A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 21, 2015 | Committee Room | Judiciary II

Full MP3 Audio File

Let me go ahead and call the meeting of judiciary cue to order, we have a, what I think's an ambitious agenda today it being close to crossover so we need to get moving we have two pages with us today. Lizzy O'Brien from Anders sponsored by Representative Hyly and Alina Corwell from Alamarcks about Representative Rydell, welcome to the committee. We have tow sergeant at arms with us today, Bill Bass and Matt Cone. And with that let's call the first bill, we've got, first up's going to be House Bill 338 failure to obtain driver's license increase punishment Representative Martin says he needs go to another committee so I'm trying to accommodate him. It's post-committee substitute Representative Conrade moves that the propose committee substitute be brought before the committee for discussion. All in favor signify by saying Aye, Aye. All opposed say no. The proposed committee substitute before and representative Miller do you recognize to explain? Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. the bill here today is summarized very succinctly but I want to basically hone you in on what the bill aims to do while the title is Failure to obtain driver's license increase a punishment. This is actually about individuals who are inelegible to receive a North Carolina driver's license in the punishment track that's associated with it. Let me describe to you how this issue that was brought out me by a number of constituents as well as I spoke to a number of practising attorneys in the courtroom. If I'm an individual who is ineligible to receive an [xx] driver's license am put over, the worst charge that I can seek or I can actual see is failure to obtain drivers licence, at that time I stand before a judge I'm found guilty I pay $100 and I walk, when that happens, I get points against the theoretical licence and I'm ineligible to get. I have to get charged a 2nd, a 3rd and a 4th time to get enough points against the licence that I'm ineligible to get in to have that imaginary licence therefore revoked, then I have to get pool within a 5th time within a 12 month period that is  actually possibly see any type of jail time discretionary by the judge, what we are seeking to do here is about safety of our house we have individuals who are traversing our public roads with our very constituents who are driving for freely with multiple aspects of just paying a $100 in walking. What we look to do is, is that the first offence is the normal track the second offence for an individual to have this charge who is ineligible to receive a drivers licence whenever they are charged with this will seek a our penalty of $400 as well as they would actually see a class two misdemeanor instead of class three on the third offence if this happens again their can be the possibility of the judge to have an active senates the discretion still remains with the judge the same way the fifth offence if we do nothing and then on the subsequent offence as described in the bill summary that you actually have the ability to actually seize the vehicle.  This is a tremendous problem that I believe that our state has and there is no doubt that our laws regarding this for those who are ineligible would have their driver's licence star stayed, is completely Swiss Cheese and I ask for your support. Are there questions from the committee the bill sponsor Rep. Glazier. Thank you Mr. Chair I have got a couple of questions on my mind one is language on line 18 may be repeated but he says second or subsequent offence is that a conviction or charge, If you don't mind Rep. Glazier I want to make sure that I will be technically correct I mean the bill summary says one thing if you don't mind if we'd defer that question to staff to sure that you are adequately response on that [xx] it would be a conviction that's just the way we kind of we can change that if you want but it will be a second or subsequent offence which will be in violation of it would be punished in a class two misdemeanor. So you have to have conviction to have a [xx] and only if the if both the first and the second they were ineligible to receive the loan. Second question. You're recognized. It's really a closed issue since we're changing misdemeanor sentencing, changing the structure of it, do we and obviously tens of thousands of folk so what's our cost? Yes we do, I received fiscal

note which I hope is in your actual packet as well as an incarceration note, I mean no they were also increasing the actual penalty from $100 to 400. So, could we get understanding from staff that it's not in your packet but those documents have been received, I'd be more than happy to get them for you. I've reviewed them and it's not significant in my view by any means Miss Thomson you have represented.  And I'm sorry I didn't receive this in time that we're borrowing copies from the characters, but are the carceration impact is they can't predict the only amount that they we estimate monthly, sorry I'm trying to read this correctly, monthly supervision costs would be, there would be monthly supervision cost for these people, and they said the monthly cost they don't project how many vote would be so, if they don't get like, basically they don't say If this was the following cost or estimate administrative cost 57, excuse me, administrative $57 per car, IDS still work with 0 to 173 per engine defendant EPS net cost for prison DPS community corrections 131 poor convictions resulting in probation. Better than they are not shelled under the top of the notes.  Do you have another question? My last follow up.  Yes we're actually going to give you, I had a copy with me. We have a prediction that try to take those numbers, how many votes will apply for you to be able to multiply those numbers against cents.  This request again, there is carseration node as well as the fiscal impact, note that we retain the judges discretion of whether they actually put someone in jail on not, the same why it is now. We also increase the actual penalty, from $ 100, to $ 400, and also argue. To me this is fun to justice and public safety for our constituent. I mean, think about individuals that have their kid dropped of on a school bus stop, individuals that traversing our roads those who'll have a drivers licence and practically no pedal the award whosoever are not deterred. I think this is a course for government, no matter what the actual fiscal notering fasteration note says think that, the impacts are favorable. Representative Conrad.  I don't have a [xx] time to point and say that Alright, we will hold that just for a second, Representative Michelle.  Let me get this straight I don't have a driving license [xx], and am called with charges of having driving license the second time, the third time now that is incorrect nothing changes for you Representative Michelle, because you were eligible to receive a drivers license. This is all only for individuals, who are driving at our roads, who are not eligible to receive a drivers license, whenever they commit in and if they are convicted on this offences. You yield.  Follow up. Yes so they had their license talking about individuals who are not eligible to receive a drivers license who are freely driving on our road.  Follow up give a part. Give an example. The statute is very clear what are the requirement to be eligible to get a drivers license if you don't meet those requirement to be eligible to have drivers license then this punishment or penalties apply to you. Then you're recognized. So is currently through his course for his vehicle that. Correct the answer of that I mean For individuals who are knowledgeable to receive a drivers license they car ones is normal they are called again which increase the penalty to save we do not want encourage this we are trying to tell people who are inward or receiving a driver license be actually driving on our roads then if they are going to continue to operate in that fashion after the first,

the second, with higher charges been believe my public safety at some point then the vehicle should be ceased a matter of fact them so called supervised input on this it was actually provided by stakeholders in court room. Follow up.  He is asking the car being seized does not belong to the person used the offender.  Yes, except the money is in question I want to make sure is technically is correct besides.   Why did you do a quick question He's want to know, if the person who's caught the car is subject to be seized, but the car on the hallway does not belong to that person. What's the procedure, what's the result? The way to do is reading it. Is it refers to the procedure for [xx] [xx] representative Reeves. I got a couple of questions you're supposed a part of stakeholder, once stakeholder were interested kind of. Representative Mills [xx] Yes sir I consulted practice attorneys that are in the court, all this language as it was actually embedded also consulted the actual association of district attorney as well, they had input on the bill, we want to make sure that the structure is very clear very concise and actually whatever actually is implemented it can be cool interpreted and there' no misunderstanding in what the law aimed to do, so again I know that unprofessional by trade I'm not trying to practice any aspect of law that's the reason why I consulted heavily with staff and stakeholders to make sure that was actually going to codified in law. Representative Reese you have a follow up.  Yes thank you Mr. Chair. It's more my concern is how narrowly Taylor I understand the issue but I think our issue inn our on district should be concerned things before invite in their lives and really more specifically and they have insurance, while we narrow the table to just the people that don't have a life is that eligible at different times yet at a time.  Representative Reese. Representative Reese in actually studying the matter there's been some changes to this acts of provision for those who are eligible to receive a life sentence there' no question and I've actually researched and that it appears as if there was some positive moves keep making sure that we're not basically.  Putting a hammer down on those who go to galisos store actually forgetting they have there licence with them and what that means in regard to the law. So again I think the clearer narrower terror language is what this body would want to have is making sure we're not bringing up those just made an honest mistake but are eligible to receive a licence and therefore can comply with the state laws from those who are just unlawfully acting in our state and putting the harmony and safety of our citizens in jeopardy Further questions? One more follow up I'm asking this for instance driving while license is revoked can be [xx] class three misdemeanor and it almost seems inconsistent that a person who goes out appear in front of the court, gets their licence revoked, does all kinds of things. Is there really help for this kind of punishment for a person who in health to provide some reason is looking at a whole level of punishment in a [xx] thing like that sometime the money is the losing here by Why? Wonderful question. The first offence is to say there's no question. On subsequent offences the individual has normally made the action to continue to drive while they are not eligible to have a driver's licence. I believe it should more strongly be treated differently for those who are eligible to receive a driver's licence licence, but they continue to act in a unlawful manner. So again if you wanted to provide amendment and have support to change means to me in a level. Those who are eligible and they're driving a licence revoked feel free to, but what I'm trying to do is focus on something that has a major safety aspect for our citizens because being eligible and been ineligible is totally different aspects to some regards to driving law. One more May be not being clear what I'm saying this round of might spin [xx] then you are eloquent provider because been leaders [xx] and have been to that and my concerned is that the person is actual in court still is going to jail, the person the truth hurt,  you're talking when I hear you speaking, you say your speaking for the person who was against the licence,

whats the plan for the people who don't have the licence no opting to get licence, no good deal to get licence, where, are they feed[sp?] in these pay, or these payments. No the the Bill is televised specifically to those who are eligible to get the licences at the time that the actual conviction was actual lavy and again it's not about those who lose or have the licence since they are revoked that is clearly spelt out in the Bill so again I think we're on the same page representative Riser, and I'd appreciate you bring this question forward. Representative Glacier, You recognize for debate on the PCS I brought them a lot of Bills this session to try, create safer roads I think they type 100 Bill of [xx] this time I have concern over a few may end up being target on this, the fact that we can be help them later, my biggest concerned is, using the number you gave me. representative I agree that we are probably talking thousands here so it's hard to know but if you use simply the bill [xx] the minimal it's going to cost, it's somewhere $250 range, it could go as high as $400 if you're looking at the cost for defendant [xx] there's 10, 000 but there's maybe far more, we're talking a bill that has four million dollars for a minimum cause. I don't know how you balance [xx] cost of safer roads and I think that's the real issue you're getting at but I do think that we're going to talk a lot millions of dollar and I do think in average amount look at this because I don't think we can just, we can pass it here but I can't see how without [xx] going to cost a bunch of money. You might want to run this by representative Dollar at some point before it comes Representative Stan. [xx] miss the metre [xx] far as 10, 000 years all state and yet [xx] corporations there's apparently a massive public safety issue but yet there's no public statement thought, I just don't, I don't get that May respond representative Representative Sam[sp?], I have requested a physical note, and I've received that, I have requested an incarceration note and I've received that. I am in front of the Judiciary Committee to have a favourable report [xx] going to the [xx] committee [xx] I'm just asking you as [xx] committee to vote this bill up or to vote this bill down it's only actually one tip that I have legislatively so, cost is not an issue for me when it comes to the actual safety of our constituent. Representative Conrad you're recognized for a motion. I move for a favourable report of the proposed committee substitute for house bill 338 [xx] Representative Stem you are recognized to amend the motion. In the recommendation in regard to appropriation do you accept that friendly amendment? Representative Conrad. Let's take a vote down separate vote on Representative Stan's proposed amendment to the proposed motion all in favor that of the Stan's proposed amendment to the motion signify by saying Aye, Aye. All oppose, no the ayes have it the motion is amended to be to give the proposed committee substitute for house bill 338 a favourable report with a serial referral to appropriations unfavorable to the original bill is there discussion debate on that motion if not all in favour signify by saying aye "aye" all oppose no the ayes the have it and the bill is given a favourable report now with a serial referral to appropriations thank you.  Thanks. Next we are going to move to house bill 711 prohibit counterfeit non functional air bags representative Faircrof you are you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a  bill that deals with what's certainly public safety concern and it was brought to me to consider to to Representative Blaise[sp?] and myself to consider from the Honda manufacturer or the Honda Corporation which is a very vibrant business in the state of North Carolina as we know and they have one of their products of

course is a Honda automobiles, so they have a direct interest in this has to do a lot of manufactures. This would simply address the fact that in China and other places across the world there are people who are making counterfeit airbags to go into replaced airbags that come into cars originally. When a car's in an accident the airbag is deflated and if it goes to be repaired and those airbags are replaced with counterfeit airbags that can be quite problematic and if you've had a chance to ever see the difference in how a first class air bag reacts to impact and how this kind of interfere with that alone will scare you because they're very ineffective what this would do is to address those people who for instance we have a server kind of counterfeit air bags in North Carolina who got seven years in federal prison because literally he sold 7, 000 fake air bags, they went in somebody's car and went to a greater extend so basically the bill simply addresses that problem and Mr. Chairman we have Mr. David Horn is here with a speaker who. Let me see a Horn To add anything to the sponsor of this bill Thank you Mr. Chair members of the committee and Representative [xx] that I think we cover very well will say this is serious problem is a public safety issue I hope you will support the bill.   And is representative Flake Hoff, was saying we do someone here to speak on behalf the bill Miss Umber Blue Hart will you like to stand and tell us whom you are who are with and address the committee? My name is Miss Umber program and I travel all over the country speaking about very large presence in North Carolina and North Carolina is number of approach North Carolina is the major export of Jambo jet and is a new venture for Jambo jet and we are really excited in that, also in the area of detection edit those here in front of cover that you actually any venture interest in North Carolina in many years our total number in 2000 associates across the globe $150 million state of North Carolina [xx] North Carolina also is pulled to as Representative Debra has said, to the largest counterfeit diabetics problem in marketing operation in the United States history [xx] maybe drilled right outside [xx] character database over the internet, on eBay they could not leave federal motor vehicle safety standards [xx] completely counterfeit and leads to very severely concern and threat to North Carolina consumers. What this bill does sounds [xx] because [xx] this case highlights the need to the state. It identifies and defines counter for diabetics [xx] Counters the [xx] would be [xx] unauthorized use of manufactured cocoa. Also it actually makes this big crime to import, install, manufacture, sell [xx] these counterfeit diabetics products. So I believe not a crime in the State already so I urge you to make it a crime in the state [xx]. We'd also like to call this a State event [xx] part of this effort to pass this, in the 50 States the bill has become law in 8 states, it's been adopted by the Council of State Governments as part of their suggested State legislation docket which you probably all received probably in the last month, so we would appreciate your support on this today, thank you. Thank you, is there anyone else that wants to speak to the committee? Here. Right here. [xx] I'll stand here so I can see this point of the room. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dr. Jeff Runge. I'm an emergency physician for Charlotte where I've practiced for 20 years before I became the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the first term of the Bush Administration. I'm the guy who is responsible for motor vehicle safety standards, but there you heard what the other Reps[sp?] were talking about, and I will tell you as a former Fed just

