Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Restitution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House pauses bill to broaden restitution for tradespeople after debate over scope and judicial discretion
Summary
Representative Agard introduced HB163 to allow courts to consider lost wages when tools used by tradespeople are stolen; sponsors said the revision narrows prior broader language and removes a fiscal note. Members raised questions about caps, contract profits and administrative cost; the House voted to 'circle' the bill to refine language.
Representative Agard said HB163 came from constituent reports that tradespeople such as carpenters and mechanics are losing tools at job sites and then losing income when they cannot work. "What this bill does is asking that, the courts consider the wages or salaries that are lost as a result of the theft of these tools," Agard said, framing the measure as focused on lost income rather than access to property alone.
Members probed practical implications: how judges would calculate lost wages; whether contract profits or penalties for late completion would be included; whether there would be a cap on restitution; and how restitution would be funded. Sponsor and supporters said judges already have discretion to assess fair compensation, and that narrowing language removed an earlier fiscal note (previously estimated at about $40,700) because the broader draft had imposed greater administrative demands on the judiciary.
Several members urged further refinement to avoid unintended breadth (for example, claims tied to insurance payout delays or large contractor overhead). Representative Cox moved to "circle" the bill so sponsors could work on clearer language; the motion to circle House Bill 163 passed and the bill was set aside for redrafting.
