Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Victim Notification topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill would let Department of Corrections notify victims before inmate name changes

House Judiciary Committee · April 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SB65 (sponsor Sen. Shelly Vance) would give the Department of Corrections authority to notify victims before an incarcerated individual’s legal name change is decided so victims can provide input to the court. DOC witnesses described past instances that motivated the request; committee members asked about registry implications and out‑of‑state incarcerations.

Sen. Shelly Vance introduced Senate Bill 65 at the request of the Department of Corrections. The measure would authorize DOC to notify victims when an incarcerated person petitions for a legal name change so courts can consider victim input before deciding the request. Vance said the authority is described on page two of the bill and that the change was requested by DOC.

Scott Eichner, DOC rehabilitation programs chief, testified the department currently notifies victims only after a name change occurs and that SB65 would provide an opportunity for victims to submit input prior to a court decision. Eichner described instances where incarcerated individuals tried to adopt names tied to victims or where families were surprised by a post‑change notification; he said the court retains authority to accept or reject changes. Committee members asked whether registry obligations and public tracking would still apply; Eichner confirmed registries and notification obligations remain and said the bill is intended to enhance transparency and victim protection.

Representatives asked logistical questions (e.g., inmates housed out of state), and Eichner offered to follow up on procedural questions. The sponsor closed saying the bill is straightforward and urged the committee to pass it. The hearing concluded with no committee vote recorded.