Legislative Update - April 1, 2021
This week (3/29 – 4/2), the House of Representatives kept its efforts focused primarily on perfecting and adopting the appropriations bills that make up the state’s operating budget. Debate between the two sides of the aisle on funding for Medicaid expansion, as approved in the 2020 constitutional amendment, was extremely intense. Ultimately, the House did not include funding for Medicaid expansion in its version of the budget. Despite the opening day of baseball season, the Senate remained in session later than normal, through Thursday afternoon, as members tied up confirmation of a gubernatorial nominee to the University of Missouri Board of Curators. After three hours, the report on the nominee from the Gubernatorial Appointments Committee was withdrawn, and the Senate adjourned for a long weekend.
To identify bills of interest in your practice area and see the latest legislative action on them, visit The Missouri Bar’s Legislative Engagement Center.
SENATE
Senate Floor Action
For a complete list of bills approved by the Senate and delivered to the House for consideration, click here.
Highlights of Floor Action:
The Senate adopted SS SCS SBs 53 & 60, sponsored by Senator Luetkemeyer, sent it to the House. SBs 54 & 60 include provisions to address residency requirements for Kansas City law enforcement officers and ban choke holds. The bill was debated on Monday, and senators offered numerous amendments, including provisions regulating the sexual behavior of law enforcement officers while on duty and providing criminal penalties for posting personal information about law enforcement officers on-line.
Senate Committee Action
The Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee met on March 29, 2021, and held public hearings on the following bills:
SB 415 – Senator Holly Rehder (R – Sikeston)
SB 415 would amend 455.040, RSMo, to specify that, upon motion by the petitioner and hearing by the court, an order of protection may be renewed up to a period of time not to exceed the lifetime of the respondent, as opposed to not more than one year.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Lisa Sailor
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Jennifer Carter Dochler - Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (MCADSV)
Janice Thompson-Gehrke
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition
Arnie C. AC Dienoff
SB – 440 – Senator Barbara Washington (D – Kansas City)
SB 440 would amend chapter 211, RSMo, by adding one new section (211.072). The bill would provide that juveniles, under the age of 18, certified to stand trial as adults, would remain in juvenile detention if currently placed in a secure juvenile detention, pending finalization of the judgment and completion of appeal, if any, dismissing the juvenile petition to allow for prosecution under the general law, unless otherwise ordered by the juvenile court.
Upon any final judgment on appeal of the petition to dismiss prosecution of a juvenile under the general laws, and adult charges filed, a juvenile currently in juvenile detention would remain in detention unless he or she posted bond or was transferred to an adult jail.
Additionally, if the juvenile officer did not believe detention in a secure juvenile detention facility would be an appropriate placement or would continue to serve as an appropriate placement, the juvenile officer could file a motion in the adult criminal case, requesting the juvenile be transferred from juvenile detention to jail. The court would hear evidence relating to the appropriateness of the juvenile remaining in juvenile detention or being transferred to an adult jail. At the hearing, the juvenile, his or her parents and counsel, the prosecuting attorney, and others would have the opportunity to present evidence and recommendations.
Following the hearing, the court could order that the juvenile continue to be held in a secure juvenile detention facility or that the pre-trial certified juvenile be held in an adult jail. The court could do so only after making findings that it would be in the best interest of justice to move the pre-trial certified juvenile to an adult jail based on weighing factors including the certified juvenile’s (1) age; (2) physical and mental maturity; (3) present mental state, and (4) history of delinquency. The court also would consider (5) the nature and circumstances of the charges; (6) the relative ability of the available adult and juvenile facilities to both meet the needs of the certified juvenile and protect the public and other youth in their custody; and (7) the opinion of the juvenile officer as to the ability of that juvenile detention facility to provide for appropriate care, custody, and control of the pre-trial certified juvenile.
If the court found that it is in the best interest of justice to require the certified juvenile to be held in an adult jail, it must hold a hearing once every 30 days to determine whether such placement remains in the best interest of justice. However, a juvenile could not be held in an adult jail for more than 180 days unless the court finds an extension is necessary or the juvenile waives the 180-day maximum.