a very appropriate role for state government. The federal government cannot save you for this situation which is extremely grave for the people to have penalty [xx] in their vehicles and have a [xx] it still bad [xx] manufactured airbags are finely tuned and tested to standards [xx] unique to those [xx] the stiffness of those [xx] whether or not your safety belt is fastened, you air bad knows how heavy you are in the seat and they are tuned very very very finely for this the airbag makes its decision in about 200 milliseconds, our eyes takes about 300 milliseconds to blink. In that 200 milli this airbag makes a bunch of decisions about you and how to deploy in order to protect you. Counterfeit airbags do not do that, they are no more effective in prevent death and injury than counterfeit drugs are in preventing or treating so this is a very appropriate goal for the state government to remove any Representative we are recording that is someone who otherwise to protect to have the manufacture having put in a manufacturer's airbag. My second job in business was the chief medical officer for homeland security, and I would tell you that former federal official is dead. This is not a border inspection issue. You cannot respect the way this problem, these are, the packaging of the airbags probably, it can only rely put in the vehicle if the person doing that is has full response between and numbers to them that advance order you have to seek them out from considering all your facts, so once again federal regulations aren't going to help you, state government has a very appropriate role for I am very much in favor of removing it, any [xx] you would have for this product. Thank you for that information, I think my wants me to lose some weight. Yes. [xx] Representative [xx] is a very big problem. We have a slight concern with regard to [xx] Right now we are basically going to [xx] people [xx] state regulations for where we at I don't feel that this bill has [xx] draft kind of liability liability to it. I agree with you till you get that stuff we stop to amend the bill on the predictive and the routine on [xx] it depends. Great, thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak on this issue? If not Representative Stum[sp?] you are recognized to send forward an ammendment Representative Stum moves amendment to amend the bill on page two line 13 by deleting the date December 1st 2015, and inserting October 1st 2015. Do you recognize to explain the amendment? You can reason and say [xx] wanted to be the criminal senator Brown or their are lawyer basically I think it's great [xx] for this [xx]. I think it's I'm a Civic man. I can only afford a Civic. Represented affair [xx] do you support the amendment? We support the amendment. Further discussion or debate on the amendment if non all in favor signify by saying aye,  Aye! All oppose no the ayes have it the amendment is adopted is there discussion or debate or a motion on the bill representative Stum. talked about the amendment before those, before I could [xx], it was better to do it before they're talking about it in the senate I've had committee work here committee that before the Jams How far along is the discussion on a potential amendment? I think this is identical bill Mr. Horn [xx] Representative Gracier. Just a comment when that

happens you are talking Question We got to talk on their amendment for potentally discussion section three [xx] issue That's what I thought You're recognized for a comment What strikes me is that no standard pretty just sitting, that this is not required of this is, and we got to know the [xx] we got to [xx] the intention to do it and it's not and knowingly is a pretty revised standard child [xx] is like [xx] we've got, and so I can't see change in that and I agree with you for tax, the franchise dealer doesn't know who has a especially now before they get the car or anything like that. But I think at the same tone if the other one putting it in, they kind of know they're doing it and I, those are the people they fail but I see this as a pretty tough [xx] and I I recognize you for quick response   [xx] Representative Miller is obviously covering the [xx] and I do really [xx] notice the difference [xx] our concern is this section bill hear the difference [xx] kind of situations [xx] this is [xx] I agree, but if it's okay we [xx] discuss [xx]. Okay, Mr. Horn do you have anything to add to that? I would certainly be willing to listen to whatever concern the franchise had about the bill and be reasonable about it we do however want to protect these [xx]. Thank you, is there a motion? If not I recognize Representative Faircloff to he is a member of the committee. I move a favorable report on the bill role into a PCS and referral. Representative Faircloff has moved that the amendment and the original bill be loaded to a new proposed committee substitute and that new proposed committee substitute be given a favourable report unfavourable to the original bill is there discussion or debate on that motion? If not all in favor say signify by saying aye "aye, " all oppose no the ayes have it and the PCS is given a favourable report thank you gentleman. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Next let's move to house 50 restore driving privileges and competency representative former battle field there is no PCS you are recognized to explain house bill 350 and representative [xx] you are helping her? Welcome to the committee. And representative Richardson. Thank you Mr. Chairman house bill 350 will require that the division of motor vehicles restore a person driving privileges upon notification from a click from a computer code that the person has have been adjudicated to be restored to [xx] the current law requires that when someone is legally declared incompetent act like a court. They have to know are the commissioner of division of motor vehicles, and the  commission of motor vehicle automatically we hope are licensed unless they have clear reasons and evidence to keep that licence [xx] with privileges and place and continue to drive safely. So our statute right now does not cover what happens when a person's right are restored. So some of the clerks have called in law suit definitely clerks couldn't have asked that we bring this bill forward. Do any of the other sponsor wish to add anything? Alright, she covered it well. Are there any questions on the bill? Representative Halley. I just wanted to make a comment as a [xx] for I declare the confidence for any reasonably on our own standard that their lines [xx], it' actually something when they offer somebody they could have been very confident [xx], or nay problems at any [xx] And this was work.  Are thee any questions from the committee? Or any comments from anybody in the audience?, if not our chair would love to entertain a motion. Representative Harley moves to

