Update 2/4/16. HB 1109 has been withdrawn by the sponsor and is no longer on the agenda. There are only 4 bills before the committee now!
On Friday, February 5, at 10:00 AM the SD House Judiciary committee will take on 5 bills. This is compiled using the agenda at the time of composing this post. Agendas can and do change!
One way to listen to these meetings live is via the audio links on the Schedule page of the LRC website. While there you can also view the status board for the meetings as they are going on.
The last bill on the agenda has already been heard. So there will possibly be action.
HB 1064 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Apply certain penalties regarding damages, tampering, and malicious acts to certain railroads that carry passengers.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Mike Verchio (R, Dist 30) and Sen Jeff Monroe (R, Dist 24) are the prime sponsors.
At first I wondered what passenger trains this bill would be talking about. Then I remembered the 1880 Train going between Keystone and Hill City. So either this is being submitted for future passenger train needs, or is being submitted to protect railroads such as that used by the 1880 train. Either way testimony might be worth listening to.
HB 1105 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Give the court discretion to grant a continuance of a protection order in certain situations.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) and Sen Arthur Rusch (R, Dist 17) are the prime sponsors.
The statutes being amended currently say no continuance may exceed thirty days.
This exception would be added:
unless the court finds good cause for the additional continuance and:
(1) The parties stipulate to an additional continuance; or
(2) The court finds that law enforcement is unable to locate the respondent for purposes of service of the ex parte protection order.
HB 1109 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Exempt from liability persons who voluntarily maintain certain no maintenance roads.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Lana Greenfield (R, Dist 2) and Sen Betty Olson (R, Dist 28) are the prime sponsors.
Here is the entire statute that would added:
Any person who voluntarily and in good faith plows, cleans, grades, or otherwise maintains a no maintenance section line or no maintenance road as designated in § 31-13-1.4 or 31-13-1.6 is not liable for the condition of the section line or road. No cause of action exists against that person for any injury or other harm caused by the condition of the section line or road.
This is one I wouldn’t think to be necessary. But apparently it is.
HB 1183 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise certain provisions regarding the jurisdiction of magistrate courts to issue protection orders.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) and Sen Arthur Rusch (R, Dist 17) are the prime sponsors.
I will have to listen to testimony on this one.
BILLS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION WHICH HAVE HAD PRIOR HEARING.
HB 1088 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise and consolidate certain civil forfeiture provisions.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Don Haggar (R, Dist 10) and Sen Corey Brown (R, Dist 23) are the prime sponsors.
Some of this is cleanup. It combines and reconciles two different forfeiture areas of law: drug related and sex traffic related.
A big change is to ensure there is a conviction for drug crime forfeiture. Sex traffic crimes already require a conviction.
A big policy change in the bill is to add due process before any property is seized. A conviction would be required. This would be a large step up from the current preponderance of evidence policy.
The Governors office spoke in favor of the bill. That is a good sign.
The AG’s Office, States Attorney Association, and South Dakota Sheriffs Association did speak against the bill. They oppose the conviction policy that has been added.
It should be noted that due process being added does not prevent property from being taken for evidence. I just means property cannot be taken permanently until there is a conviction.
There was an amendment proposed to do away with the conviction policy. The amendment was withdrawn because it was incomplete.
Action on the bill was deferred so a new amendment could possibly be considered.
Personally I want the bill passed with the conviction requirement. That would strengthen the protection for SD residents.
The post House Judiciary has 5 bills on Fri Feb 5, possible civil forfeiture bill action appeared first on SoDakLiberty.