All previously certified, pre-trial juveniles, under the age of 18, certified prior to August 28, 2021, would be transferred from adult jail to a secure juvenile detention facility, unless during a hearing the court found it would be in the best interest of justice to keep the juvenile in the adult jail. All certified juveniles held in adult jails would continue to be subject to the protections of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and physically separated from adult inmates.
If the certified juvenile remained in juvenile detention, the juvenile officer could file a motion to reconsider placement and the court would hold a hearing, after which it could amend its earlier order, in light of the evidence and arguments presented, if it found that it would not be in the best interest of justice for the juvenile to remain in a juvenile detention facility.
The issue of setting or posting bond would be held in the pre-trial certified juvenile's adult criminal case.
Finally, upon attaining the age of 18 or on conviction on the adult charges, the juvenile would be transferred from juvenile detention to the appropriate adult facility. Transportation of the certified juvenile who remained in a secure juvenile detention facility would be handled in the same manner as in all other adult criminal cases where the defendant is in custody.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Marcia Hazelhorst (Missouri Juvenile Justice Association) stated this would align Missouri law with the federal Juvenile Justice Reform Act.
Darrell Moore (Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys)
Mo Del Villar (Missouri ACLU) based support of the bill in part on the finding that children incarcerated with adults are 5 times more likely to commit suicide
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Sarah Johnson
Craig Stevenson (Kids Win Missouri)
Mary Chant (Missouri Coalition of Children's Agencies)
Arnie C. Dienoff
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
HCS HB 59 – Rep. Adam Schnelting (R – St. Charles)
HCS HB 59 would amend chapters 578 and 590, RSMo, by adding two new sections (578.710 and 590.1265). The bill would create the offense of unlawful posting of personally identifying information over the Internet one knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, telephone number, or other personal information of any first responder on the Internet with the intent to threaten or cause great bodily harm or death to the first responder. The offense is a class A misdemeanor.
The bill also would establish the “Police Use of Force Transparency Act of 2021,” requiring all law enforcement agencies to, at least annually, collect and report local data on use-of-force incidents involving peace officers to the National Use of Force Data Collection through the Law Enforcement Enterprise portal administered by the FBI and to the Attorney General of Missouri. The information could not include anything personally identifying individual officers. The act also would require the Attorney General to develop standards and procedures for collecting and reporting of the data by June 30, 2022. Furthermore, the Attorney General would be required to publish the data, which would be considered a public record, and analyze trends and disparities in the data, report the findings. and make the report available to the public.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
James Harris (Cicero Institute) stressed the importance of transparency
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support
Brad Thielemier (Missouri State Troopers Association)
Mark Bruns (Missouri Fraternal Order of Police; St. Louis Police Officers Association; Kansas City Fraternal Order of Police)
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition
Arnie C. Dienoff
HCS HB 548 – Rep. Barry Hovis (R – Cape Girardeau)
HCS HB 548 would amend Chapter 491, RSMo, by adding one new section (491.016). It would specify that an otherwise inadmissible witness statement is admissible in evidence in a criminal proceeding as substantive evidence. However, the court, after a hearing, would have to find by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant engaged in or acquiesced to wrongdoing to make the witness unavailable; (2) the defendant’s wrongdoing caused or substantially contributed to the witness’s unavailability; (3) the prosecution exercised due diligence to secure the witness’s attendance by subpoena or other means; and (4) the witness fails to appear at the proceeding.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Darrel Moore (Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys Association) stated prosecutors need the tool.
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition
Arnie C. AC Dienoff
The Committee took action on the following bills in executive session:
SB 312 – Senator Steven Roberts (D – St. Louis) Do Pass (7 – 0)
SB 374 – Senator Tony Luetkemeyer (R – Parkville) Do Pass (5 – 2)
SB 402 – Senator Bob Onder (R – Lake St. Louis) Do Pass (7 – 0)
SB 487 – Senator Bob Onder (R – Lake St. Louis) Do Pass (5 – 2)
SB 331 – Senator Eric Burlison (R – Battlefield) Do Pass (5 – 2)
HOUSE
House Floor Action
For a complete list of bills approved by the House and delivered to the Senate for consideration, click here.
Highlights of Floor Action:
The House unanimously adopted HCS HBs 557 & 560, sponsored by Representative Viet and Representative Ingle, and sent it to the Senate. HBs 557 & 560 would add a process by which “exempt-from-licensure residential care facilities” would be required to notify the Department of Social Services (DSS) of their existence and to comply with provisions to protect the safety of the children in residence.