give house bill 350 a favorable report, is there discuss their debate on that motion. Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed no, the bill is given a favorable report, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Go to next. Next is house bill 376, several procedure modernize expert discovery, representative Jordan, Stan, Bishop, representative Bishop it looks like you're here to explain this bill, so you're recognized to explain house to there is a proposed committee substitute representative Ross is on in proposed committee substitute be brought before the committee for discusion all in favor of that motion say aah all opposing no, the aah have it the PCS is before the committee and representative Bishop is recognized to explain the PCS Thank you Mr. Chairman As many of you know the rules for civil procedure governing the conduct of civil law suits in our trial law courts in the states. they are modelled on and generally similar to rules of civil procedures in the federal courts and North Carolina Bar Association allegation section has brought forward this proposed change to rule 26 which generally governs discovery. Now discovery is obtaining information about adverse party case and advance of trial and specifically this bill modify how the discovery cause as to expert witnesses and some opinion to lender a trial. It would adapt some aspect of the federal rule 26 that was amended in 1993 specifically the way it works now or with the default rule how is that, adverse parties may have to answer or have to answer four inauguratories about experts who'll testify and you don't really get a hold of information but the federal rule requires experts that are going to testify to render a report themselves to produce a written report that is provided to the other side this modification would not require that procedure as the federal court does but it would allow the parties to opt to use the procedure to have a written expert report as opposed to just using the default inauguratories. It also would permit ordinary in the cause a party to take the deposition of an adverse party's expert as opposed to having to get an order of court to do that, and it also governs how the cost of that would be borne, it sets a deadline if parties opt to use this procedure of having providing a report and it set a deadline advance of trial by which both reports have to be furnished. It also codifies and define the rule that if you hire and [xx] to consult with you but do not intend to use that extra testify trial whether or not and you do not have to generally identify or to disclose that expert opinions and so it say st forth and some more detail those are possibly the changes of the rule makes to [xx] on the bill make to rule 26 the PCS does one of the thing there it was I thin a late developing concern was a family lawyers that says that in this recording those cases is necessarily amendable and is 90 day in advance for trial disclose deadline and so there is adjustment made on that the party if the party does not have atleast 120 days notice of what their trial date will be in that deadline does not apply. Those are the main aspect of bill and recommend it very much thank you Are there any questions for the committee for the sponsor of the staff? Representative McGredy [xx] Motion to [xx] At the appropriate and Miss Clause you want to address the committee? Thank you very much Representative Torbit answer the you are adopted we can say. Representative McGrady you are recognized fort the motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman to do this is also we be adapted and our motion is to give a favorable report to the proposed committee substitute on house bill 376 that will Representative McGrady moves that we give the proposed committee substitute for house bill 376 a favorable report in favorable to the original bill we discuss the debate on that motion, hearing none all in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye, all oppose no the ayes have it, the PCS will give in favorable report thank you Representative Bishop next we have Representative Dobson in here we will move to house bill 435 the Mackdowel back firing from road.

Representative Dobson is recognize to explain the Bill Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I hope on this I'll be brief, this is a local Bill where Howii 105 in my District mostly in Daunty[sp?] county but also in Bowed[sp?] county and as strangers may seem, it does seem to be legal to discharge the firm own request for the road, and we are just trying to prevent that on highway 105 Any question from the committee? Hear your motion Representative Macgreged. I move to give a favorable House Bill 435. Representative Macgred has moved to Bill 435 a favorable report we should discus the debate on that motion, hearing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, Aye  all oppose say no, the ayes have it, the Bill is given a favor report. Thank you Mr Chairman, Thank you Members. Welcome Thank you. Next let's to move to house Bill 383, core files[sp?] statutory schemes sex offenses there is no PCS but I have a chart of full members that will make a copy of the [xx]. Representative Glazier your recognize to explain the bill there is no PCS there is a technical amendment which we can do it the end if you prefer which is a better idea Just go ahead Representative Glazier moves the bill be amendment on page 12 line 15 by the leading section 16 inserting section 47 and I'm 12 line 18 by rewriting the line to read Section 48. This act becomes a effective October 1st, 2015 and applies to offences honor after that date. Prosecution forward. [xx]. And applies to offences committed on or after that date. Representative Blaise removes adoption of the amendment. Do you recognize?  Thank you Mr. Chair. There are technical changes to simply section numbers essentially, no change to substance that I'm aware of. Is there any discussion or debate on the proposed amendment? Hearing none all in favor signify by saying aye, Aye!.  All opposed no, the aye's have it. The amendment is adopted. Representative Rachel do you recognize to explain the bill. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. This is actually a an important bill but not a substantive one if you can put that combination together. The Court of appeal in February of this year issued an opinion on a case called and stable for this a hakes and at the end of that opinion we have to dismiss part of the sex offender adornment and indicated which agreed with frequency unfortunately because we have piece mealed together all of our sexual crimes statues and have not sort of of had a competence revision The renumbering and the titling of them have become at best to read and to use, and so we're having in effect indictments having to be dismissed because someone put the wrong statute number in with a subsection or the wrong title, and the court said and you have it in your copy that with the frequency bears we strongly urge the general assembly to reorganize rename and offence the various sex offence at you so this change is none of the substance but we asked Staff Emily Johnson and then Susan Sites did great work in putting this together and redoing this in a way that makes it much more user friendly should result in not having endictment dismiss for technicalities on big cases we sent it to the attorney conference their in full agreement with it we sent it to the academy advocate for justice they have no opposition to it and so no opposition to what I hope would be a much better statutory scheme and provide a little bit fair justice for our victim in this state as well as the use of that. Another question from members of the committee.  Is their anyone here from the public who wishes to address the committee on this bill if not Attain a motion Representative McGrady.  Just to say I admire Rep. Glazier's work on this it continues to prove that we pay a lot of attention to things we all pay attention to but we don't often and I really do my motion standing is to give a favorable report to house bill 383 as amended roll that in to and of any PCS.  Representative McGrady has moved that the amendment be rolled into to a new

PCS that that PCS be given a favorable report unfavorable is to the original bill is their discussion about on that motion, hearing none all in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye, Aye!  All oppose say no, the new PCS is given a favorable report Representative Glazier thank you, you might want to step here next, grab my other file, we are going to move to house bill 3 397 is the PCS Representative Faircloth moves that the PCS for 397 be brought before the committee for discussion purposes all in favor The motion signify by saying aye,  Aye!.  All opposed no, the motion is adopted. The PCS is before the committee and representative Blaiser is recognized to to explain the PCS on house bill 397. Thank you very much. And there is a proposed amendment.  Good night  Probably wait while we get to. Okay. Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair, thank you members if you were a member last year senator Birhinghm has a bill that came on and we also have a bill that Representative Stern and others that have won to create a protection and the protection for the exportation of our senior staff including the ability to freeze their assets after they were getting ready to dispose of the after they scam seniors out of a lot of money, which we hadn't heard. That bill was passed I think unanimously in both houses became low, the prosecutors after a year of working with it looked at it and said we've got to put in some other procedures to deal with some of the logistics and technicalities of this is our best shot and with great assistance almost complete assistance from the DA's conference in I really want to thank Tim Smith and Pegg Doyle who really worked on this and to Wander Foster in our stuff because this is not easy stuff the combined sort of work on real property as well as criminal law. I don't want to say we have the perfect but we have it I think well enough to bring to you to take through this house and we'll have some time to work on the final sort of loose pendants lying lose and a few other things in the senate, here's what it does. The summary does a pretty good job of explaining to you, but essentially it allows or directs the following provisions, it direct state and local law enforcement agencies on how they are to serve the order to freeze assets and how that process should go about. It requires any personal property be siezed to be recorded and retained and sets out specific procedures for doing that as it relates both to personal property and as it relates to real property. It's specifies how the frozen and seized assets would then be handled to satisfy restitution and makes it very clear that the purpose of this first and foremost of these freezed is to try to satisfy senior victims who've been scammed and giving them some restitution from the sale or use of those assets. Section last subsection really provides that any fees and monies that are due to State or county agency aren't waived and they're recoverable in the final disposition. Section 2 adds additional language on asset freezing and seizure, and if you look at the bill as well there you'll see that Section 3 deals with how we deal with sort of providing a lease penance to freeze assets, that's the section in part where, and there's another section of the bill that still needs a little bit of work, we just haven't been able to put all that together in the full way, but I want to tell you that it is certainly the intent to get it done in the next few weeks over in the Senate to make sure that we're not violating any procedure. I've had NCAJ look at this they have no objection, the DA's Conference is on board, and I know of no opposition whatsoever to the bill. Want to go ahead and take up the amendment? Yes. Representative Glazier has moved to amend the bill on page 3, lines 41-42. Do members have copies? Okay, do you have copies? Representative Blaise you are recognized to explain the amendment Thank you Mr. Chair, and this deals with the fees issue. It's really was sort of in two places in the bill, this is was one place, this is to make sure that actually when we're looking at the fees section, that the people who are using it, the clerks offices for example actually know it without having to look at other portions of the statute to see it. So in a sense it's a little redundant but it's a good redundancy so everybody knows how they're handling the fee aspect. Is there discussion or debate on the proposed amendment, hearing none all in favor of the amendment signify by saying Aye, Aye. All opposed no, the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. Are there questions from the committee on the bill? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak in support or opposition to the bill? If not, the Chair would like to entertain a motion, Representative Michelle. No favor to report Representative Michelle] has moved That the amendment be brought rolled in to a new proposed committee substitute. You heard the motion, all in

