We have our pages Will Miller. Tell us about yourself I'm from [xx] county, my sponsor is [xx] and I'm in 10th grade. 10th grade? Where do you go to school? [xx] okay. Lee Rodeo? Sir Durham County, my sponsor is Representative Meyer, I'm a rising senior and I go to [xx] High School. Plan to go to college next year? Yes Sir, Caroline Duke I will be a senior next year, I go to Chapelville High School, from [xx] county and I'm sponsored by representative Insko What year are you? I will be a senior next year. Where do you plan to go to school? I'm not sure yet, I still got Andrew Smith. I'm Andrew, I'm from [xx] Rep. Martin is my sponsor and I'll be a senior next year at [xx] High School. Sounds good to me. Sergeant-at-arms, Barry Moore, and David Lipcome. Our first bill today is Senator Tillman's bill and he asked me to present it, I think he was ashamed. It allows Alley McNeil probably can tell you more about it than I can. It's for people who are retired serving the law enforcement continue to have a pistol or gun conceal weapon Mr. McNeil you don't think about it? Well to get concealed hand gun permit in North Carolina you have to take and is used by [xx] classroom but you need to have actually fire a gun to get it and as I understand this bill advice to said that if you are retired officer and you have been through the firearm training with your department then you you will not have to got to the class and may be [xx] tell me if I'm wrong but that's the way I understand the bill so actually the follow up training all I'm training for law enforcement is much more intense that what you gave for conceal actually this is probably an improvement Like to explain the bill? [xx] Representative Szoka Mr. Chair question for staff and in the title it says retired sworn law enforcement but it doesn't a say [xx] law enforcement says all the sole staff [xx] an issue or not, if it doesn't say so no put those in phase one It's not. Within the definition section of they were fired one for. Okay. Thank you. Any other question? Representative Carl. Mr. Chair I would be happy to make a motion. The lobby question to the motion is appropriate at this time. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move for favorable report on senate bill 212, second edition. There is no law, committee substitute, you've heard the motion. All in favor say an aye, Aye! Oppose no and the ayes have it. We have to be out of hear we have a section at 1:30 I believe. I think we can finish this bill no quite simple as it may appear you need to explain it Mr. Chair we do have representative most recently that we have the PCS before us and wait for us to all in favor Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee we had a bill in here that you could be it was extension bill forward and the house bill and you know it is often the case of senate bill will make okay before house bill does so in this case senator Brian house bill has made it to the house and the bill for voting violation expansions among other things and you will see
that the bill is essentially the same as it was when it left here, but it does add a few more things that I would really appreciate staff reviewing for us. Thank you staff you may explain the [xx] if you would. Representative Fisher started with the original bill was about a misdemeanor voting violation not prohibiting the function of [xx] conviction That does not include driving while under the influence. Correct. Correct. So the two additional things that the PBS does is it specifically says that you can no longest get any function for any type of [xx] volunteer conviction and it does have the process to have of the two usual [xx] offences a useful drug offence will be a conviction of possession of a controlled substance or possession of paraphernalia for drugs that the it has not yet [xx] in the commission of a crime. It's a misdemeanor is that correct? The possession of a controlled substance could potentially be [xx] And if you'll recall the original bill was the one that was sort of a combination of elements that were supplied by my bill, Chairman Daughtry's bill and now we're seeing it with some additions from the Senate five[sp?]. And I understand that there are a couple of amendments that will be asked to add to this as well today. Before we take up the amendments. I grew up in the 40s and 50s, and my Mum and Daddy told me at a very early age that there are four things that I should never do; one was drive a car fast, one was drink alcohol, one was smoke, no smoke, and other you had to do was shot guns, so I'll let you all decide about what there was it had to do with not let in some girls' father have the time, well the minute I got 16 I drove my dad's car as fast as it would run I smoked cigarettes for 20 years. I don't know what I would have done had there been drugs around, I suspect I would probably done what counselling drugs were around, were not in our world. So in my practice I've had cases where kids comes in, and has gotten a ticket for smoking marijuana, and you're 18 years old or 19years old, and in college, and it follows him around and I don't know. It would seem to me, it'll all be part of our expungement process. Not those who sell drugs, not those who had hot mouth for drugs in their possession, just those who were caught a couple of times for drugs. Before that I think, 25 is a good cut off. Maybe that's too old, but that's the year that I thought would reasonable to help those, you've got to be 10 years, without any kind record before you can get those expunged, and that's all I wanted to say. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman because I really do think that it has a lot to do with a young person's brain having not fully developed, and it hampers their ability later in life to be employed, and to Lead an upright, outstanding lives in their communities, and so I think this is a bill that will remedy that. Just a question, there's a whole lot of existing law in here. I think through page maybe 11 the only change is the that we've added in the violation
