Criminal Justice — Closed Captions

>> We're going to call this meeting to order. Tori, please call the roll. >> Senator Bernard. >> Here. >> Senator Bradley. Senator Garcia. >> Here. >> Senator Pizzo? >> I'm here. >> Senator Simon. >> Here. >> Senator Yarborough. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Smith. >> Here. >> Chair Martin. >> Here. >> Quorum is present, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Tori. Please silence all electronic devices. Anyone wishing to speak before the committee should complete an appearance form and hand it to a member of the Sergeant's office. Should you select to waive your speaking time, your position will be included in the committee meeting records. We are going to get started on Tab 2, Senator McClain. SB 760, violations of pretrial release conditions. And there's a delete all amendment. Would you like to take up that delete all amendment, Senator? >> Yes Mr. Chairman, that'd be great if we could do that. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to present this bill, Senators, I appreciate it. >> You're welcome. And that's barcode 574620. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator so SB 760 address the situations in which a victim calls law enforcement because a defendant is present in violation of a judge's no contact order. But under current law, officers often lack an immediate enforcement mechanism unless a new crime occurs or the case involves domestic or dating violence. The bill when it was originally written, it had some differing penalty or penalty requirements, but the strike all will narrow the condition of pretrial release each for which a violation is crime. And then also makes it a first degree misdemeanor for intentionally violating a no contact order. Authorizes law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrest when the officer has probable cause to believe a person willfully violating a no contact order and requires a person to be held until first appearance, if he or she is arrested for willfully violating a no contact order. Or is on pretrial release for committing specified violent offenses and is arrested for committing a new law violation. That is the strike all. >> Thank you. Are there any questions? Appearance cards on the amendment. We have Allie McNair from the Florida Sheriffs Association waiving in support. Any debate on the amendment? Senator McClain, you're recognized to close on the amendment. >> I'll waive close. >> Without objection we'll show the amendments adopted. We're now on the bill as amended. Are there any questions of the sponsor? Appearance cards from Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance , waiving in support. Allie McNair from Florida Sheriffs Association waiving in support. Any debate? Senator McClain, you are recognized to close on the bill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senators again, thank you for letting me present this bill, and I'd ask for your favorable support to support our law enforcement community. Thank you. >> Tori, please call the roll on CS for SB 760. >> Senator Bernard. >> Yes. Senator Bradley? Senator Garcia. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Yarborough. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Smith. >> Yes. >> Chair Martin. >> Yes. By your vote, CS for SB 760 is reported favorably. >> Thank you. >> While we're waiting for our next, let's go to Senator Pizzo. Tab 6, SB 1536, digital voyeurism. Senator Pizzo, you're recognized to explain the bill. >> I have a visual aid Mr. Chair [inaudible] Coming into studio lights so they're reducing. All Floridians should enjoy an expectation of privacy. One, I think, gray area in the statute does not allow for that reasonable expectation of privacy to extend to someone's backyard. Very quickly, I would just like to show you 30 seconds of a particular case. The bill analysis will include other examples as well. >> February 19th to the 22nd, join your favorite culinary stars at the Food Network South Beach Wine and Food Festival. >> It's going to be amazing. >> Don't miss out on the astronomic extravagance that's making waves. >> If you haven't been, you are missing it. >> I've got a story of a South Florida woman whose neighbor has cameras pointed at her backyard, and police tell her there's nothing she can do about it. >> Or is there. Let's bring in Help me Howard with Patrick Fraser to find out. >> It seems everyone has a camera. They're great, most of the time. >> We don't want to be watched when I go out there in the morning with my coffee. >> Yvonne and Joshua's problem started back in July when Yvonne went outside to watch TV on their porch. >> When I look in my backyard, I see a poll sticking out with a ring camera recording Yvonne that was sitting out there. >> Yvonne had her back to the camera and didn't realize her neighbor had put up six cameras pointed at them. >> And these are 360 cameras that I have in ring myself, you can zoom in god knows how far away. >> Cameras attached to the top of the house, two poking out of a cheeky hut. This one, on a 15 foot pole, they saw their neighbor put up. >> As soon as we come out, red lights started coming out, rotating, pointing directly at us. >> The cameras don't move when Joshua or his son come outside, but if a woman steps out, the light comes on, meaning someone is watching. >> My fiance, her friends, women in the backyard, all the cameras go directly to the women. >> Yvonne put an umbrella up to block some of the cameras, their neighbor brought out a ladder to see over it. >> And I looked over, and it was him with his phone in his hand recording me, and I said, "What are you doing?" >> They snapped a picture of the man, when he saw that, he flipped them off. Another day, another neighbor caught him trying to film the family. Joshua came out. [BACKGROUND] >> I feel so violated, my privacy. >> He're is the bottom line they went for an injunction, and they basically said, it's a gray area in the law. You have an expectation of privacy, the cameras should not be pointed at bedrooms and bathrooms. But with the exception of people like Senator Martin who stand at foot and three quarter inches tall, who can look over privacy fence, you realize code limits the height that a fence can be. All of my neighbors at home and here in Tallahassee have cameras, but we all have a sort of an agreement, an expectation that they're pointed at areas and lanes and side areas and alleyways on intrusion to their property, not to spy and be creepy with each other. I'm simply adding one simple independent clause that speaks to an expectation of privacy should extend to backyards, and that is the bill. >> Thank you. Any questions of the sponsor? >> I have one question briefly, Senator Pizzo. Last year, we had discussion about drones that had the ability to film and record not just photos, but private technology information, audio, video, all that that could fly over someone's property. Would this bill apply to drones, or is it just limited in general to the types of information that's collected? >> Thank you for the question. The bill contemplates basically fixed position and equipment, as the underlying statute is talking about surveillance from fixed positions, and just extends the parameter, which it is, but I'm very familiar with our discussion last year. I would take the **** Ritchie from True Romance Tarantino film, shoot them on the things. But, of course that's against federal law. >> Are there any appearance cards? Yes. Of course you can go ahead, Senator Simon. You're recognized. >> And I'm sorry, Senator Pizzo I just had one question. So what is the penalty? >> Thanks for our staff for not bringing it down. We have in the bill analysis, I think a violation of this on the underlying statue right now is a third. I believe it's a third, Level 4. >> That's fine. You can just give it. >> Thank you. We have Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance waiving in support. Any debate? Senator Pizzo, you're recognized to close on the bill? >> Waive to close. >> Tori please call the roll on SB 1536. >> Senator Bernard. >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley. >> Yes. >> Senator Garcia. >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Yarborough. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Smith. >> Yes. >> Chair Martin. >> Yes. By your vote, SB 1536 was reported favorably. Tab 3, Senator Yarborough, SB 1012, Inmate Services. You're recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for putting this on the agenda for today. Members, we have two parts of the bill that's in front of us today. First is the expansion of the contractor operated Institutions Inmate Welfare Trust Fund. This updates Section 945215 Florida statutes to authorize the use of funds in the contractor operated institutions Inmate Welfare Trust Fund for First programs supporting inmate reintegration into society, and second, environmental health upgrades to facilities, including fixed capital outlay for repairs and maintenance at the state owned contractor operated correctional facilities. And that's similar to what we already allow FDC operated facilities to do in both of those points. The second part of the bill relates to compensation for inmate emergency and specialty medical services. This would bring a revision to Sections 9456041 Florida statutes to require that DOC, its comprehensive healthcare contractor or contractor operated correctional facilities, must reimburse community healthcare providers at applicable Medicaid rates. Healthcare providers must accept inmate patients and provide reasonable access to their facilities and services as a condition of participating in Medicaid supplemental funding programs. And providers may negotiate rates above Medicaid if they have a contract with the department or its contractors to first deliver care within a secure unit of their facility. Second, provide services within correctional institutions or contractor operated correctional facilities or third by means of telehealth. And then we also amend one other section to require that emergency medical transportation services also be reimbursed at Medicaid rates. Two quick other notes, Mr. Chair, the bill is in response to the growing healthcare costs and the aging inmate population that we have, and the fact that these days we also have a lot more complex healthcare issues with a lot of individuals. That's true of everybody, but especially, it can be true of our inmate population. So by making some of these adjustments, we're trying to ensure that FDC can continue to provide necessary emergency and other specialty healthcare services at rates that are cost effective for taxpayers. The final note I'd mention is I have received a lot of input about this bill. I know we'll hear from some folks today and in talking with committee members, too, we definitely need to see this as the beginning of the conversation, and I'm very open to suggestions. And there are some pieces that I anticipate we'll have an amendment forthcoming for, not today because it's not ready yet, but just wanted to let everybody know the doors open, want to make it a good product. And today, we'd like to start that conversation. So thank you for putting it on the agenda. >> Thank you. Questions to the sponsor? >> That is the bill. >> Go ahead, Vice Chair Smith, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Yarborough, for taking this bill up, and I will validate what the senator said. We've been talking about the bill over the weekend, and he's open to ideas and how we can make it better. And I support the bill. First, I want to ask about the inmate trust funds and how we're making changes there. I understand that this change in how the inmate welfare Trust Fund is being used is strictly related to contractor operated institutions, aka, private prisons, within the DOC's authority. Can you walk me through how much money is in that trust fund or what do you know about what's in there and what are they currently utilizing that trust fund for? >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator Smith, for the question. So FDC managed facilities now already have the ability to use their inmate trust fund monies to go to support programs for inmate reintegration into society, and then also environmental health upgrades to facilities, as I mentioned a moment ago, I'll need to get you an answer on how much is in there, I don't have that with me today. But we would basically propose in this bill, what we are proposing in this bill is that we allow for use in the state owned contractor operated facilities because we still own those. But for those contractor operated facilities, they can do those same types of activities that we already allow in our FDC managed institutions. >> Permission for a follow up? >> Yes, you may. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that response, Senator Yarborough. I would like to get that information on how much is in the trust fund. Speaking with other stakeholders, my understanding is that although we would all like for all of the inmate trust fund dollars to be going towards programs to aid incarcerated folks with reintegration into society and those types of programs, I think that there needs to be diversification on how we use those funds. And a lot of these environmental health upgrades actually have been very good when we've used them for those currently run prisons under the DOC's jurisdiction, the traditional prisons that we have. No question in there, but just want to settle that. I think what you're doing here is good. Now moving on to the other piece of your bill. >> We're just in questions right now. >> Now moving on to the question to the other piece of your bill. If you'll recognize me for a question, Mr. Chair. >> You can ask your question. >> Yes, thank you. I'm curious how your bill will impact the healthcare that is being delivered right now. We know that Centurion obviously is the contracted provider. Is there any part of this bill that will change the quality of care that incarcerated individuals are receiving? >> Through the chair, if it's okay? Senator. >> Is there any part of the bill that will actually expand access to services that incarcerated individuals are not currently getting under the current structure? >> You recognize. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's not a what we're doing in the bill, Senator Smith is clarifying what would be provided here. There's not a list of different services per se that would be covered. What I will say, though, as far as your general question about expansion, though, there is at least one other option available that we put in with regard to APRNs, autonomous APRNs for them to be able to also engage in this as a healthcare provider, a community health provider as we've defined it. So that is in the bill. But with regard to services, we are mentioning that inmates need to receive whatever the medical services are that they're in need of. And we also make a distinction with regard to care and specialty care, but it's not it's not different as far as what's provided, as far as I know, if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected, but we're trying to make more opportunity available, save the state money, but also make sure that the inmates are receiving the services that they need. >> Permission for follow-up, thank you. So to that end, on lines 121-127, I just want to get your take on what the impact of these provisions are because to me, it seems actually like an opportunity to expand care here. It says, in addition to the Medicaid provider agreement requirements in law, participate in a Medicaid supplemental funding program and to remain in good standing with the Medicaid program, a Medicaid community healthcare provider shall provide inmate patients with reasonable access to adequate medical services, including emergency and specialty care services. That stood out to me because it made me think about how the services are currently being provided. It sounds like we're saying if you are a Medicaid provider, let's say, as a hospital, then you need to also treat incarcerated people through these services in order to stay in good standing as a Medicaid provider. Am I correct in that? I see that as good. I see that as bringing more providers on board, or am I reading too much between the lines here? >> If I could, thank you. No, it's a thoughtful question, Senator Smith. Thank you. So, a two-part answer, I'll do my best to answer your question. And just to piggyback on what we talked about a minute ago, we also infuse in here, too, as far as telehealth. So in that regard, we are trying to make as many avenues available as possible, whether it be that in person visit they need or to go somewhere like offsite to get the care they need if it can't be provided in house, have providers come in house or allow for telehealth, which is, you know, very good in some cases and obviously saves money and can be easier on the inmate population as well. But as far as your question, specifically to the emergency and other necessary specialty medical services. What I would say is the phrase adequate access to emergency or other necessary specialty services would really what we're trying to do is communicate our legislative intent that the inmates receive services in the community in the same manner and time frame as non-incarcerated members of the community, and the department's current policies do reflect that commitment. So we're not seeking to go outside of that. We're trying to do whatever we can to continue to provide the care, whether it's emergency specialty or whatever the need is, and do it in a cost effective. I hope that answers the question. >> I think so. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair. My follow-up question here is related to age. We all know that the DOC budget is extremely tight, and Secretary Dixon is doing the best that he can with few resources. We also know what his budget request is this session as a result of that. What are the restrictions around Medicare reimbursement? Here's what I mean. Most of these, or many of these, individuals who have very expensive healthcare costs that we are trying to curb through this new funding proposal with the Medicaid rate, many of them are elderly. They are geriatric patients that are patients that incarcerated individuals that are over the age of 65, who, if not being within the four walls of a state prison, would be eligible for Medicare reimbursement rates and perhaps even some additional services that come from Medicare versus Medicaid. Is that a policy area that we should explore, the state potentially tapping into Medicare services for incarcerated individuals over the age of 65, or is that even a thing that's allowed? >> Senator Yarborough, if your bill mentions Medicare rates, feel free to respond, but if not, let's just keep it on the bill, which deals with Medicaid. >> My short answer would be we can explore it, Senator Smith. I don't think I can answer the full breadth of the question, and it goes beyond what we have in the bill today. And we're using, whether current law mentioning Medicare or our proposal to go to Medicaid, we're trying to basically create a threshold there. We're not actually doing an expansion of Medicaid or doing anything related to the greater concept there, but again, happy to have conversations, and we can look at that. But I think that begins to go outside the scope of what we're doing here in this bill. >> Thank you. I'm good. Alright. Any other questions? I have some appearance cards. We have Justin Senior from the Safety Net Hospital Alliance of Florida speaking against. I know you're the only one speaking on this bill, but we have a couple of other bills that might take some time, so I'll give you up to five minutes. >> I'll be much briefer than that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do oppose the bill as it's written right now, but we've been speaking with the Department of Corrections starting this morning. We do appreciate the sponsor's open-door policy. We're going to be working with the sponsor, with the Department of Corrections, to see if we can get this bill in a position where we can support it. Thank you. >> Can I ask? >> Yeah, you can ask a question. >> Thank you. And we love the opportunity to chat, obviously, flagged that you're opposed. Can you give us any detail on why you're opposed? Is it really just the reduction in reimbursement rates? >> There's a substantial reduction in the reimbursement rates. Certainly, that's going to be part of it. It links the Medicaid provider agreements and being in good standing with the Medicaid program to serving a non-Medicaid population. And our concern is that rather than encourage more people to see inmates, that's going to actually encourage folks to cancel their Medicaid provider agreements. So it could create an actual access crunch on the other side. We don't think it's appropriate to tie the supplemental payment programs or the Medicaid provider agreements to the service of a non-Medicaid population. But again, we are working with the sponsor, and we are working with the Department of Corrections, and hopefully we can get to a place where we can all agree. >> Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance, waving in support. Denise Rock, waving in support. Catherine Shae, Florida Department of Corrections, waving in support. We're now in debate. Any debate? Yes, Senator. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, I'm going to support the bill. Senator Yao said that he's going to work on this bill, and I believe that we'll get it to a better posture as it goes through the committee process, but this is a good start. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other debate? Yes, Senator, you recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be supporting the bill again today. We really have to look at the big picture view of the tremendous costs that come with the fact that we have an aging prison population. I think this is a good start, where I was going with my questions. Senator Yarborough was hoping that some of this language can actually expand access by bringing more providers into the room, tying it to some of their Medicaid contracts. But I also see the flip side of it, as we just heard from our safety net hospitals, that it may actually discourage them from coming forward. So I'm mulling on that now. I hadn't considered that. But I do want the committee to also consider that the reason why this proposal is coming forward in an effort to try to curb costs is that we have non-existent parole options for so many incarcerated people in our state prisons. I've talked about through some of the bills that we've introduced, long-term sentencing reform options under certain criteria. I've introduced legislation also related to a conditional geriatric medical release that gets to creating more parole opportunities, not just on merit. But also based on the tremendous cost to the state to keep these elderly individuals that have major medical issues incarcerated in the system when they can actually get better care. There's very, very, very, very, very low chance that they will recidivize, and it will be at less cost, tremendously less cost to the state. I know that's not in your bill, but I'm just putting that out there for future conversations because policy changes that we can and should consider as a committee and as a senate will also tackle these issues in these ways as well for the greater good. I'll be voting yes today. Thank you, Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you. Any other debate? Senator Yarborough, you recognized to close on the bill? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the debate. Senators, and I look forward to continuing to work with everybody, as I mentioned, and with that, I would ask for your support. Thank you. >> Tori, please call the roll on SB 1012. >> Senator Bernard? >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley? >> Yes. >> Senator Garcia? >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo? >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. >> Yes. >> Senator Yarborough? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Smith? >> Yes. >> Chair Martin. >> Yes. >> By your vote, SB 1012 is reported favorably. I'm going to move over to Tab 3. Wait. That's what we're just on. Which one? Tab 1. SB 600, Senator Trudeau, you are recognized to explain your bill. >> Thank you, Chair. Members, Senate Bill 600 makes changes to Florida's bail bond and pre-child release laws and policies in the state. The bill revises training requirements for bail bond agents by reducing the mandatory in-person classroom hours, tightens restrictions on solicitation by bail bond agents and agencies, clarifies procedure related to pre-trial release conditions. The bill also requires the clerk of the court to automatically discharge an existing bond if the court revokes pre-trial release and orders detention without requiring an additional court order. That is the bill we also have a strike all. >> You can go ahead and explain Amendment bar code 468096. >> Thank you, Chair. Bar Code 468096. The strike all is largely technical and will allow it to mirror the House companion. However, there are some technical provisions prohibiting the reinstatement of a revoked surety bond without written authorization from the bail agent. Bail bond agency or the surety. It also adds parameters around the language restricting solicitation, makes additional changes to the definitions around what classroom instruction is. That is the strike all. >> Thank you. Any questions of the sponsor? On the amendment. Appearance cards to speak on the amendment? Any debate on the amendment? Senator Trudeau you recognize closing on the amendment? >> Waive closed. >> Without objection, we'll show the amendments adopted. We're now on the bill as amended. Are there any questions on the bill as amended? Senator Pizzo, you recognized? >> Thanks. So, the provision of the bill that requires bail, to go back, am I reading this right, that there's a remission or return the bail be receted in the defendant's name. So even if grandma or mom or dad pays the bail, that you want the money to go back to the defendant, I'm sorry, I got your text. We didn't have time to chat about this. I just wanted a bond. Yeah. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the question. Yes, that's what the bill is explaining. >> Follow up? >> You follow up. >> Here's the situation. Last year for somebody who needs help, I left Tallahassee and went down to South Florida and paid someone's bail at Fort Lauderdale. I don't want that person getting the money the help that they need a contributory factor to fall off the wagon, so to speak, will be enabled by the receipt of $2,500. The money should go back to me. So, can you speak to why that's in the bill? >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the question. I think that agreement between you and that person is real. But at the same time, that's why bond agencies exist and why, I understand. I mean, if you put it back on the bail, the bail bondsman to do the work, you got more assurances that things are going to happen, and maybe that person doesn't fall off the wagon because now there's more assurances. I mean, I think we enable these people a lot in this incident. I've had family members the same way. So I understand where you're at. We can continue to have for sure. >> This is not for a family member. This is for a mutual friend of a bunch of us. I did what I thought was a good deed because I know the area. That person should not get the money. But if this bill passes, they would get prospectively, in that same situation, somebody who needs mental health, drug, and alcohol rehabilitation gets the check. >> That's the way it's written. I mean, we can have that conversation, for sure. >> One other follow-up? >> Go ahead. >> And then there's another one where I mean, everything in accounts receivable, payable, owed, rebate, refunds, we're giving clerks ten days to do a remission. But then we're also expanding it to three years that the window stays open. >> So it's revised to 30 days in the strike all. >> I'm sorry. >. And so for the three years, if someone doesn't do what they're supposed to do there in the trial, this is not my expertise. >> So, as a father, I have faith in you. >> Well, I mean, if you have to go back and find that person because they need to fulfill their obligation, that gives you that window of someone to go back and find him and bring him back. I think that's the answer. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Appearance cards on the amendment. Clerk, Oh, sorry, on the bill. Clerk Greg Herrell from McClain speaking for information. Go ahead. Same thing. You have a couple of minutes. >> Thank you, Chair Martin. Thank you, Vice Chair Smith and members. Greg Herrell, Marion County Clerk of the Court and comptroller, appreciate. I am the president elect of our Clerks Association. We'll take office in June. Just appreciate your ongoing engagement and support of your state court clerks. Senator Pizzo. >> Oh, hey, how are you doing? >> What movie is that, Senator Pizzo? >> Reese. Yes, excellent. I tested you. You got it. He hit with his question on one of the five issues that the Clerks Association has been talking about with the bond association. We're continuing those discussions and would like the opportunity to continue those how the money is receded. That is an important issue to us. The other one, as well, payment. There is another statute that's already in place that would require 30 days. With respect to the sponsor, I'm not sure that the 30 days is yet in the strike all, but it is certainly part of the negotiations we're having, and I think the bond association is behind that. There are just a few other issues. It's a fairly nuanced area of the law. Happy to get in those, but more than anything, just wanted to say the clerks are appreciative of the bond association and our opportunity to have those