March 11, 2026 · Public Safety Committee · 12,651 words · 16 speakers · 187 segments
The Public Safety Committee will now come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Abrams.
Here.
Vice Chair Miller.
Here.
Ranking Member Thomas.
Here.
Representative Brent.
Present.
Representative Brewers checked in. Representative Creech.
Here.
Representative Gambari is excused. Representative Hall.
Here.
Representative Humphrey. Representative Kishman.
Here.
Representative Luray.
Here.
Representative Plummer.
Here.
Representative Willis.
Okay, we have a quorum and we will proceed as a full committee. Before we begin, I would like to wish our Vice Chair a happy birthday today. He is probably appalled.
Yay! Happy birthday! 29 again.
Anyway, all right. Members, the minutes of the March 3, 2026 committee meeting are on your iPads for review. Are there any objections or changes to the minutes? Hearing no objections, the minutes are approved. Point of personal privilege for Representative Brent.
Thank you so much, Chairwoman. The Chairwoman has asked me to sing happy birthday to Red Miller. She did it. I'm just joking. I'm just joking. You don't want that torture. You don't want that torture. But I do want to welcome some guests. It is always an honor that anybody will want to shadow me, of all people. But we have some great students from Cleveland State University who are shadowing multiple state reps, but I'm going to shout out the ones that are here. in the room. We have Jen, T, Lauren, and we have Kale, who's our teacher's assistant. You guys can stand. Nobody, I don't think people at home can see you guys, but they're shadowing today from Cleveland State University, and we're just so grateful to have them as our guests as they are learning about state government, and they have a bill, process bill program, you guys, simulation. So they're learning how to, what the process looks like through state government. So thank you, chairwoman for this point of personal privilege and welcome to the statehouse.
Okay.
Thank you, representative, and welcome. We hope you enjoy the public safety committee. I will now call House Bill 689 for its third hearing. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Miller
for a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend House Bill 689 with Amendment 1361904-1.
Okay, please explain the sub-bill.
Sure. This amendment is from the bill sponsor while working with the Ohio Judicial Conference. This amendment clarifies that a designee of the sheriff or chief of police or an individual under the authority of the court and designated by the court to take and submit fingerprints, that they may take fingerprints of a person or child ordered by the court to be fingerprinted. The amendment also clarifies that if a person or child has not been fingerprinted prior to the sentencing or adjudication, the court must contain the proceeding for the time required for the court to obtain the fingerprints.
Okay. Are there any questions or discussion about the amendment? Without objection, the motion will be agreed to. Hearing no objection, the motion is agreed to and the committee accepts the amendment. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Miller with a second motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend House Bill 689 with Amendment 136-1906.
Please explain.
The amendment is also from the bill sponsor and the Ohio Judicial Conference. The amendment permits the superintendent of BCI to disclose any information necessary to determine the existence of a parent-child relationship pursuant to a court order,
if any action to determine that paternity Okay Are there any questions or discussion on the amendment Without objection the motion is agreed to Hearing no objection the motion is agreed to and the committee accepts the amendment. Members, you will see on your iPads written testimony, so be sure to read that. That will now conclude the third hearing on House Bill 689. I will now call House Bill 507 for its 533 for its sixth hearing. Members, on your iPads, there is written proponent testimony from Chief Butler from the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that House Bill 533 be reported favorably and recommended for passage.
Clerk, please call the roll.
Chair Abrams.
Yes.
Vice Chair Miller.
Yes.
Ranking Member Thomas.
Yes.
Representative Brent.
Yes.
Representative Brewer.
Representative Creech.
Yes.
Representative Hall.
Yes.
Representative Humphrey.
Yes.
Representative Kishman.
Yes.
Representative Luray.
Yes.
Representative Plummer.
Yes.
Representative Willis.
Yes.
Okay, with 11 affirmative votes and zero negative votes, the bill passes. Members, make sure you sign the roll as it comes around, and please indicate if you'd like to add your name as a co-sponsor. All right, I'm now turning the gavel over to Vice Chair Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will now call House Bill 677 for its first hearing. The chair recognizes Chair Abrams.