of voting violations and within section 9is I think is the section of reference document is talking about. Would it be fair to say that's rely basically the two things this bill does exist. Can staff respond. Your report addition thing, it doesn't Thank you Mr. Chairman [xx] [xx] finish that all discussion softly [xx] [xx] [xx] over the section 9 [xx] more and [xx] beautiful [xx] [xx] and to priority allowed to expand few of the separate bank only two Over what period? So, lets say youthful offender and end of the definition goes forward through out committee expand, they are right. Mr. Chair if I may, if four of those convictions were in the same term course all four of them can be counted as one function, but if they occurred at four different time course like one at age 16, one at age 20, one at age 22, one at age 24 only two of those be expunged prior to this provision. For anything that happened under the age of 18 there maybe other statutes to defensive offenses that would allow for those same functions. Slow here, can you go back one more time? So it doesn't have to have the same recurrent, that was he's urged one event you have four charges. That would be classified as one. To consolidate them for trial and you plead guilty to all four, that's one, but if we're saying that they maybe occasion or someone who's young, we thought two was reasonable, if you get more than two you sort of have a pattern of misconduct. Offence convictions, but that's in the definition, it's not conviction, it's not the four and the same, it's not really, well I'd say I'm having trouble reconciling the convictions if you got convicted on each counts, is that not, that's not when I was working if you go to page 11 lines 37 through 41, it's what we're discussing. In all those words there come into the concept that if you have consolidated for trial in the same session for four offenses. Did those four offenses treated as warrant for purposes of expansion. Okay, why that was done that way? because generally speaking if you have four offenses in close proximity of time, for example let's say you're out, one Saturday night Sunday night, and you get four offenses, they'll put them all together for that purpose, purposed of punishment. If you have them over different periods of time, for example one on Saturday night and three weeks later another, there are separate. This is on a clause proximity and time and only has to do with possession and paraphenalia Representative Hall has the amendment he want to send forth Yes sir, Mr. Chairman and I think it's being distributed and this is the opportunity for a person who is, have the charges dismissed against them. They were charged, but the charges have been dismissed and they're still on the record. This will provide ways that they could have that records cleared. Again, they've been found not guilty or the charges have been dismissed, and therefore just having it on their record could have a negative influence or impact when in fact
the court has decided there's no reason to go forward with the prosecution or they've been found not guilty. So, this will provide that opportunity for systems[sp?] It's Amendment 96, Version 1. AST 96 Version 1, and I'll give it to staff. Any questions about the amendment? Representative McNeil, you look funny. Well, I think it's because I was looking at the wrong. so I didn't understand is the explanation because [xx] so is someone is charge for the crime, [xx] found not guilty, or the court dismisses it for whatever reason that shouldn't be on the record. That shouldn't be on the record and it could be removed from the record during the expansion process the big process before us is to say this the other expansion process do not exist in the bill Further questions about the amendment. Yes. Following through I'm not following where you are getting now version 1 that's a 10 at the end of the bill, at the very end section 3 will be at the very end of the bill that's [xx] adding things I do have a question. This is going, this allows someone to go all way back December 1st in 1999. That's correct, the person who has not been convicted or found not guilty, yes sir. Any follow up, anything in particular about that day when I go back to 1980, I mean. Beyond the stuff on that I think that's consistent with other legislation. It is the current law. Okay. When this change right her next year, what is changing this current law is talked about dismissal charges I got you. It's rooms and I will get your case to 111, to the seven contegient first not their in technical chnages to current, here to find another, great on prior liven it was off the change so right now for someone to expand record when the charges went to demand or be propelled my guilt is one for wide on, so law abordone towards 47 is that we allowing to for a lifetime. So the fault thing on land n one but taking the garde informing one in front of viral protection which will allow for two portions. I did following, you are saying you got one expungement, and you could have another one because of dismissal or not guilt. Correct maybe amendment will right now it is wanted visual on the reduction or war expansion, what if the function the party is the limit with the two for a lifetime. but it limited to, the second one is for dismissal and not guilty. The first one would also be for dismissal or not guilty. The second one likewise, dismissal or not guilty. Follow up? Sure. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter you just get two dismissals, I mean expungement by the [xx] In your mojo[sp?]. Right now you only get one. You go five now. I think we'd be better off just to have one expungement for your lifetime, and then to get a not guilty or dismissal. I don't care how many you get as long as you, that should be on your record to not guilty or dismissal. Representative Hall. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and with that in mind and that discussion, I'd like to displace that amendment, and
I do have another amendment that more closely attracts that little bit, and with the Chair's permission, I'll send it for distribution I think what we're going to do is to [xx]. I don't think we're going to vote on this bill today. Just listen to the amendment I said we will have time to digest what we're doing. Okay. And Mr. Chairman this is 95V2, and I've displaced 96V1 and 95 [xx] was the chairman has indicated again these are responses that you've not been convicted of anything or found not guilty for charges that have been dismissed so priorities and purposes you althrough the court process and all those responsible have determined, that you are not guilty. The charges should be dropped or dismissed and again you still go through the other part of the process for review by local officials as to whether or not they should be granted, this just makes you [xx] is that right they are not yield to staff for the explanation. OK. I hate to be seem to be like the slow learner here, could you go that though one more time? I want to make sure that I get it because I dint get that. It goes to the fact that if you get let's say you are charged with something and there are three things that can happen you can be charged and trialed and found not guilty the charges can be dismissed and if those two things happen then you can apply to have that fact that you were charged removed from your record, so you would not have been found guilty, you would not have had the charges taken forward by the DA they would determine there's not a basis for prosecution and then at that point you go through the regular procedure to have local officials, your DA and the court determine if that should be removed from your record what this does it just allows you to have more than one opportunity to do that, that's our already standard law now this just is if it happens again and you could come and apply to go thought the process with the local officials again if they can grant that. Thank you, I appreciate One of the things about a dismissal as a problem is you can dismiss the charges and then later recharge the person and that happens on numbers of occasions when for some reason if there's a dismissal and then later on the charge is reinstated how would you handle that? If I could respond to that Mr. Chairman of course the local are ready in effect would allow the DA and the chef district court judge to review the record and if their was a possibility for thought on the part of the DA that their would be some subsequent charging in the matter the DA can at that time and certainly the judge will take that in consideration. Now if he's holding the charge for two or three years and hasn't gone forward with it, the judge may say there is no reasonable probability that you will try this case and I will go ahead and dismiss it. But again the DA and the chief district court judge it's my understanding in it. Is the chair in it as well? It's just the DA. Just the DA record would have a role in the process. Representative McNeil. Okay, this question is for Representative Hall and maybe staff, trying to reconcile your first amendment and the differences in the second amendment, it strikes out several general statutes that you didn't in your first amendment. GS59.5, 145.1. So basically my question is this your memo is saying that the court can't consider any explanations you've got under those five or six different sections whether decided or there no applications, so I guess my question is what did those statutes say? Those of the other expansive statute program that you already in move far forward just for ignition of the cranger stand to order such debridge the agent
[xx], there are variety of those, I think the difference between the two amendment is the first amendment was saying that you could have no more than two extraordinary pose in dismantle horse riding and not guilty to either ways on any more amendments? The second amendment is on women. That's what I thought. You gotta get more amendments. Yes Sir thank you Mr. Chairman, just a question to the staff is a dismissal the same thing is what I have heard referred to is an old [xx] which means you can't be tried for a crime the second time. So if you dismiss a case, it's being found not guilty because it's over theirs, completely over. Dismissal means that for some reason state is going to dismiss the charges, could be reinstated later. [xx] Maybe somebody died, or somebody changed their story but there's a crime that's unsolved I mean is that the term, [xx] [xx] go ahead Mr. Chairman if you have a dismissal without prejudice would mean you obviously you can bring, You can bring the case again, but Mr. Chairman, there are other instances where there is a dismissal taken as well, if they charge two people for the same crime, and they determine and get a conviction against one of them and obviously they determine the other person. Did that play in crime or whatever they can dismiss. It could be error charging could be a lot of reasons why they dismiss it, but that would stay on your record and you will still be a victim of that in future employment endeavors. Representative Sukut Mr Chair, question and it might be for you. If we're changing the law on exp-unctions like we're doing here maybe it's for somebody. So what was the rational for the law as it currently is if we're going to change it to only one time in a lifetime and then maybe two times around unlimited, I mean what was the rational that everybody knows for only having an expansion one time? people who committed a terrible offence can change. We thought maybe they could change their life over period of time they can show that this was not who they were they were somebody in due nounce[sp?] so 15 years had to pay us be forward I can get that judge explain and the problem is it to follow and the problem was it couldn't get a job it just followed him around it could lots of things they couldn't do, so we thought after 15 years I take three affidavits of good character and the court could expand your records, so that gets of your record. And that's worked great, I don't think anybody has any misgivings about how well that's worked for a certain class of people but it did leave somehow, and we didn't deal with the not guilty pleas, certainly we ought to deal with not guilty pleas, that shouldn't be on your record because it is right to the college can't be anything this we are going to talk about the I think the mastermind, drug offences, just possession and prefenelia we only give those kids who are over 18, between 18 and 25 are bright because they follow and that is in the bill okay but the rest of it we need to talk about little bit and think about, and that will dismiss the meeting and we'll come back in a week and have a not main to wrap is thank you.