 Anyway, we're taking up S, that was S11, which I thought we were taking up this morning. And we're actually taking up S45, the probation bill. Brynn is here with the latest version. I am, good morning committee. Morning, good morning. Morning. So I'm here with draft 4.1 of S45. I'm a VES45 and for the record, it's Brynn Hare from Legislative Council. And I will share my screen with you. Can everybody see that at the top of the page? It should say draft 4.1. Okay, great. So there are just a few changes made to this draft. So we should be able to get through them pretty quickly. The first one is in section one, the purpose of probation. We took out the word thereby after much discussion. And then I'll jump down to section two. This is the directive to the sentencing court. What's the commissioner files in motion? And you can see that the change here was made based on the suggestion of Judge Grierson that there be a timeline imposed for when the prosecutor has to file that motion to continue probation. So we've made it within 21 days of the prosecutor's office receiving the notice of the commissioner's motion to discharge. Is there any comment on that change? Everybody okay with that? Including Matt Valerio, James Pepper, Judge Grierson, anybody else's here? I'm fine with it. Go ahead. Yeah, I think it's okay. Okay. So I'll keep going. Yep, please. Okay. So scroll down to the two criteria and we've made a change here so that now this language reads that if either the court has to either make a finding by preponderance of the evidence that termination will pose that risk of danger or the court has to make a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the probationer isn't substantially in compliance with those conditions that are related to rehabilitation or victim safety. So we've got two different standards of proof here to do the two different criteria. Good. Either one of these things along with a motion to continue the probation would result in a denial of the commissioner's motion to discharge. Okay. Everybody, any problems with that for anyone? And then there's just one other thing which is all the way down here in section three. These are the criteria of the department has to find and we just replaced the word programs with services there at the request. That was a request to the department of corrections. Correct. Any comment on that? May I ask a question about that? So they have to have completed any rehabilitative or risk reduction services. Oh, the duration of which are set and knowledgeable at the outset. Okay. So it isn't just ongoing therapy. No, if they say, you know, after they do the crash program that you need to participate in something else, you may have difficulty getting your license back. As I understand this, you would then get off probation. But so it says the duration of which are set and now knowable at the outset. I don't think that the IOP programs have a set time. I think that the duration is not necessarily known. It depends on the intensive outpatient service program. Yeah. And if you're saying that they have to have completed that, but my understanding about them, because we had them here at the retreat and then they canceled them. AHS thought it best not to have it available here anymore, so we don't have any of those services anymore. But the IOPs, as I understand it, are dependent. They aren't set for a certain number of weeks, is my understanding. Then they wouldn't be eligible. Then they wouldn't come under that. I just wondered because I think Dale- Is that the idea, Dale? IOP service. You understand the question, Dale? The way that I would interpret that and apply it is that if someone is engaged in an IOP or mental health services or anything of that nature that as long as they're in compliance, we would submit the discharge. I would only review the current language of someone that's in, someone that has set time frames, like durations like crash and BIP are probably that they don't come to mind. The others that don't have a set duration and stuff, they would be just if they're in substantial compliance. Correct. Okay, great. Thanks. I guess I, and correct me if I'm wrong, Dale, I would look at this as a person who's completed the set battery intervention program. And if they decide, if the decision was to go to alcohol rehabilitation services that weren't known at the start during, you know, during the battery intervention program, as long as they completed the battery intervention program, they would be eligible for discharge and not have to wait until they've completed all the alcohol, which may be a lifetime. Yeah, probably would be a lifetime. That would be, is that what we're doing here? That's the way I would view it. Correct. Okay. Anybody with any other comments or questions about that section? Thank you. And that's it for the changes to this draft. And that's 4.5. 4.1. Oh, it's 45, 4.1. Yep. I would entertain a motion to report favorably as amended draft 4.1. Or no, to amend the bill as seen in draft 4.1. I make a motion to amend the bill as change, to vote positively to vote the bill as amended in draft 4.1. 4.1. Senator Inca has moved that we report favorably, that we amend the bill as seen in draft 4.1. Is there any further discussion from either anyone in the audience or anyone on the committee? Hearing none, Peggy, would you please call the roll? Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Assume that there's a motion to report draft, to report S45 as amended in draft 4.1. Senator Baruth has so moved. And Senator White is seconded. Is there any further discussion from anybody in the audience or anyone on the, hearing none, Peggy, would you please call the roll? Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. 5-0-0. And I'd like to report the bill. But I want to commend the committee for the fine work on this bill and all of the various players from Judge Corson's, I mean, Judge Corson's. There is a Judge Corson. Judge Gerson, the defender general's office, the department of correction and the state's attorneys and the attorney general and the Center for Crime Victim Services and other groups who have worked on this bill. Thank you very much. Peggy, is there a way, would you check with John Bloomer, a way to send this electronically to all members of the Senate as part of the report on S45? Normally we would put this on their desks. Yep. What are you referring to? What is it? I'm referring to the Pew study, December 2020, states can shorten probation and protect public safety. Okay. We've all got it. Okay. Bryn, maybe- Can someone send it to me? I think you've already have it, but it may have been posted on our committee page. Okay. I'm just wondering how to get this to every other senator. You know, that during the report on the bill, I can reference this. Yep. I'll talk to him about it, no problem. Normally I would put this on everybody's desk. Yep. Obviously, I can't do that during the pandemic. Yeah, we can do that. Bryn, will you send me the after it goes to editing? It's been edited and I just saved it without the highlighting. So if you just use that document number, you can send it. Okay, awesome. You can blow it up and send it. Great. Can we all get it too when you get a chance, Peggy, please? Yep. Sounds good. And Senator Nick, Senator Kitchell called me this morning. I don't know if you heard the conversation while you were logging in. No, I was on another. Regarding the Budget Adjustment Act, she would like to, on the floor today, say that we concur, there were two changes that impact the Judiciary or the Judiciary Committee. One was on the, they're both on, one was on the use of force training. And it makes clear in their amendment, which is how it works anyways, that any money left over from July, June 30th, 2021, would be carried over to the FY22 budget. Senator Ruth, did I miss? Well, the only thing I'd add is that it also says that any training would have to be done according to what is in law July 20th, July, 2021. So they're clearly still seeking to move the date out and they want the money not to be an argument to train under the current law. That's the way I would put it. And the second is on the body cameras, they want to report back to the various committees. I mean, anybody could just ask, well, how's it going? I thought it was a bit picky, but I told Jane that I was okay with it. There's an email that you would have, if you could just let Jane know you're okay with it or if you oppose it. When she talked to me this morning, she asked me to bring it up if you would Senator Ruth. Okay, thanks. Okay, she wants to get up on the floor and get rid of it. Also got the labor thing that was set back to his committee on the 1099 message. Oh, okay. They put that in there. They put that in there? And Bren, you will get me a report for the floor so we can go over how the bill operates. I sure will. I thank everybody very much. This is a key part of Justice Reinvestment too. And it should have an impact on the number of people that made on probation. I think maybe even more importantly, it'll bring some geographic equity to around the state. And not only that, it's good policy. And not only that, it's good policy. Thank you, Senator.