Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Offender Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House narrowly approves pathway for some long‑term registry entries to seek removal
Summary
After an initial failed tally and a subsequent call of the House, lawmakers approved second substitute SB215 to let some low‑risk people on the offender registry seek court review for removal after 20 years, passing 40–33.
Get email alerts on the Offender Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah House approved second substitute SB215 on March 3, a measure that creates a limited court application process for certain low‑risk individuals who have been on the offender registry for more than 20 years to seek removal. Representative Hall, the House sponsor, told members the bill "creates a process by which low risk individuals who are on the *** offender registry, after 20 years, can apply to a court to possibly be removed from the list."
Debate focused on whether the bill duplicates or circumvents existing avenues for relief. Representative Tesher asked whether current processes — including petitions to the court, Board of Pardons and Parole or the Department of Corrections — already allow removal and whether this bill short‑circuits those procedures. Hall said the application is to be made to a court and judges retain discretion under strict criteria spelled out in the bill: "These criteria are pretty strict still. And certainly, if an individual still deserves to be on the *** offender registry, they will stay."
The bill met procedural turbulence on the floor: an initial tally was reported as failing, prompting a call of the House and follow‑up attendance checks. On the subsequent roll call after members returned, the second substitute passed the House with a recorded vote of 40 yes and 33 no and will return to the Senate for further consideration.
The sponsor emphasized the narrow scope and judicial discretion the measure preserves; members on both sides urged careful application of the statutory criteria. The bill's text identifies specific lines (cited during debate) laying out eligibility and judicial standards.