favor of the motion - is there discuss there debate on the motion. If not all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye Aye  All opposed NO. The aye's have it, the PCS is adopted. Our bill for today is somewhat controversial so lets move to house bill 405, property protection act, there is a PCS. Representative Stam moves that the PCS for house bill 405 be brought before the committee for discussion, all in favor signify by saying aye! All opposed NO. The PCS is before the committee and representative Szoka is recognized together representative Whitmire.  Thank you Mr. Chair property protection is a serious issue that North Carolina companies of all sizes and industries face on a daily basis, as you know property can take on any forms, patient records, patient records, financial information, consumer data, merchandise, patents in intellectual property. Currently, North Carolina is property protection laws for businesses as well as the privacy of customers at serious risk. North Carolina employers need stronger measures to protect their data and merchandise against corporate espionage, organised retail theft and internal data breaches, this act puts greater protection in place to safeguard business property from ample access and provide appropriate recourse against individuals that engage in unauthorized activities in non public areas. Mr. Chair, I'd ask that you recognize representative Glazier he has a friendly amendment? Representative Glazier let's go ahead and take care of your amendment. Is it up here I thought I saw it earlier.  Yes we have got. Copies are being given out Representative Glacier moves to amendment bill on page 211 it's amendment H45-ARN-12 version four. Representative Glacier you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair there are really three parts to the amendment, the first two are one part, and there is two changes on page two and further, to agree to the exceptions here actually nearing each other which says of the valid things was the second exception, an employee who potentially enters a non public area for reasons other than [xx] or seeking employment, or doing holding employment, and thereafter records images without authorization, and then uses the images to breech the person to the that's the major exception that the dealing up here this typing that language and also has the ear the invitation that is really three on that on the first exception. The second limitation or second change on the amendment and could be explaining slight change to this where it says damages could be sort of everything so this is to make sure is about potentically damages upper standard federal law outside are the other things that are listed in remedies of the bill. The fourth section is actually to typing or to the innocent robbed, the whistleblower protection, the interpretive [xx] was if you're legitimately whistle-blowing it should be retaliated against or should you be suable under the act. It wasn't quit so clear about the non suable festicall this this does says if you are legitimate only under admissible action[sp?]. Now only can't you be retaliated against but you can't be sued under this IP that provision explicit booth that [xx] Representative Szoka would you like to address the amendment? I thank representative Grazier for his improvement so I support the amendment as to go yes. I know there is opposition bill issues bill does this amendment to those in opposition support this amendment and with that go towards your opposition to the bill I think let's see my name is Cathy Walker and I came here so that it is approved else and appreciate what Representative Stern, Representative Wales and the state excel great unanimously about the intention so describe the whistle about that, So I get back to you then. I just wondered if that might help meet some of your objections but we'll certainly let you voice your objections to the bill in just a minute. Yes? Thank you [xx] actually purchase center that represent the reality time vote of May 30 for on this day the amendment that the whistleblower statute itself, it's momental if you look at the scope of whistleblower protection, it deals with certain it's very limited in what it addresses.

Now that the [xx] will allow an employer to sue [xx] to uncover [xx] legal action. OK, so we'll get back, I just wanted you to address the amendment If you would get back to the bill is there further discussion or debate on the proposed amendment representative Reefs. Thank you Mr chair I thought it would be personally but I felt the responsibility to appreciate what you know because nearly the and I've got balance in my vision to my site so the issue was, it seems like the press was so I can handle your question. Representative Glazier you may respond. I think that here and I would think the promise to build would say this amendments could have been and it creates better with some kind of protection that we have, but I would agree protection that's deeper than the and so we can talk about that  as it relates to the amendment, I think it has to be reservoir of protection now to deal with this [xx] in combination with the Women and Exemptions [xx] bill [xx] because this has been talked about it a gag Bill it is not a gag Bill. It was a Bill introduced last session that that I was very [xx] that I could win that tittle this is not that bill and I think people have worked very, very hard on iit and get to the substance of the Bill [xx] what I believe the limitations are [xx] exemptions [xx] but I [xx] sort of this whistle blower. I think this creates pretty significant protection from anybody in combination with the exemption whose in their job legitimate the season when you like to, the reports of where you be, who is otherwise doing what we would like to be doing to a public interest point of you, I believe the combination of these things to protect [xx] [xx] you are recognize Thank you Mr. Chair. And so in your opinion, this amendment will allow that person not to be sued giving him better protection than it would have just in the normal [xx]? Certainly he has better protection but again I want to highlight it. You can't read the whistle blower section without reading in the context of the exception sections, [xx] if you look at number two, which is the way to read it and is very this is a principle to talk about this in price there [xx] an employee first of all who intentions so the office of the bill can be added in amends a tough amends [xx] who intentionally enters the non public areas of an employers premises for a reason other than a [xx] intent of seeking or holding an appointment. So anybody who's doing their job [xx] that happens to see the [xx] conduct [xx] already protected without ever getting to the whistle blower section the bill [xx] by a lot of people, that those people are alreadyprotected so the whistle blower even though is sort of a government triple protection in some cases, but I think you have to be at least there yet. Further questions or further from the committee on the amendment, hearing none all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye Aye, all opposed no the amendment is adopted, representative Stam. I have an amendment I'd like to offer Alright, rep [xx] Stam moves to amend bill on page two line 20. Do we have copies or do I need to read. By inserting between damages and in the following phase as otherwise allow the state on for several law [xx] you recognize to explain the proposed amendment. First [xx] say for example this is really a [xx] example. You get other laws of Federal State constitutional the [xx] people that needs to do to remind people that have to follow those [xx] with Representative Szoka would you like to Representative Stam thank you for that amendment, I think it adds some more clarification, thank you, and I'd asked for your support in this amendment Further discussion or debate on the Stam Amendment? Hearing none all in favour

signify by saying 'aye', Aye all opposed 'no', the Stam Amendment is adopted, we're back on the bill let's go ahead now and hear from the public, some have indicated that they would like to address this bill, Mr. Mark Prak of Brooks Pierce if you'd like to stand there or come up here, whichever you prefer. Stand here Mr. Chairman. My name's Mark Precc I'm a lawyer here in Raly I represent the North Carolina Association of broadcasters North Carolina press association for my friend John [xx], he's not available. We're opposed to the bill I guess in the spirit you know there's the speech you write, the speech you'd give and the speech you wish you given, in the spirit of listening to Representative Glacier's and Representative Stan's amendments. I would say that 9982 of the bill is where my folk's problems lie, there are some serious first amendment vagueness problems with the bill even as amended, I would say one of the reasons you are all here is not to pass that bill and one things about thit bill is it puts statutory steroids into an area that's already covered by the law and for which they're already remedies and my concern about supplementing the common law in that way is that least in the area where I come into contact with problems of this nature and I certainly don't have any problem with the concerns that we're expressed by representative Stroke I think those are all valid concerns and don't have heart burn about that but at least with respect to my this bill has taken sledge hammer by now  when you start talking about pin of  damages against people for doing their jobs and what my folks jobs are to do is to talk to sometime about illegal behavior sometimes the illegal behavior occurs on the location which is somebody private property and few tried to sapless the discussion of the illegal behavior sorry because explored somebody private property on that and this bill in my judgement doesn't yet contain a provision that would put my folks in a position not having to defend federal losses or losses primary contemplated by decision of Stronghold of United States of which we all understand apply probably the best want ot start bad versus  robely where somebody violated the loyal statue two people are unable to spirit the school board than the say why don't we just kill that guy the tape over the transit to the folks of the radio station, they play it, in violation of federal loyal statue they play it on the air so people can talk about it what it means to the debate of that public issue. Supreme court of the United State states no liability so taking a lesson and a cue from Representative Sam I would suggest to you that if you want to pass this and do it in a way that's protective of everyone's constitutional rights, federal and state, cause we have a state constitution that mirrors the first amendment, we need something that says nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish the protection to provide adult person by the first amendment to United State constitution in article one section 14 I believe it is of the North Carolina constitution or I suppose you can say Representative Stan, federal or state constitution, either way. But I think that will go a long way towards addressing the constitution turned that my clients had, because if I were to go back and take more time than you want to take right now in committee and pass the statute, there are statutory terms that are vague when apply to my guys who are just doing there jobs. I think representative Glazier would like to ask a question on that matter. Senator Glension. Right. Your recognize. this is the statute you have to [xx] the statutory interpretation to a rule, that you read a statute to be consistent with the constitution where possible unless I was moving to the statue to get rather so I think as I have said other than attract this is interesting to have that but also is to put in if when we have to put that in front of every statute, since the devolved the provision on the constitution where there's a way to read the statute that might be unconstitutional [xx] constitutional in the statutory provision the court must [xx] it must be true to be the constitution Well I would agree with your premise, I would tell

you that as a lawyer practicing in the courts in the state courts of North Carolina allowing esoteric questions of statutory construction and federal constitutional harmonization with state statutes. Goes better with the superior court judge when they understand that argument because it's in the statute and here given the exemptions or the clarifications in E, F and G and the way in which this takes kind of instead of doing surgery with a scalpel as applied with my guy and my folks were using a meat cleaver[sp?] here my suggestion would be that the bill would be improved by including that signal to superior court and other judges as lower courts to make sure that they understand how it works. Follow up. Follow up question [xx] on your comments. If it was a premise particularly as relates to subsection two which is where the issue is [xx] and if there was some With the protections provided in the first amendment of United States Constitution in article one section 14, and then the rest of it would accept the bill.  We'd feel a whole lot better about it, I mean right now we can't help but feel not withstanding people's suggestions that this is not idea revisited. I don't recall a large amount of behavior giving rise to the need for injunctive relief, exemplary damages and all kinds of other 2000 of people are trying it we are down here the specific situation in the law it will go a long way towards causing us to say and a woman I would like to believe with it. All say will favor it and I think I say there will be fair but I say we will engage in a process to get to a point where no job in trying to make the bill go. Representative Jyson do you have a question?. Alright.  Representative Stern Rule out the way end there. Mine is just to recognize state in several state Thank you all. Yeah, I just try to understand start with, will be over last this is the actor there is all we are talking nothing except 15 years fold was advancing. Second way from revolution. Back in 1970 back and always subject to the back shift they produce this one commitment because I was trying to, for this does not to preserve, tom proceed over rules and few advantages over law.  I do understand the point what I was saying in response to is this, while it's true that concerning statue together we have to harmonize them to get to the entire of the legislature. Here I would tell you that because we're dealing with constitutionally protected behavior and the law on its face is going to, I'm going to tell you it has a great potential for mischief in the area where my folks are affected and we all ought to be concerned about that. I would tell you that the reason to do it is the same reason we have a statute that this group passed, notwithstanding what you say being true, to signal to our State judges not to blow through a constitution issue that they don't deal with everyday. So I would suggest to you that it would be the better course in this bill, not in every bill but in this bill, to have such a provision and at the end you've got several of them which are going to alert the judge to his interpretive facts. Representative McGrady. Alerting the judge interpretive task by referencing a specific statute makes a lot of sense to me. Alerting a judge that he needs to make sure it's unconstitutional or it's constitutional it's silly from where I stand, and it just goes down a road that if we do it here then you all stand to do it everywhere should you keep acting into these issues. So I guess even though I'd hoped that if gain your support for the bill or to put that on your neutrality on the bill by adding such a phrase it doesn't do anything and it creates a precedent that I think we're going to have to do that every bill if we have to go down this road. Representative Glazier. Mr. Chair, with your indulgence [xx] I was just asking a question and