continuing discussions. Any question? Go ahead. >> Sir, have you met with Senator Truenow or his office? >> I have. Yes, sir. >> And through the chair, how was the experience so far? >> With the senator's office? >> Yes. >> Fine. It was great. >> So you have some comfort level that we can tweak things or change things or get into it. >> Yes. >> Thank you. We have Sean Foster from the Florida Bail Agents Association speaking in favor? >> Thank you very much, Chairman. Just a few minutes just to explain. I've worked with the bail agents for about 10 years, Senator Pizzo, and I'll get into a couple of the issues real quick. But about the bill. So we did a strike all comparing the House bill, so we brought it over clean in that way. We've been working with the state attorneys. We had an opportunity to look line by line every single line with that Sheriff's Association. To be quite honest, I just saw the five issues. I heard there was two issues last week and the five issues that just came up this morning That I finally saw in person. So we'll be able to work on those in the next amendment. Representative Baker in the House agreed to be doing the revision that you talked about from the 10 days to 30 days, and there's some other conversations. I just want to remind just real quick I like to tell people about the bail agents and associations and the members we have around the State of Florida. It's really interesting. Most people don't realize 46% of them are people of color; 56% are women, and 87% are family-owned, independent-owned. I mean, these are small business folks, the backbone of our economy. And I also say they are the highest regulated client that I've ever had. And it should be, because it intersects really public safety, the court system, and really truly a balance for consumer protection.And that's what we're trying to get to at the end. I think you'll see a better product for the amendments that we're offering in the next committee, and it'll be identical to the House bill. >> Any questions. >> You can ask. It's coming to me, and I said it out loud to some of my friends up here. I would call you guys friends. >> Are you friends. >> In the past few years, we've had organizations, entities and individuals try to chip in to go ahead, to do, like, blanket bonding out, bailing out. And that creates probably a logistic nightmare of paperwork for your clients. Is that what the section, as it relates to the receipt of defendant is supposed to be a remedy or cure for that? >> It is, in a sense, charity bail, which is not defined in statue currently, so one person who's an executive director could lit out and any amount. If I gave you a million dollar to a nonprofit, they could bail out 1,000 people. There's no limit to without having a license. This was one of the areas. I'm not saying it was the best remedy, but we were coming up with some remedies to have some guardrails, really, that one individual who's not licensed and should be regulated that bails out a huge number of people. It's not the best language. I'd love to get something a little bit better. >> So, Sean and God forbid, one of my kids develops a drug habit, becomes a drug addict. And he gets beyond possession, like an intent to distribute amount, whatever. And I pay a $50,000 bond. And the case is disposed. He's got a legitimate problem, let's say, that we've got to deal with. We want him to get $50,000 back? >> No. But I would also argue. >> But he will. >> Can I answer one question? I would also say currently, when you sign that, you also don't know or realize that any of that amount of fines, fees and other figures can go towards that out of your mail. Well, most folks don't and so I'm with you. >> Real quick on that topic, do you know if by becoming if somebody is entitled to bail, kind of like an account receivable, is that going to prevent them from qualifying for the public defender if they now have $50,000 coming to them or in their name if they? >> That's a great question. I don't know that answer. >> Mr. Chair that's the smartest question that I've heard. >> Just wait for my bill presentation as some good things. >> No, but Chair, to his point is. You are taking an indigent client and creating resources and availability access to I can assure you this is a meeting address before the next committee. >> Thank you for the questions for the speaker. Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance. Waving in support. Thanks. I was going to make a shooter McClain comment when you said, we're now your friends. But you were once my colleagues. Do we have any debate? Senator Pizzo you recognized? >> Briefly, I think this is the first stop. I'm not at the second stop. I think the third stop is rules, is it? Am I right? The rules. So I'm giving you a yes today, and I'm sure the law needs to be tweaked in some fashion. But that's like a non-starter for me, 'cause there's another way to get to where you want to get to without putting people in danger. >> Any other debate? Senator Truenow, you're recognize the closing the bill? >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. This bill looks simple, but it's got a lot of moving parts. So I appreciate the conversation, and I plan on keeping that going and getting to a better spot in the future. So with that, I ask for your favorable support today. >> Thank you. Tori, please call the roll on CS for SB 600. >> Senator Bernard? >> Yeah. >> Senator Bradley? >> Yes >> Senator Garcia? >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo? >> Yes. >> Senator Simon. Senator Yarborough? >> Yes >> Vice Chair Smith? >> Yes. >> Chair Martin. >> Yes. By your vote, CS for SB 600 is reported favorably. Turn the gavel over to Vice Chair Smith to take up two bills that I'm presenting. >> Thank you for handing over the gavel, Mr. Chair. We are on Tab 8, SB 1750 on criminal sexual conduct by Senator Martin. Senator Martin, would you like to make a motion? >> Yes, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider SB 1750 that was on the agenda last week. >> Without objection, show the motion passed. We will now take up Senate Bill 1750 for reconsideration. Senator Martin, you're recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Chair. This bill increases penalties and creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for the most serious sex crimes, especially those involving children. Child pornography offenses are reclassified to higher felony levels, ensuring offenders face real prison time instead of probation. Repeat sexual offenders receive longer mandatory minimum sentences, closing loopholes that allow predators to re offend. New crimes and tougher penalties target those who produce, distribute, or provide access to child sexual abuse material, including digital and online platforms. Sex crimes are added to Florida's criminal punishment code, ensuring sentencing reflects the seriousness of these offenses. That is the bill. >> Having described the bill, senators are there questions? Questions on the bill. Are there appearance cards? Thank you. It looks like we have first up Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance, waving in support. We also have Robin Graber, of the Florida Council against Sexual Violence, waving in support. We also have Allie McNair, Florida Sheriff's Association waving in support. Senators, we are now in debate on the bill. Is there debate? Seeing none, Senator Martin, you're recognized to close on the bill. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll waive. Close. >> Tori, please call the roll on Senate Bill 1750. >> Senator Bernard? >> Yes. >> Senator Bradley? >> Yes >> Senator Garcia? >> Yes. >> Senator Pizzo? >> Yes. >> Senator Simon? >> Yes. >> Senator Yarborough? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Smith? >> Yes. >> Chair Martin. >> Yes. >> By your vote, Senate Bill 1750 is reported favorably. Senators, next up we're going to take up Tab 7. Tab 7 is Senate Bill 1544 complaints against law enforcement and correctional officers by Senator Pizzo. Senator Pizzo, you are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you. 1544 members requires that a copy of a complaint signed by a complainant under oath be provided to law enforcement. Officers who are under investigation before any interrogation begins and providing that complainant names and signatures are not required if a complainant is accompanied by corroborating evidence, as well as keeping anonymous complaints in the aggregate and personnel file. That is a bill. >> Having presented the bill, senators are there questions of the sponsor? Oh, no question. I have a question, Senator Pizzo. So I'm looking at some of the lines of the bill on page 2. I'm trying to understand what the impact here is because it does say if a complaint is accompanied by corroborating evidence, the complaint names and a signature are not required. So it sounds like you're allowing for an anonymous complaint here as long as there's corroborating evidence. Does the corroborating evidence need to be presented at the time of the complaint or what counts as corroborating evidence? >> Thank you for the question. There's no duty to act within a specific time frame. If you formally charge somebody with a crime and they're arrested and then they're charged with a crime, the state has a certain number of days. Otherwise, a defendant is entitled to speedy trial to a certain number of days. If someone just says something in and itself standing alone in a vacuum, there's nothing temporal applied to it. So if someone can make an accusation and then say, you know what? I'm just going to go ahead and post it on Instagram and tag the police agency, or I'm just going to hand you or airdrop you a video I have. I'll get it for you tomorrow. There's nothing that speaks to them having to be concurrent and simultaneous with each other. >> Thank you for that explanation. When I read it, it leaves it unclear on when the corroborating evidence needs to exist. We met with some supporters of the bill earlier today, and they assured me that that corroborating evidence could come at any time. I'll use an example. If a incarcerated person wants to file an anonymous complaint, we already know that incarcerated individuals are very hesitant and worried to file complaints that are not anonymous for fear of retaliation. I know that you know that, as well. And the only corroborating evidence that may be available is video footage, a video camera somewhere. Obviously, that individual who's filing the complaint and wants to do so anonymously doesn't have access to that footage, but they have reason to presume there is corroborating evidence that is out there. A plain read of this suggest a complaint is accompanied by corroborating evidence that they need to have that evidence when they make the complaint. Is there a way to make this clearer so that it is obvious to anyone who's reading this that they don't have to have that evidence right then and there when they file a complaint. >> Sure. So I'm happy to change the language to make it more obvious. But again, just if I want to go up to a counter of some sort, a proverbial counter and make a complaint, and I want to do so anonymously, there's nothing that prohibits the corroborating evidence from coming at that moment, 10 minutes later, 10 days later, 25 days. There's no clock ticking on the initial anonymous complaint in itself. Almost everything else in the law has some attendant time requirement attached to it. This does not. There's no speedy trial. There's no demand being made for it. So also someone may have a partial idea of something or an errant inkling and may have further everything from rumor and gossip further ideas and details about facts of what happened. Surely, my concern is that if you foreclose and say it has to be at the same time and not leave it open to be extended, is that people can actually have more information later or different information that they would be foreclosed from if it was all taken at one time and one time only, in which case, they'd have to come back to open another complaint. It's okay to be open and say, so long as there's something forthcoming that substantiates it. >> And thank you for that. My response will not be a question just to say that I would like for it to read and in practice, B, that the corroborating evidence can come at any time without the need for a new complaint to be filed. Thank you. >> And maybe also where you're going with this very often, the corroborating evidence comes from the actual law enforcement agency themselves. Can I give an example? >> Sure. >> Sure. We've all seen videos of Alex Pretty. We've seen videos of Renee Good. I don't know that anyone on this dais can tell me whose iPhone was used to forward those videos to news agencies or to law enforcement. It will be the law enforcement agency themselves that conduct an investigation based on what they see. Only in Dade very popular in my district. We'll videotape things and tag departments, whatever. Very often, for public record searches, law enforcement agencies will go and view body cam footage and they see other stuff while they're watching body cam footage. Very often, the corroborating evidence can come and be signed by the law enforcement agency themselves. >> Thank you, Senator Pizzo. And I do have one follow up question related to the text in lines 47 and 48 near the beginning of the bill. Basically, it looks like we are now requiring that a copy of the complaint against a member of law enforcement be provided to that law enforcement officer in full before any interrogation begins. I'm trying to understand the rationale for that language. Is there any circumstance where an investigation into wrongdoing by a member of law enforcement that it would be important to talk to them first before they have the full complaint in hand, which may establish any inconsistency perhaps in their testimony related to the complaint? >> If the investigator is acting in good faith, no. >> Senators, additional questions? Seeing none, it looks like we do have several appearance forms. I'm going to jump straight into these, starting with Lisa Henning. Looks like speaking for from Fraternal Order of Police. >> I'm going to wave in support. >> Fraternal Order of Police waving in support. Thank you. David Marci speaking against from the Florida Police Chiefs Association. Sir, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Vice Chair, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is David Marci. I'm general counsel for the Florida Police Chiefs Association. I have had the privilege of serving as a law enforcement officer, an investigator, a training officer, both at the state and the municipal level. I've served as assistant state attorney and a division chief. I'm currently the general counsel of the Florida Police Chiefs Association, and I have the privilege of operating a statewide hotline that serves law enforcement executives and investigators from Pensacola to Key West to answer questions about Bill of Rights and internal investigations. As part of my duties, I also train officers, investigators and law enforcement executives in the Bill of Rights throughout the state of Florida. On behalf of our over 900 members of the Florida Police Chiefs Association, I'm here to speak in opposition to Senate Bill 1554. >> It's 1544, sir. >> Thank you, sir. Typographical error on my notes. This bill serves to reduce accountability and transparency. It chills the citizens' ability to complain about police misconduct without providing their anonymous or excuse me, their name and sworn complaint. Some of the issues that we have have been resolved by the vice chair's comments, sir, about the ambiguity on the accompanied by and Senator Pizzo's willingness to address that language, which may resolve some of our issues with that regard. But we believe as currently phrased that it does require the contemporaneous production of corroborating evidence, which would necessarily put the burden on the complainant to provide this information, it would deprive the agency of being able to use things like dash camera footage, body camera footage, GPS records, and so forth. That issue may be resolved through additional amendments. Right now, our secondary concern is, in addition to the transparency and accountability issues, this bill prevents questioning officers about misconduct unless there's corroborating evidence, regardless of where that source comes from. And that allows officers to avoid being questioned about allegations of misconduct, regardless of how serious they are. For example, if a woman is stopped by a law enforcement officer and alleges inappropriate contact or inappropriate conduct in the absence of corroborating evidence provided by the government entity, presumably a body camera or dash camera footage, it would put the burden on the complainant to produce that evidence. We're hopeful we can resolve those issues in subsequent language. The difference between accountability and immunity for officer misconduct should not lie solely with the source of the complaint or whether or not there is corroborating information. One of the big issues that we have with this bill is how it affects law enforcement accreditation. Law enforcement accreditation entities, both at the national level and at the state level, both have mandatory requirements that agencies investigate all complaints against law enforcement, including those that are anonymous, including those that are unsworn, that are oral and that may not be supported by corroborating evidence. Now, let's be clear here. There's no allegation and there's nothing in this bill that suggests that officers are being disciplined solely on the basis of anonymous complaints. By definition, in order to sustain a violation of a rule, policy or procedure, there must be corroborating evidence because the legal standard to sustain a policy violation is by the preponderance of the evidence, which is the same legal standard used in the civil litigation process. So with this notion about accreditation, it would be counterintuitive and would directly conflict with both state and national accreditation standards, which reflect the best practices in the law enforcement community. So if the Florida legislature passes this and does not resolve this discrepancy, this conflict with the accreditation standards, it would deviate downward from the best practices, both in the state in Florida, and that is to investigate all complaints, including those that are anonymous. And our FSA colleagues have confirmed with CALEA the Committation for Law Enforcement Accreditation, which is the nationwide accrediting body, and they have confirmed that if agencies are not permitted to investigate anonymous complaints, they may very well lose their national accreditation, which certainly is counterintuitive and not in the best interest of the agencies or the public. And finally, the last part of the bill that is concerning is this prohibition on the use of non disciplinary investigative information in making personnel decisions, promotions, raises, commendations. And that's problematic for several reasons. An investigation does not come out with a binary answer, innocent or guilty. There's a whole panoply of potential ramifications and findings in an internal investigation. There could be a finding of poor decision making that resulted in an officer being placed on a performance improvement plan. There could be a training deficiency where an officer has not responded to the massive amounts of training that are provided officers and requires remedial training. There could be sustained findings of misconduct, be it a law, rule or policy violation, but did not rise to the level of discipline. Throughout the state of Florida, what constitutes discipline varies from agency to agency. Some agencies define discipline as anything that's a written reprimand or hire. Some find that discipline is only defined by suspensions of an unpaid nature. So what this does is it prohibits an agency from considering non disciplinary adverse investigative materials and making promotional decisions. And we contend, Senators, that this is fundamenatly unfair both to the agency who is tasked with, like all employers to make the best possible decision on promotions and other personnel matters. It's also fundamentally unfair to those officers who have an unblemished record when they go up against somebody with a colorful background of non disciplinary sustained findings, poor treatment, performance improvement plans, or other adverse non disciplinary findings that under this bill, if passed, the agency would be required to ignore in making those personnel decisions. With that, vice chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, sir. It does appear we have a question here from Senator Bernard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to understand this properly. So if I'm a police officer and I'm coming up for a promotion, and if the chief doesn't like me, the chief can just pretty much do an anonymous complaint against me, and that would impact my ability to get promotion, is that correct? >> No, Senator, it's not. Because in order to be able to have that information used against the applicant, there would have to be some adverse finding. There's nothing in our presentation or in our position that would allow an anonymous complaint without more to be used in that decision. What I'm referring to Senator. >> But if the chief is making the decision and he's the one who's filed the pretty much anonymous complaint against me, then I'm never going to get this promotion, is that correct? >> No, sir, it's not. Because if there's an anonymous complaint without any finding of poor performance, poor decision making, sustained findings of policy or rule violations, then that shouldn't be considered. We're not arguing that that shouldn't be. What we're talking about, Senator, is situations where there are adverse investigative findings where an inquiry or an investigation has been conducted, and the employee has been found either engaged in poor performance, poor decision, not meeting expectations or sustained findings of misconduct. Those are the circumstances, Senator, that we're suggesting the agency should be permitted to consider. I do not suggest the circumstance that you have raised, sir, where there's an anonymous complaint without any adverse findings at all. Just a blanket anonymous complaint. I would agree with you, sir, and so does the Police Chiefs Association that an anonymous complaint, without any