Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Procedure Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Negotiators debate warrant-copy, remittance and camera parameters in Senate Bill 157
Summary
Conference members reviewed extensive House amendments to Senate Bill 157 covering warrant copies for sureties, remittance tiers for surety payments, deportation-related provisions and new warrant/camera parameters modeled on wildlife/parks language; the House added multiple provisions and the reviser summarized changes.
Senate and House negotiators spent substantial time on Senate Bill 157, which, as amended on the House side, now contains several provisions affecting court copies of warrants, compensated-surety remittances and standards for evidence and warrant affidavits.
A legislative reviser summarized that the original Senate bill had one section requiring courts to make copies of warrants available to compensated sureties, a deportation-related set‑aside provision, and a 95% remittance rule. The House amendments added the contents of two other Senate bills: one requiring a statement of facts for probable cause supporting a search warrant to be provided by a law-enforcement officer (not another person), and another restricting compensated sureties from lending for certain portions of the minimum bond premium. The House also modified the original provisions so that: (1) the court-copy requirement is ‘‘upon request’’ with no specific time limit; (2) the deportation set‑aside provision applies only if the defendant was not on an immigration detainer when bond was posted and the surety proves deportation occurred prior to a default judgment; and (3) the remittance scheme was changed from a single 95% remittance to a three‑tier schedule (90% within 90 days; 75% between days 91–180; 50% between days 181–270), per the reviser’s summary.
Senator Titus and other senators discussed adding additional warrant‑and‑public‑right‑of‑way language modeled after prior wildlife and parks provisions, to place parameters on law‑enforcement access to private utility property that may host cameras. A senator described those provisions as designed to preserve law‑enforcement tools while preventing ‘‘undue government influence’’ on private property owners whose poles or private property host cameras.
Why it matters: the bill affects procedures for probable‑cause affidavits and warrants, the rights and duties of compensated sureties, and limits on law‑enforcement use of surveillance on private utility property—matters that touch court procedure, civil‑liberties concerns and bond administration.
Next steps: negotiators did not finalize an agreement in this meeting; senators and representatives asked for time to review the revised language and to consult leadership. One senator requested a joint request to the Judicial Council to study the topic rather than embedding a study requirement in statute; the chair said she would be willing to submit a request to the Judicial Council if the chairs jointly agreed.
No final conference report was adopted in this meeting.
