Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts substitute for bill criminalizing repeated non‑emergency 911 calls, adds warning and intent language
Summary
The committee adopted a substitute to S.B.99 that narrows the original proposal by adding a required warning, expanding the emergency definition to include circumstances jeopardizing public safety, and retaining an intent element; supporters called it a public‑safety tool while disability advocates sought stronger safeguards for people with cognitive or language challenges.
Senator Fillmore presented S.B.99 to penalize repeated misuse of 911 for non‑emergency matters by creating a class B misdemeanor targeted at chronic abusers of the system. Sponsor framed the bill as a way to protect response times and public safety after citing large numbers of non‑emergency calls statewide.
Early testimony led to a substitute that, according to the sponsor and supporting witnesses, requires a warning before enforcement and expands the statutory definition of emergency to include other circumstances that jeopardize public safety. Dan Strong (representing CCJJ and other stakeholders) described working with sponsors to ensure the substitute provided a warning and addressed concerns around individuals with disabilities.
Disability and access commenters, including Audrey Baron and Seth Stewart, emphasized the need to protect people with developmental or language limitations and asked how the statute’s “reasonably should know” intent language would be applied. Testimony from the commission said the intent requirement and warning were intended to preserve judicial discretion and avoid penalizing vulnerable callers.
The committee voted to adopt the substitute and gave S.B.99 a favorable recommendation to the Senate (roll recorded 6‑0, including an online vote).