Thank you, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and fellow members of the Public Safety Committee. It is a privilege to give sponsor testimony on House Bill 667, the Reagan-Tokes and Patrick Herringer Act. Patrick Herringer was a 46-year-old Army veteran and a small business owner who was stabbed to death in his home while defending his wife from an intruder armed with a knife. After graduating high school, Patrick Herringer joined the military and graduated from the University of Cincinnati. He would go on to serve our country for nine years as an Army captain, completing tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Patrick received two Bronze Stars for his service to our country. He married his wife, Sarah, in 2016. Patrick and Sarah would start Findlay Movement, a beloved gym in Over the Rhine of Cincinnati. Patrick was known as someone who truly changed people's lives for the better. He was considered, and I quote, an exceptional and irreplaceable human, end quote, by those who knew him and loved him. The person that broke into the Heringer's home and attacked Patrick and Sarah was released from prison earlier in 2025 after serving time for felony assault and aggravated riot. He did not abide by the rules while incarcerated, which led him to being labeled as he was released as a targeted violent offender. He was released from prison on a three-year period of supervised release known as post-release control, beginning in January of 2025. By February of 2025, he told the halfway house he was at that he was leaving and not going along with the program. After reading the news coverage of this violent crime I began to look into what we could do legislatively Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Thiege contacted me offering her full support in any changes to current law that could prevent a tragedy like this from happening. The legislation in front of you today is a direct result of the time Chief Thiege and others put in working with me on this bill. I met with the members of the Cincinnati Police Department, the Queen City Lodge, FOP Lodge 69, the Hamilton County Probation Department, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the Department of Public Safety, the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Ohio Attorney General, and the Ohio Community Corrections Association, among many others. It was through conversations like these that I was put into contact with Lisa Toks, the mother of Reagan Toks. Reagan was murdered in 2017 by an offender who was released from prison after serving sentence for kidnapping a pregnant woman and her child and raping the woman. Lisa is here today, and you will hear from her shortly. The Reagan-Tokes Act passed before my time in the legislature. Lisa told me that there was a portion that required real-time GPS monitoring of offenders on supervisory lease from DRC that was not included in the original Reagan-Tokes Act. House Bill 667 contains three major portions, real-time GPS monitoring, entering warrants into leads, and modifying TCAP requirements. Under House Bill 667, targeted community alternatives to prison, also known as TCAP, is modified to allow judges more discretion to send repeat and problem offenders back to prison. This is for offenders who have previously been convicted of or pled guilty to two or more felony offenses that were not felony offenses of violence, offenders who were previously under a community control sanction for a felony offense and the community control was unfavorably terminated, and offenders who were under post-release control at the time of committing a felony of the fourth or fifth degree. To be clear, this is not eliminating TCAP. I truly believe that our community control facilities do great work. This provision is for those offenders that refuse to comply with the rules of the post-release program. One major point that was heard during conversations with interested parties was the notification to local law enforcement of warrants being issued when post-release control offenders go AWOL or abscond. Tier 1 offenses are offenses of violence. other felony offenses that pose a substantial risk to public or officer safety, the offense of misdemeanor domestic violence. House Bill 667 requires that probation and adult parole authority, parole officers, enter a warrant into LEADS, which is the Law Enforcement Automated Data System, and NCIC, which is the National Crime Information Center, within 48 hours of issuing the warrant for an offender who breaks detention or fails to return to detention while under a community control sanction for a Tier 1 offense or are designated, if they're designated, as a targeted violent offender. When the warrants are issued, the probation and APA officers must notify local law enforcement and the Public Safety Answering Point 911 Call Center. Under current law, our law enforcement agencies must enter any warrants for Tier 1 offenses into leads within 48 hours of receipt of the warrant Communication among our law enforcement agencies is crucial The last portion of House Bill 667 is to require real GPS monitoring of violent offenders This provision was created with the help and feedback of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the leads administrators with the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Following Patrick's death, DRC updated their internal policy to require real-time GPS ankle monitoring of offenders from a state correctional institution. This bill simply codifies the policy Director Chambers-Smith has put in place. This bill requires DRC to contract with a single vendor for GPS-monitored offenders. It requires that monitoring includes inclusionary and exclusionary zones, curfew times, and other reasonable restrictions. It is required that DRC and the vendor perform the actual monitoring of the offender and include a crime scene correlation program, which allows local law enforcement to obtain monitoring information in real time. I want to thank Director Chambers-Smith and her team at DRC. They truly have been at the table from the very beginning with this bill, and I'm grateful for their partnership. House Bill 667 contains important improvements to Ohio Revised Code that could have saved the lives of Patrick and Reagan, and I believe this legislation will prevent more senseless tragedies from occurring. In the weeks to come, you will hear from Patrick's widow, Sarah, and the many interested parties that have taken the time to actually read the bill and have agreed to continue to be part of this important conversation. House Bill 667 is legislation that will truly work to keep our communities safe. Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and fellow members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity for sponsor testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Chair.
