Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Staff Assaults topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts technical change and lays over bill to require consecutive sentences for assaults on jail staff
Summary
House File 135, which would require consecutive sentences for inmates who assault county detention staff, was amended to remove state prisons from the language and was laid over for possible further amendment after committee discussion about how the bill would operate when an offender receives probation.
House Public Safety Committee members adopted a technical amendment and laid over House File 135, a bill that would require consecutive sentences for inmates convicted of assaulting detention staff in local jails.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Myers, said the measure was brought by a sheriff’s deputy and is intended “to require consecutive sentences for inmates convicted of assaulting detention staff, at our local facilities.” The committee adopted a technical amendment, A1, that deletes “state prisons” from the bill so the provision would apply to local jails.
Proponents testified the change is intended as a deterrent and to increase accountability for assaults on correctional staff. Jamie Ness, who said she has “worked with the sheriff’s office for 10 years, in a jail” and in courts, described how assault charges are often combined with other charges and then sentenced concurrently. Sheriff Brad Wise of Anoka County, speaking for the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, said the bill “serves as a deterrent” and “ensures accountability” for people who assault correctional employees.
Committee counsel and other members pressed on how the requirement for consecutive sentences would interact with cases in which a person in custody later receives a probationary sentence for the underlying charge. Representative Pinto asked whether someone who receives probation for the underlying offense could later be required to serve the consecutive sentence and thereby go to prison after a period of probation. Mr. Johnson, the committee counsel, replied that the language as drafted “requires the assault sentence to be consecutive to the other sentence,” and that the assault sentence would be required to be executed after the underlying sentence or probationary period expires, a point several members said required further work.
Representative Myers said she is willing to work with other members on changes. With that, the committee laid House File 135 over for possible further amending.
Ending: Committee staff will draft follow-up language reflecting members’ concerns about the interaction of consecutive sentencing and probation; no final vote on the underlying bill occurred at the March 3 hearing.