corroboration, without any adverse findings of poor performance, poor decision making, need for additional training or sustained violations, we agree with you, Senator, that it should not be considered in that employment decision. >> Follow up, Mr. Chair. >> You're recognize for a follow up question. >> How would I know that there's this anonymous complaint about me regarding a promotion that I'm seeking? >> Because under the accreditation rules, sir, and what we're proposing is that all anonymous complaints must be investigated. And part of that investigative process would be notifying the employee that there has been a complaint, an investigation would be conducted. If there's no findings of adverse findings, rather poor performance or policy or rule violation, then under the accepted best practices in the law enforcement community, that allegation would be unfounded. So you would have an unfounded allegation of misconduct which should not be used against an officer in conjunction with a personnel decision. One last question, Mr. Chair. Yes. >> But I have enough time. Let's say, I'm going for a promotion and the chief decide to file something against me, and is there enough time for the investigation to take place where it wouldn't impact, I still would have the opportunity to get promoted. >> Yes, sir. Under the existing Bill of Rights, there's 180 day limitation period from the time that the adverse information is received by the department before the disciplinary action must be finalized. >> So if I'm up for this promotion in the next week or so and this Chief of Police decided to file this complaint against me, are they holding up this promotion for that 180 days for me to get promoted? >> No, Sir. >> So the chief can file, basically a complaint against me, anonymous and then promotes whoever he wants, and then now have to deal with it for 180 days and I've lost the opportunity to get promoted, is that correct? >> Well, it depends. That's what grievances are for. If there's a union. >> But I've lost the opportunity to get this promotion. >> Not necessarily, sir. If the grievance is upheld, there is relief that may be obtained during a grievance process. There's also the opportunity for civil litigation for some discrimination or retaliation if that applicant, under your hypothetical senator is not promoted. >> Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Can I ask a couple of words? >> Senator Pizzo, as the sponsor of the bill, you are recognized to ask a very short question, please. >> Why, a short question, Mr. Chair. >> The counsel who represented that he's a former prosecutor who works with law enforcement, representative of 900 agencies, has made reference to CALEA documents which are not available to the public, even though I've attained them. They've submitted an entire brief to Senate colleagues, except to me. And he's made five assertions here in testimony before the Senate chamber that I'd like to question him on. One, as it relates to the initial investigation, one as to an encounter, one as to investigation of all complaints, I'd like to see the verification of that. The CALEA reference, as well, and I'd like to ask him about whether or not, since he's so familiar with CALEA, about what new language is going into the disciplinary section of CALEA and whether he's aware that CALEA's accreditation requirements in the state of Texas speak nothing about anonymity. Could I have some leeway to ask him some questions, sir? >> Absolutely. And, Mr. Marci, if you're able to respond. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> Thank you. >> As a former prosecutor, the bulk of evidence post arrest for murder comes when? At the moment of arrest or thereafter when an actual formal investigation is conducted? >> It depends, Senator. It depends on the facts of each case. Each case is unique, and as somebody who's formerly prosecuted homicide cases, you're well aware that sometimes the information is fully available at the time of the arrest and sometimes it is developing. >> The second assertion that you made is it seemed to encapsulate and conflate each and every single encounter between law enforcement and the general public to lead or rise to the level of investigation. Do you read my bill to foreclose the ability for a sergeant to have a conversation over Cafesito in Miami about some complaint that one store owner made, and he just can't sit there and be like, Dude, what's going on with the lady down the street? Can you stop because she keeps calling? You think that every single complaint, whether anonymous or broadcasts on a billboard rises to the level of investigation which could result in disciplinary action? >> Yes, theoretically, if member is questioning an officer that could lead to disciplinary action, and I'd refer you, Senator, to Attorney General opinions 90.65 and 2001-34 would specifically stand for those premises that an officer can't be informally questioned about the substance of a complaint if it could lead to disciplinary action. So yes, Senator, I would contend that. >> Okay. What if the sergeant says, listen, I'm not saying this to anybody. This is not going up the chain. This is between you and me. What's going on with the lady down the street? >> Well, sir, if somebody that advised law enforcement agencies, including chiefs in the middle of a predetermination conference, oftentimes, officers and their union representatives will raise that and attempt to argue a fruit of the poisonous tree argument that is the subsequent questioning is invalid because of the preliminary questioning. So I contend Senator, that would be inappropriate. >> I love making some long soon. So let me ask you, the existing law, what's in statute right now. Does it have any requirement about informing the person under investigation of the names of all complainants? Yes or no? >> No. Well, I take that back. They are already notified of all witnesses. That's correct. But it's not phrased in the statute as the complainant as I sit here right now. >> Can you read line 49 of my bill? >> Sure. >> You understand that when there's a line through words, that means that that's what's an existing statute to be removed in the bill, right? >> Yes, Senator. >> Do you see where Line 49 says, before any interrogation begins, and he or she must be informed of the names of all complainants? >> Yes, sir. >> You agree with me that that's in the law right now, right? >> It is, with the absence of a sworn component or in writing. Yes, Senator. >> Are you aware that CALEA went ahead and did a proposal for review and discussion in January of last year, and the public had until April 21st of last year to make any comments before the insertion and inclusion of new language in CALEA accreditation standards? >> No, I was not. >> If I were to tell you that agencies should review applicable laws regarding the provision of due process to public employees if disciplinary action is to result in the loss of employment, property rights, loss of pay, benefits, termination or promotion, the agency's procedures should address the providing with the employee with a written statement of allegations prior to the termination hearing. The employees should be given an opportunity to respond to allegations and to correct any factual errors prior to determining final disciplinary action. You were present when Vice Chair Smith asked me the very intelligent question, as it relates to why somebody might be shown something before us ever. Do you disagree with CALEA's findings to all of their