And the first question goes to Rep. Humphrey.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to all the people who are here in support of the bill. Looking over it, I can understand the premise and the foundation. It makes sense. We want to prevent things from happening to women and people like Patrick and Reagan. And so I certainly respect it. But it is a lot in here, as you know. And I can understand. But I guess I want to know, and I have a follow-up if that's okay with you. But I want to know specifically what recidivism data supports removing these individuals. And not all of them. Some of them, it makes sense. Sex offenders, violent crimes, all of that. But there is another section that I have concern about, but removing these individuals from community-based alternatives. What data do you have that supports that this is probably the best route?
So through the chair to the representative, we're not doing that. And there's a lot in the bill. I agree with you. I've been at work almost a year on this bill. So basically what it does is, so there's, so, okay, for example, the person that killed Patrick, He served 10 years, okay, but he was not, he was committing all kinds of violations in prison. So obviously they decided, based on their risk assessment tool, that he cannot just be released into society, okay? So he had to go on the ankle monitor to the Talbert House for programming to re-enter society, okay? At that point, the targeted violent offender is based on what he was in for, and how he acted in prison. Totally his choice. So that's what section of folks we're talking about. It's not anybody on an ankle monitor, just to be clear. And we're not taking away community control at all. We are simply saying that if you decide to not go along with the program and go AWOL, reoffend with another felony, the judge may sentence you back to prison. There are no shalls.
Follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And then thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I guess the next part of my question that I would like an explanation on is this piece here. It says, underneath the bill, the person previously who was under community control sanction for a felony offense that was not a felony offense of violence, and the person had the community control sanction for that felony offense unfavorably terminated. I guess, can you explain that portion of the bill? Because I'm a bit confused, especially if it wasn't. Yeah, if you could explain it, that would be great.
Yes, through the chair of the representative. There's many ways that unfavorably reported, right? The judge could say, okay, I'm going to put you on community control, and they keep reoffending, or they cut the ankle monitor off, or they leave the state, or they go near the victim, or what, there's a million different ways to come back in front of the judge while you're on the ankle monitor. And so at that point, we want to be able to give the judges freedom, essentially, to say, okay, you're in front of me again, and they may sentence them back to prison. And all the time that you were on the ankle monitor doesn't count, like, towards your time served, essentially. That's the change that we're making.
You're welcome.
Representative Brent.
Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Chairwoman. You know I always have a question. You're so happy to question me, I'm sure. Go ahead. Fingers are just moving. Good. Okay, so costs. Since the DRC is going to have to implement this program and they're going to have to go with a contractor, has there been a, because I don't see a fiscal analysis on this at all, where's the cost that's going to go for us to go with this contracted?
Great question. through the chair of the representative, good news, they already have the money and they're already doing it. Okay. Now, I'm not saying they won't come to us next General Assembly for more money, as we know. Our agencies do come to us for more money, but that's a whole other side story. So basically when all of this happened with Patrick, DRC changed their internal policy to go to the real-time monitoring, and they're doing it right now with a new vendor, and it's working.
Well, I also have a follow-up chair. Excuse me, vice chair. Go ahead. I'm not telling my age because this is not reflective of my age, But I was here when this bill was put into law and I did vote for it back in 2019. Does not make me old. I've just been here for a while. You're seasoned. I'm seasoned. I'm like a good piece of chicken. So my next follow – my next question is how would this be implemented compared to our rural areas, compared to our urban areas? Because it looks very different with this. And we're adding another layer to the part one we had in 2019. how is that gonna look like implementing it?