All appropriations bills were third read and adopted, some with significant changes from the governor’s recommendations in the executive budget. Once reported to the Senate and referred to the Appropriations Committee, the sequence of committee hearings will be repeated. These bills constitute the operating budget of the state for the coming fiscal year, beginning July 1, 2021. HB 12 provides for funding the judiciary and public defenders. HB 12 included additional funding for the implementation of “Raise the Age” legislation in juvenile courts and included additional funds for the Missouri State Public Defender System.
House Committee Action
The House Committee on Crime Prevention met on March 29, 2021, and held public hearings on the following bills:
HB 142 – Rep. Randy Pietzman (R – Troy)
HB 166 – Rep. Bill Hardwick (R – Waynesville)
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting testimony electronically, click here.
HB 992 – Rep. Jamie Burger (R – Benton)
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting testimony electronically, click here.
The committee took action on the following bills in executive session:
SB 26 – Senator Bill Eigel (R – Weldon Spring) Do Pass (6 - 2)
HB 742 – Rep. John Wiemann (R – O’Fallon) Do Pass (6 - 2)
HB 1179 – Rep. Hannah Kelly (R – Mountain Grove) Do Pass (8 – 0)
HB 1333 – Rep. Curtis Trent (R – Springfield) Do Pass (6 – 1; 1 present)
The House Special Committee on Litigation Reform was scheduled to meet on March 30, 2021, to hear HB 900, sponsored by Rep. Tony Lovasco, but the hearing was cancelled due to floor action on the appropriations bills.
The House Special Committee on Criminal Justice met on March 30, 2021, and voted on the following bill in executive session:
HB 1142 – Rep. Michael Davis (R – Kansas City) Do Pass (8 – 0)
The House Judiciary Committee met on March 31, 2021, and held public hearings on the following:
HB 1034 – Rep. Aaron Griesheimer (R – Washington)
HB 1034 would amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding four new sections (1.505, 1.506, 1.507, and 1.508) to affirm the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It would declare that acts of all types by the federal government that exceed its enumerated powers and involve matters reserved to the states would be rejected by Missouri and would not be enforced. Missouri courts and law enforcement agencies would protect all powers and rights reserved to the state or to individuals.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
None
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting testimony electronically, click here.
HB 1415 – Rep. Bob Bromley (R – Carl Junction)
HB 1415 would amend section 393.137, RSMo, to provide that the Public Service Commission would have the authority to adjust the rates of utility corporations that do not have general rate proceedings pending to reflect the effects of the any tax legislation passed by the U.S. Congress or the General Assembly. As an alternative to the rate change, an electrical corporation could make deferrals to a regulatory asset, provided that good cause was shown.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Warren Wood (Ameren Missouri)
Rich Aubuchon (Liberty Utilities)
Cara Hoover (Evergy)
David Winton (Summit Utilities)
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
David Woodsmall (Midwest Energy Consumers Group; represents commercial and industrial consumers) stated that members of General Assembly are biased toward the utilities and referenced SB 564, adopted in 2018, as an example of the bias.
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting testimony electronically, click here.
HB 902 – Rep. Tony Lovasco (R – O’Fallon)
HB 902 would amend sections 610.122 and 610.140, RSMo, to repeal the provision that an arrest record is eligible for expungement if the one arrested had no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions. In addition, if a court issued an order of expungement, each entity possessing records listed in the order would be required to destroy, as opposed to the current requirement to close, any relevant record in its possession.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
Tom Robbins (MMW Law Firm) stated that he and members of his firm were interested regarding destruction of the records of those who are falsely accused of an offense or who are falsely arrested.
Mo Del Villar (ACLU of Missouri)
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting, click here.
HB 1003 – Rep. David Evans (R – West Plains)
HB 1003 would amend section 475.050, RSMo, to add a ward's grandparents to the current list of relatives exempt from the screening when seeking appointment as a guardian or conservator, unless a background report is requested by a party to the proceeding or ordered by the court.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
None
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
None
SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC WITNESS APPEARANCE FORMS
For a link to those submitting testimony electronically, click here.
The Committee took action on the following bills in executive session: