Alright we need a call through, I'm sorry we're doing such, I was running behind myself this morning my LA pad [xx] can start at the chair meetings is at. Thanks for being here let me do a few welcomes to we got some Pages in the back if you just stand and wave a hand [xx] you're going to see [xx] from Mcklenberg, [xx] inspector from Orange, Travis Bullock from Wake and Sally Austin from Pascotan[sp?] thank you guys for being here, hope you guys have a great week this week Sergeant at arms here today Colton Adams, Jay Austin and Martha Gabson, thank you guys for your service as always. We're going to reverse that order this morning of the bills I think, I don't know what is funny right now, but we're going to start with house bill, I'm sorry standard doc 345 which is senator matters though and I'm going to let him go ahead and come up and give the [xx] on the bill. Let me [xx]. Yes, thank you. We have a PCS I got a motion to have the PCS property before us thank you. Representative Hager. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of committee this is a very simple bill, I work with the Towing Association and The Highway Patrol, what this will do is after 20 days, if a law enforcement ask for vehicle to be towed at an accident that the towing yard will be allowed to release it after 20 days, unless they have a court order from the DA that they want to keep for evidence purpose. Any questions, conversation? Representative Hager. Okay, there are no further conversation, we have a motion to Thank you Representative Hagar, all those in favor please say Aye. Aye Any opposed? Thank you Mr. Chairman Thank you there not [xx] put together [xx] We got a motion properly enforced. In fact let's go ahead, I think they're still discussing the 182, so let's move to Senate bill 192, which is Senator Cook's bill. We also have an amendment, and I'm not sure if we'd like to get up. Would like for, Representative Schaefer, to go ahead and make that yes, okay, let me go ahead and forget the motion to have a PCS properly before us Rep. [xx]. All those in favor. Thank you. So we got the PCS us immediately would like to Rep. [xx] has an amendment to offer for the PCS that I think we might have to explain The amendment of S92apc69 would add a new section into the bill, the section would do two things. It would allow, when there is someone is involuntarily committed and is being transported, the law currently says that they have to have a driver or attendant of the same sex unless there is a family member with them, and this would change the law to say, To the extent feasible they would have to city or county would have to provide that, and then secondly, it would allow Custody Orders for Involuntary Commitment that have been entered by a clerk or magistrate to be delivered the law enforcement by email or a fax. Just before I recognize Representative Torbett, I believe this is amendment was sort of brought to us by Representative Stam is something that had already passed the House I think 116-1, so just for a background about it and I'm going to let Senator Cook explain the rest of the bill, but this amendment relates to how we do some of these services and if this particular amendment is already passed the House 116-1, so Representative Torbitt did you have a question before I let Senator Cook? I do. Just wanted to request a legal definition of Extent Feasible. I'll let [xx] see if she can address that. I'm not sure that there is a precise legal definition for that. I think you would have to interpret that on the plain language, if it's possible I think they're supposed to.
If there isn't anyone available, I think it would permit them to, instead not provide someone of the same sex in that car when they were making that transfer. Follow up. Follow up. You do it with a bad oversight to make sure that the extent feasible was active or inactively [xx] I think, yes Representative [xx] I'll make a brief comment which is probably if someone and felt like that should have happened and it didn't, someone would bring a complaint and it could be brought to the courts to determine exactly. There are, I'm sure to the extent feasible is used elsewhere in statute and in various other places if a situation has arisen where the courts had to hear it they've created some kind of larger definition of standard for it. Follow up Representative [xx]. Thank you very much for that [xx] my concern I just share my concern, my concern is that let's jut use [xx] easy access [xx] language. They do still can do everything within their possibilities to make sure that it's conducted as it states and then [xx] which would now be [xx] that [xx] I guess is what I'm focusing on. That's weird. Representative Warren. Thank you, I'm always amazed how something that seems like amendments turns into a discussion, now I'm curious as to why the existing policy is in place, how long has it been in place and what's necessitating it then also has the nerves to Mr. Burger is here from the [xx] perhaps he like to....comment on this. Enlighten us a little bit about this but how long is the existing requirement been in there? Do we know? I don't know, in just appropriate way since we passed this particular bill 116 to one in the house already it never fails to amaze me that conversation that we passed 116 bills so if there is any comments I will be glad to take any from, ah. please state your name for the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm [xx] legislative council for the North Carolina association of chiefs of police, he requested by this provisions, we consider then innocuous but important. The excising law has been this way as long as I know it's always been that way. That is you're required to provide a person of the same sex in a transport of an involuntary commitment. The problem arises in finding someone of the same sex sometimes. I know there are female police chiefs with a small department who sometimes find it hard to find a female to transport an involuntary commitment and the chief must get up to two in the morning because she is the only female available and ride two hours four hours to mental hospital. It does have a precedence in the law and the same requirement that is to the extent visible for transporting involuntary commitments, for unmarked vehicles. So if the existing law is to extent feasible you transport involuntary commitments in an unmarked car and I can assure Representative Torbett that we make every effort to comply with this if we tweeted it as a general suggestion, we wouldn't have asked for this amendment we want to abide by the law but it is just difficult practically in some situations, thank you. It's very helpful, any further comment from committee? I will be gland to have a motion on the amendment does not. Representative Harger have an amendment to, have a favorable for the amendment all those in favor of adding the amendment to the PCS please say I, I! any opposed? Alright we have the [xx] I come get, I'm now going to let Senator [xx] to talk about his bill as amended. Thank you Senator. Thank you, it's always good to be back and a warm embrace of the House for Representatives. This bill require the administrative office of the court to consult with the Clerks of court regarding the use of the term cost rather than court cost on the citation form used for violation of motor vehicle laws. This change will solve confusion for
the courts or superior court several Clerks expressed to me that folks will come in to pay for a citation but don't understand why they have to pay for court cost only did not appear in court. The additional bill allows domestic violence protective orders, and so with no contact orders to be transmitted electronically. There are still several officers throughout the state that do not accepted this faxed orders. There's no opposition from administrative office of the courts or the North Carolina clerk support and court associations, I ask for your support. Representative Warren. It's just for a motion appropriate time Sir. Any further conversations in the committee? alright, I'd be glad to entertain Representative Warren. I think the motion you would like to make is favorable to the proposed committee substitute as amended rolled in to a new committee substitute with a favorable report to the new committee substitute and an unfavorable to the original. Thank you Mr. Chairman, you took the words right out of my mouth. Very glad. All those in favor. I. Any opposed. [xx] Thank you sir. I appreciate it. Alright the last bill on our agenda today, is Senator [xx], standard bill 182, Automatic Licence Plate Readers they say the PCS have a motion how to keep just before us, thank you. Any opposed to that and all right the PCS is properly before us do you want to An amendment to this [XX] Do you want to do that first, or do you want let Senator Markey explain it? Sure I can explain first senator McKissick explain the bill on the move. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee this is a pretty straight forward bill. It deals with the regulations of automated license plate readers. Automated license plate readers devices you might find an intersection that are long, or highways, or roads that basically identify the tag number, license tag number on a vehicle, and it will tie into different databases that establish with law enforcement to find out if there might be a missing person or vehicle, or the car is linked to somebody who might be involved with criminal activity. What this deal will do and it only deals with those automatic license plate readers that are used by law enforcement agencies, here requires the law enforcement agencies to establish a policy related to their use. It has specific parameters as to what information will need to be contained within those policies, information that there will be a kind of a template established they will be adopted by law enforcement agencies throughout the state that will basically obtain all of that data and establishes timeframes for what we'll need to be done and likewise what it says is that the data that is captured by these automated license plate readers will be retained for 90 days. After that 90 day period, it would not be kept unless there is a federal warrant, a state warrant or a sworn statement file by that law enforcement agency or other entities that will be included within it that would state why it is needed for a longer period such as an ongoing criminal investigation. And in that case you'd have to identify specifics related to the parties involved in that ongoing investigation, the plates you're looking for and the readers that would be extended, and in those cases there will be an ability to keep that data for an extended period of time. What it says from the PCS is 60 days. We've been working with the law enforcement community, Mr. Berget[sp?] and other chiefs of police. We do have an amendment that will be run by Rep. Blackwell this morning will stand back to one year. This bill has the support of law enforcement we've worked for probably better part of the year to reach can take this for what you see here. worked recently with representative Patterson, with representative sielys[sp?] hope I didn't mispronounce his name, to incorporate provisions within the PCS which really for additional specifics to make it a better bill, but it wouldn't entertain any questions that you might have at an appropriate time. Representative Richardson. I'll make a motion. Yes we do have an amendment with senator McKissick because of reference from representative Blackwell I read him representative Touchesout[sp?] okay. We had a motion, representative Hedger. Okay let me have the motion or the amendment
properly before us, thank you representative Torbitt, those of be passed out and I will let Representative Blackwell explain the amendment and. This is what Senator McKissick referred to earlier, it's simply changing the duration of the location of the evidence or information from 60 days to year, presumably so that you got adequate time that you don't have to unnecessarily go through this process. There's going to be 60 days say you're not quite through with the investigation or whatever, and so therefore they would only have to do it on annual basis to the technique. Mr. Chairman. Representative Torbett. I move for approval of the amendment. Thank you, any further discussion of the amendment? Alright, all those in favor of the amendment please say aye? Any opposed? Alright, the amendment is adopted and back to questions on the bill Representative Hager. Thank you chairman, just a question on the required process. Senator McKissick, one thing that I guess would have to depend whereas for these types of activities there's also in the process be required [xx] some calibrations of this equipment and law substantiating with it. We don't have those scenario would it be OK for an amendment with ones we investigated little bit, you and I talked after this? Absolutely Representative Hager, if there are additional details that you think need to be provided in here I'd be certainly open to that would work it anyway. Okay. Absolutely. Thanks. Rep. Huger any further comment from the committee? Rep. [xx] and I think Rep. Richardson may have beat you to it and Rep. [xx] would you like for me to outline what I think the appropriate motion [xx]. Please go ahead. Please go ahead. I would like to make stable report for the PCS and I move the amendment and with the proposed amendment and unfavorable to the original. And I think with respect with what you said of proposed amendment you just mean with actual amendment that we've adopted, I think Representative Hager will come talk to Representative McKissick about the other. Right so we have at [xx] today new committee substitute within the favorable to the new committee substitute and unfavorable to the original, it's a nice long motion for us all. Alright, any further discussion, if not all those in favor please say aye, Aye! Any opposed? Thank you the ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Thank you, absolutely. Thank you, you accept right?.