Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Notifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee splits on juvenile‑notification amendment; debate centers on photos and probable‑cause threshold
Summary
Lawmakers debated two competing amendments to LD 102: one would permit DOC to release photographs when necessary and create a working group; another focuses release on juveniles who present a serious risk. The committee recorded roll‑call votes and deferred some matters to a working group and the courts.
The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee considered LD 102 on February 5, a bill that would authorize public notification about certain juveniles who are wanted or have escaped custody. William Tu, legislative analyst, described two draft amendments: a DOC amendment that would permit photographs in notices and a working‑group provision to study broader circumstances, and a separate working amendment that narrows release to juveniles who present a serious risk.
Representative Chad Perkins moved (and Representative Matthew McIntyre seconded) to adopt the DOC amendment with edited custody language; Perkins argued that photographs are critical to accurate identification and child safety, saying, "rather than waste somebody's time or put a kid in danger needlessly... we are not going after and finding a kid who's truly a danger to themself or others" if a photograph is withheld. Supporters framed the debate around probable cause that a juvenile presents a serious risk to themselves or public safety; Representative Wardell and others said that threshold is essential to balancing confidentiality and public safety.
Opponents urged caution about public release of juvenile information and emphasized judicial review and controlled processes. The Hassenfuss working amendment — described in committee as authorizing release of physical description, recent/likely location, instructions not to approach, and permitting a photograph when necessary — would also require a working group to refine procedures and a court petition process when broader release is sought.
The transcript records a partial roll call on the motion "ought to pass as amended" (Perkins motion, McIntyre second). Recorded votes include: Representative Hassenfuss (No); Representative Nutting (Yes); Senator Seaway (Yes); Representative Abdi (No); Representative Perkins (Aye); Representative McIntyre (Yes); Representative Wardell (Yes); Representative Bunker (No); Representative LaJoy (No); Representative Milliken (No); Senator Beebe Center (No). The committee then discussed the Hassenfuss alternative amendment and signaled further work by the proposed working group and courts to clarify judicial petition procedures before broader dissemination of juvenile records.
Committee members requested written amendment text and said they expect the working group to determine the judicial branch’s role in petitions to release juvenile records when appropriate. The committee did not finalize all amendments on the record and continued other agenda items after tabling further deliberations.
