Legislative counsel urges separate extortion statute for image-based coercion; committee debates penalties and limits

Legislative counsel recommended that the committee move extortion-related language tied to image-based coercion out of the current distribution statute and into a new, standalone extortion statute, and members debated how harshly those acts should be punished.

“For the record, Michelle Channels office of legislative consult, and we are talking about markup and, strike all committee amendment to h 6 2 6,” said Michelle, who outlined drafting options and urged consolidation of extortion language into its own statute: “my recommendation would be that you don't just pull b to b. You bring the whole ****** extortion into its own statute.”

Why it matters: The change would separate offenses that primarily involve disclosure of an already-created image from offenses that use threats to compel additional images or sexual acts. Committee members said that separating the statutes should make the law cleaner and easier to prosecute without forcing readers to comb through multiple sections.

Penalty debate and enhancements

Michelle flagged that extortion under existing law carries a five-year term and noted that H626 initially listed a two-year penalty for the newly-drafted provision. “Extortion under existing law…is 5 years. You have this as 2 year,” she said, recommending the new 26 0 7 carry a five-year felony penalty to be consistent with extortion statutes. Members discussed enhancements: a 10-year term was discussed for cases in which the victim is a minor, and a 15-year maximum was proposed where serious bodily injury or death results.

Committee members differed on whether some disclosure-centered acts should remain misdemeanors. One member said the intent to harm or harass through disclosure feels culpable but less severe than coercing someone into new imagery or conduct and suggested treating non-coercive disclosure as a misdemeanor while reserving felony treatment for coercive extortion.

Consent element and evidentiary concerns

Members considered whether to keep an explicit "without the person's consent" element in the disclosure provision. Witnesses and committee members flagged that adding a consent element might create difficult evidentiary burdens for prosecutors; Michelle said she would review testimony recordings and existing language before finalizing that point.

Statute-of-limitations, immunity and other drafting choices

Michelle proposed moving certain statute-of-limitations language into a different code section (referenced in the markup as an amendment to 13 b s a 45 0 1), noting the bill currently uses a six-year criminal statute of limitations for some offenses and suggesting consolidation so certain image-creation, dissemination, and extortion-related crimes could be governed by an extended 40-year limitations period where appropriate.

She also presented draft language for limited immunity modeled on existing statutes (for example, overdose reporting and some trafficking/prostitution statutes) to protect victims or witnesses who report offenses from specified charges.

Deferred topics

Committee members raised the issue of tracing payments and "mule" money in cross-jurisdictional schemes; Michelle said the banking and money-tracing questions are complex and often federal and recommended deferring them for future work rather than attempting to resolve them during the current markup.

Next steps

Michelle said she would draft language reflecting the agreed structure — a new 26 0 7 for extortion, with definitions incorporated from 26 0 6 by reference — and return with penalty and drafting options. The committee adjourned until tomorrow at 09:00 to take additional testimony on H626.

The session recorded multiple drafting options without a final vote; formal adoption of amendments and any criminal classifications remain subject to later committee action and final text.