sentence reduction based on demonstrated rehabilitation or new information; life-without-parole and mandatory-minimum sentences would be excluded. Supporters included the Rhode Island Freedom Collective, former jurists and defense and reentry advocates. Mike DeLauro and other attorneys described the bill as a narrowly tailored alternative to the 120-day window currently available and as a response to the Oliveira decision and related concerns about lack of post-sentencing review. The Office of the Public Defender and other witnesses supported the measure but noted resource implications (public defender office caseload and financial-eligibility screening). Opponents pointed to victims' need for finality and argued parole processes are the appropriate forum for release decisions.

- First Step / reentry services (House Bill 5124 and related bills): Representative Lombardi described a bill to establish a "First Step" program requiring the Department of Corrections to assist eligible inmates with reintegration (wraparound services, medical care, counseling, education, pre-release confinement for some elderly or terminally ill people). Formerly incarcerated witnesses described gaps in pre-release services they experienced, including missing documents and limited pre-release assistance; RIDOC Reentry staff said DOC already helps submit hundreds of vital-document applications and requested careful budgeting if the bill imposes new requirements.

- Restrictive housing oversight and solitary confinement reform (House Bill 5927): Sponsors and disability advocates urged creation of an oversight committee to monitor restrictive housing (disciplinary/administrative confinement). Testimony from people with lived experience and mental-health professionals described solitary confinement's psychological harms; RIDOC leadership warned that the department is already changing its disciplinary policies under federal monitoring and that premature codification could have unintended effects. Advocates requested representatives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities be included on oversight bodies.

- Vital records (House Bill 5349): Heather Gaydos (RIDOC reentry services manager) testified that birth certificates, Social Security cards and state IDs are essential to housing and employment on release; RIDOC reported assisting nearly 300 birth-certificate applications last year and urged the committee to approve a bill that would exempt certain incarcerated people from the fee for a first request.

- Parole board composition (House Bill 5180): Representative Cruz sponsored a bill to require at least one parole-board elector be a person directly impacted by the criminal justice system who completed probation/parole at least three years prior to selection. Peter Sloan, a former parole board member who had served after being formerly incarcerated, testified in favor and described how lived experience contributed to deliberations.

- Sex-offender residency buffer (House Bill 5925): Representative Fazia (Fasha) described a proposal to extend a 300-foot buffer around schools to level-3 registrants in order to align residency restrictions across levels after a court decision struck a 1,000-foot rule as arbitrary and vague. The ACLU testified that the underlying statute’s vagueness poses constitutional risk and recommended deleting the residency statute rather than reinstating a 300-foot restriction.

- Conjugal visits (House Bill 5297) and healthcare study commission (House Bill 5131): Sponsors introduced bills to set standards for conjugal visits and to create a special legislative commission to study health-care delivery in DOC facilities. RIDOC and advocates flagged medical care concerns; some supporters asked for study and recommended implementation detail be determined with agency input.

Divergent views and implementation concerns RIDOC representatives, including Ryan Crowley (chief of staff), said the department appreciates reforms but urged caution about codifying changes that the agency is still implementing under federal oversight. Crowley outlined recent DOC policy changes and said immediate codification could produce "lasting unintended consequences." The department opposed bills that would expand near-term litigation or require significant increases in DOC's legal staff. Law enforcement and corrections personnel raised concerns about operational impacts and victims’ rights; advocates and formerly incarcerated witnesses emphasized transparency, medical care, family contact and opportunities for review.

Votes at a glance (procedural action taken April 3) - Motion: Hold all bills for further study (procedural only). Outcome: Approved by voice vote (committee chair recorded: "The ayes have it."). Notes: Chair stated the motion is procedural and not a committee position on merits.

What’s next Committee members moved the bills into "play" for testimony and will conduct further review, fiscal analysis and drafting work. Sponsors and numerous advocacy groups asked the committee to advance specific reforms with clarified implementation details (funding for body cameras, privacy protections for footage, precise triggers for camera activation, inclusion of disability representation on oversight committees, and DOC funding for expanded reentry services). RIDOC staff requested additional time to evaluate fiscal and operational impacts while changes they are currently implementing are assessed by the federal court monitor.

Speakers quoted (selected) "This bill is more than just about policy. It's about real people. Real people in real lives," Representative Morales said introducing the body-camera bill. Ryan Crowley, chief of staff for the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, said the department "respects the desire to codify some of these provisions, [but] it does remain premature to do so as we are still learning about how these changes have impacted our institutions." Steven Brown of the ACLU of Rhode Island noted the 2006 state law that barred DOC phone vendors from profiting on calls and urged clearer privacy rules for any body-camera policy.

Ending note The committee’s decision to hold the bills for further study leaves the measures under active review. Sponsors and advocates urged the committee to move quickly on reforms they say will reduce recidivism, improve public safety, increase transparency and reduce long-term costs; agency representatives and some public-safety witnesses urged careful, stepwise implementation and attention to funding and legal consequences. The committee will reconvene to consider fiscal notes, amendments and additional testimony before any final votes are scheduled.