for you to ask every member and maybe the sponsors for the record, is there anybody, ever wondered if any member of the committee or for any sponsor will disagree that this bill should be read by anyone as consistence with the first amendment under article one's protection. For the record I feel comfortable that everybody in a bad provides some legislated history in the minutes of committee that the committee is not, is looking at this as a bill that nature has to be read consistently with the constitution.  With the sponsors indicate they agree with that I'm not sure how to put this in the record, I guess we should just note maybe in the minutes that we considered the harmony of this with the the constitution particularly the first amendment, and fully would want anyone, any judge or court the court room trying to harmonize this under specific legal dispute of specific case to consider the constitutionality in In that particular situation, I don't if that upsets very  or not The only thing that I was saying on our [xx] represents this stamp representative grace obviously, it's the job of each of you. You [xx] else To try to solve these problems and we're looking to deal with constitutionality of any legislature task. I take that point. What I'm saying to you, is that this bill because of it's subject matter and because it creates a statutory right of action to bring an action for damages and injunctive relief and the like, that it would be a superior job of legislating to put on the face of it that exclusion so that you flag it for the judges who can be expected to address it, and for council and the clients and the likes, that's all I'm saying. Representative Stam on this matter? Yes, [xx] report is amended making a committee substitute Well hold that for now, there's still some others who really want to address the committee on this and I am glad we we got to this at a time when we have some time as a committee because I think that is important. Miss Waterman I'd kind of cut you off and limited you to the amendment, would you like to address the committee on the bill? Yes, I'd be happy to. Alright, there or up here whichever you prefer. Well thank you again for the opportunity to speak twice on this bill, again Chloe Waterman with American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and with all due respect we do absolutely consider this an ad gag bill in the truest sense of the term, in that it's a fact would be suppress whistle blower investigations on agricultural operations of course among many other perhaps in private industry property we are supportive of these whistle blower investigations because of the public good that they produce. They have led hear in North Carolina to felony animal cruelty conviction and the exposure of food safety violations. In California there was a case in 2008 hallmark firms that led to the largest beef recall 143 million pounds of beef some of which that was destined for school lunch programs. How Has been in place in California even with the limited whistle blower protection provided by Representative's Cresel proposed amendment and what's already in the bill and that investigator would have been sued and at the damages would have been essentially automatic that the would have incurring almost guarantee these ruplilacative damages, and the very narrow west brook protections will not be enough to protect the whistle brook cases even when what they are exposing is truthful information we support the right of businesses to be protected from damaging and false information, and from the exposure of trade secret and we support their ability to sue for definition in those cases and recover damages, but the problem that the industry is supporting this registration have is that the photographic and video evidence that will be suppressed on section two here depicts the truth and in stead of trying to deter this with role investigation in the first place the industry should focus on changing their practices and bring inline with the law but what is required by law and which the public considers to be human so we really believe this is [xx] that the fundamental legal principal of liability

it radically depart from how the existing law treats [xx] exposing truthful information, we think will undermine consumer confidence in agriculture among the other industries that would be impacted by this bill. And it would protect criminals essentially at the expense of animal welfare workers and the public as a whole, so I think the inclusion that we do sincerely appreciate the committees efforts and approve upon this bill but I think the intent of the bill is something that we are fundamentally opposed to and we would urge that committee to give an unfavorable report Representative Mitchel I want to ask is there any middle ground [xx] Not so lie as and so Preston this photograph in video evidence if there were restricted to truly address trade secretes being exposed than we are not impact this [xx] investigation exposing cruelty then we would pull off the bill. Miss Perkinson, did you want to address the committee again? Thank you. Okay thank you we also have Genele [xx] with, Okay, Hi my name is Judeo [xx] and I'm not generation family former raising harsh a bit price tag on poultry and have over 300 acres on farm that have been my family since 1746 in Green County near Snow Hill. I'm here to voice my strong opposition to House Bill 405 even as amended. I now oppose it as a farmer of coordinator of the Socially Responsible Agricultural Project, a member of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association and as a tax paying citizen at the state, this they will intimidate and sound those who will courageously speak out about dangerous practices occurring behind closed doors on any North Carolina businesses, including irresponsible for us which have the potential to endanger animal welfare or fish life in our states natural resources. I strongly oppose this bill because those of us who engage It's sustainable farming, have nothing to hide. We know that happy healthy lifestyle means safe half quality meat and eggs. we are proud of the animals we raise and are eager to show them off by taking photos using social media forms to show what happening on our farms, housing farm tour in encouraging our workers and visitors to take photos themselves. When I took agriculture classes and within FAA in the 1980s, we were told it is important to know each of our livestock, to ensure their health, and we we trained that the [xx] for animal welfare should be fundamental on our farms. These we imported traits of good animal husbandry, most modern day industrial livestock have tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of animals confined in factory like buildings for the entirety of their lives. A work environment that has little respect for livestock of individual animals can easily lead to animal cruelty as was revealed by multiple investigations on North Carolina farms over the a few years. As hard as those videos are to watch, I applaud those who reveal the truth so that we can correct bad practices and ensure the safety of the food we feed our families farmers are the backbone of the country, and we should be doing everything we can to protect them. The consumers, but this field does not achieve that, instead it makes itself a lot what we have something to hide, the consumers that I speak everyday, are concerned about how their food is produced, they want to see where it comes from this an opportunity for North Carolina, our food supply is safer and our environment is healthier, where consumers can buy transparent, responsible local farmers, when we support these family farmers we are supporting sustainable development. This Bill would [xx] North Carolina family farmers who for working hard to do things the right way, the dangers frankly shown in these videos fails to achieve the foods from industrial farms, creating a possible competition for smaller North Carolina farmers. This bill is not about protecting farmers, it's about pagging the profits of multinational corporations. expense of the health and the welfare of livestock and consumers. It's time for you, and all our public officials to stand up for North Carolinians instead of corporations. HB 4 and 5 needs to be stopped now to protect our animals, our food supplies, our families and the trustworthy reputation of our North Carolina businesses, including farmers. Thank you, thank you. Is there anybody else who ought to represent Glazier okay let's

hold it now, I'll let there be response just a minute. Is there anyone else who wanted to address the committee to work on on this bill? If not I I'd like to let the sponsors respond to what we heard. Thank you. Representative Socker. Thank you Mr. Chair, when we undertook this bill we needed it there would be high passion and high feelings on both sides, I understand that. I've personally reached out to the representatives to the people who've spoken today asking for their input. For the input that was given we gave I think due consideration to it. We've had two good amendments today to tighten the bill up to focus on what it really is. I don't think that the two sides of these are ever going to agree on this bill no matter what we're doing I think we've heard that from the gentleman who spoke earlier. This bill is not about suppressing the press, it's not about that at all. It doesn't single out the press and it governs everyone's actions in North Carolina it's not picking on any particular group, and bills like these there's a place where you have to find the balance. I believe the way you found the appropriate balance here there's people on both sides who aren't happy with the bill. I will tell you that right now, I think the bill is as balanced as it possibly can be and ask for the committee to vote yes. Representative Witmayer. representative [xx] certainly presented with the bill well I appreciate the multiple impact to make this bill better from most of you and the question that was posed earlier regarding basically about the constitution first amendment I will go to the record and say absolutely thank you Chairman Jordan you are principle part on this you recognize   Yes thank you I signed on this because our favor in protecting private property our [xx] indurstry and I cant just image someone pretending who is someone who want to be an employee coming in to the organisation and causing all sort of strikes and problems in the back sections of a restaurant and I don't think that's fair to our small business men our small restaurant business tour who have these things that are going on, this is not a whileblower statute these are people who are pretending to employees this is like the food line case they are out looking for something problem they are I guess they are being disloyal to their rights to that employer and I agree with the forth circuit about the media the media four circuit said that they din't believe that applying this laws these trespass which is what we are dealing with against the media we have more than an incidental effect on news gathering and are convinced the media can do it's important job effectively without result to the commission of runner the mill touch so that's why I assigned dollars if this were an add gag though I would not be anywhere near it. I'm in it protection of private property and our small business against people who are knowingly and going in and subterfuge to bring problems and strife and cause embarrassment and who knows what kind of negative aspects. Rep. Glazier. Thank you Mr. Chair I first I agree with very mush to comment [xx] made Representative Jordan but I believe that in order to understand the bill you got to, you read the texts is what bill people saw before it's not what they think it is it's what the words are and I really think it's important for the story to get right about what the words are here because they have been very limited carefully confined and I agree first with Rep. Jordan it consists of the first amendment as it must be this is very consistent in the push of it's food line in anyway shape or form but I want want you to look if you would at the exceptions this covers only five sets of codes VMV found to be in this violation of this stature the first set of code is the employee enters an area [xx] pharmacists for some reason other than the [xx] example seeking of holding it while you're business. And thereafter there's one thing. Without the consent of the owner he steals, he practically steals the employers data, capable records or other documents, and uses them to breach his duty of loyalty to the employer. I can't imagine anyone who wrote disagrees with someone documents ought to be under the bill. The third, no skip the second and come back, the third is to know when your intention an unattended camera or device taking something under the table. Well, none of the images that

we've talked about even in the investigations that were done by prime time were done by press. whereby sticking an unintended camera in most places and it is maybe someone who has it on their body, is moving with it so this is someone who actually is bugging someone's that's what this is getting at to the top. And again, I can't imagine any of us think that we don't live in a safe society one where we can trust each other. We ought to be business. All this to be inspired of organized retail theft and again I don't see any opposition to that provision is an act an, and this is an amendment, it's not one that just interferes [xx] you have to violate this substantially and if you read the bill that is really bad stuff, that is not good. I'm taking a picture of the pharmacist, it's not going there for even an illegal reason, you've got to earn the ownership. so the only sentence that's really causing any concern to you the [xx] whistle blow [xx] is the is the phrase number two. Here's the only person it applies to, an employee. First of all, it's an employee, it's not someone who comes on who's not, it's an employee. Protection matters [xx] for a reason other than a boner party [xx] holding employment, and then without their consent, the forced images on the premises, and then uses those to breach a person's duty of loyalty. And it's not to try and molding those very illegal the law enforcement official. This is someone who went in and falsely, [xx] got a job, is in there for sole purpose essentially, of getting that stuff on an employer however long  it takes, and then using it to breach the juniors under him, is that person covered? Yes. And will that affect a few people? Yes legitimate investigation that's the jury, undercover investigation that's the Jury, are not under listed this is not the right guy, this is legitimate Representative Louis said property rates in that very specific context not having someone [xx] to be mindful that I'm paying for them to do one thing and that is on the business by recording information and we ought to be protected in to that. I'm in favor in this Bill because I think all business necessary a good job after find this dealt with various specific substantial and it's a substantial of the balance of good an eagle the balance of good and bad to me weighs more in favor of ood than it does a few of the investigations undercover Representative Queen. Not in order, constitutional order here are [xx] well with all kinds of situation with the animals and all kinds of business there on that matters and over pending records something like that might be stole and given to provide the investigative for I guess substitute over public to find out you compare your records so I'm just thinking of an ordinary boy doing their job and they, and they carry one of these takes a pictures, takes videos and they see something that is going on wrong, they're not, they're not trying to undermine the job reports stuff they go and tell their supervisor or their boss we all fix this. And they do these things, and they have them on their phone, they wouldn't be breaking this law and that they could share that with somebody or officer. Are you asking Representative Blaise to yield for a question? Yes Representative Glaizer do you yield? I yield and I think it's a really great question that [xx] the answer is no and it goes back to the [xx] you don't come, and you don't during job so that when they tape something illegal they [xx] so they are absolutely not covered under this act [xx] Representative Mishow[sp?]. [xx] Who are you directing the question to? Representative Representative Glaizer do you yield? Would you like to be? aspect today. None of this affect the undercover operations. I think the only undercover operations is the person who goes there and undercover coapacity gets implored essentially over in my

view and and is and that's the deception if they do that and then they are taking images or whatever and they do you have a follow-up for representative Gracier? I am looking at investigations gets employed by the organisation service there is at that something is going wrong there and that  their job and I think it's better to let me be clear with the first if there's a government. Second of it if they go in and they are reduced to that point but they have to study back with the bill the exercise they need to provide information to  employee, the only person who's not is the one who goes in and again they believe that's not the proper work to be done adopted the number of bills that are brought forward are to take away with that, they don't cover but I keep a way maybe in the the bills say. The whistle blower protection also applies to anybody who uncovers federal or state criminal activity instructed over to federal record one that is adopted itself that have done something schedule. That have sponsored that one and exactly Representative Macgregor? Representative Marshel do you have another question? I just wonder why you can do that right now, some of us would Representative Glacier, do you yield, [xx] I happen to put you out [xx] Representative McGrady then the chair would entertain a motion since representative Stam What I was going to do at the end Rep. Stam isn't here to make his, You are recognized for a motion. But I want to comment first catalyzing and then much is a just a, I inquire the bill much broader than Agriculture in fact I came here I have gotten I focused on agribusness that's what I would have called it I haven't yet and record the amendment, the first speaker made the point that for the personal information, well  people information doesn't from property warrants. It gets worse and policeman goes to try to find crucial information. That for me, I mean the argument here if I was on this bill coming and to the committee hearing I now don't do this type of radical, I don't believe we got into protection for Representative Brady the full time phase and particularly the amendment for Representative Blaise that will address the issues and so I'm actually Mr. Chairman is to give a favorable report to the proposed committee substitute as amended, roll that into a new committee substitute unfavourable as to the original bill. Representative McGrady has proposed that the amendments be rolled into a new committee substitute and that, that new committee substitute be given a favourable report unfavourable as to the original bill is there discussion or debate on that motion Representative or Chairman Jordan? I just have one final comment on it and Representative Marshall made it come to my mind all of these investigations where someone goes in as a patient or a customer or something like that to uncover to eradicate fraud or find a provider is doing something that he is not supposed to be doing. At least recommending some fraudulent way to abscond, medicate or something, none of that anywhere near this bill so, all those investigations that are over here no way that they address jurisdiction of this bill. So, there are still plenty of investigations by individual or these gathering groups or to the governmental groups it was wide open for those. Further discussion or debate on the motion hearing none all in favor signify by saying aye Aye all oppose no, no the aye's seem to have it the aye's do have it the PCS has given a favorable report one more bit of business I think we will have another meeting tomorrow we appreciate your patience it's a long week cross over

one o'clock is the plan tomorrow that's to be determined, it's still to be determines to watch your emails and listen on the floor for announcements the meeting is adjourned out.