Through the chair of the representative, this is from the Department of Corrections, so everybody coming out of a state prison, that's what we're talking about here.
Okay, thank you, Vice Chair.
Follow up?
Representative or ranking member Tom Thank you thank you Mr Chairman Thank you for this legislation I was reading I guess this is I want to see if your bill is also addressing the fix that needs to be done here Where are you? Shoot, I lost my place here. Okay. It says the person that broke into the Harringer home and attacked Patrick and Sarah was released from prison earlier in 2025 after serving time for a felony. Assault in an aggravated right. He did not abide by the rules while incarcerated. Well, that's a red flag for me right there. why would we release him to a community controlled if he just did not cooperate at that point in the prison itself? Maybe we need to think about some legislation that if you cannot be released back to the community, if you do not cooperate while you're already incarcerated, because you've seen, you've shown that you can't, you're not able to function. outside of the incarceration. Something to think about there.
May I answer, Chair? Sure. Through the chair to the representative, he served his time. He served his 10 years in prison. The time was up, and the Department of Corrections has an assessment tool, a risk assessment tool that they fill out, and based on all kinds of different factors, that's why they put him on the ankle monitor at the Talbert House for additional programming to help reacclimate and get him on the right path. So there was the opportunity there for him to take the right path and become a law-abiding citizen in Ohio, and he chose not to do that.
Follow up. The next question was the Talbert House. He was released, obviously, to the Talbert House, and then he just told them, I'm not coming back, I'm out of here. did they call the police at that moment? Through the chair of the representative, yes.
So the prior, so the Department of Corrections had a policy, and this is not right this second. It's a new policy now. But the old policy was the Talbert House obviously had to call the parole officer, and then the parole officer had to log into the system and figure out, okay, where is he? Is he in fact AWOL, or did he abscond? and then they had to go, you know, come down and make contact with, you know, the offender. And then once they figured all that out, then they entered the warrant. I think they had up to, I don't want to make up a number, but I think it was like five days. This could be totally wrong, so I'm not going to get on the record 100%. But the 48-hour rule, our law enforcement in this state, as you know, if we're going to charge somebody with something, it has to be within 48 hours. I'm just simply bringing the Department of Corrections and our parole into the same rules that we, law enforcement officers, have to do. So, yes, but now the plan is DRC is monitoring, number one, in real time, so they know right now what is happening with the person on the ankle monitor. Did I answer your question?
Yeah. Okay. And I'm fine with what you attempted to accomplish here. Should we cover all the... Yes, you too. Okay, thank you.
Chair recognizes Representative Humphrey for an additional question.
Thank you Vice Chair This is my final question and then I can talk to you Madam Chairwoman offline What I would like if you could do because I feel like you already done it but if you could do it for folks at home I guess if you could reiterate to the people at home and to the committee exactly what this is relative to. Is this, this is pertinent to folks who are on, you know, GPS that got the ankle monitor, et cetera, et cetera, because how it comes off or not even how it's coming off, I'll say this, how I'm reading it, it looks like it's overarching. And that's where I'm kind of having some issues. So if you could just kind of clarify that and also kind of clarify that this bill is not taking options away from our judges.
Yes, ma'am. Through the chair of the representative, this bill is absolutely not taking options away from our judges. I've worked with the judges as I was drafting this legislation. So we are talking about tier one offenses, and they are very serious. They are murder and rape and things like that, kidnapping. So that section of people that are incarcerated are coming out of our state prisons. And so, again, going with after you serve your time and if you have had a terrible record on the inside of not acting right, the Department of Corrections, the Adult Parole Authority, with their risk assessment tool, has the right to say, you know, we're going to get you a little extra help while you leave here and not just sending them out the front door, have a nice day to commit another crime. So this process of going to the community control, the halfway house, as they transition into society after they've served their full sentence. This is not a situation where they're in front of the judge and they're choosing community control or prison. This is prison. This is, you've already committed, again, murder, rape, kidnapping, and you've served your time. Felonious assault, ag riot, all the things that I've mentioned today. Very serious offenses.
Thank you.
Any additional questions by the committee? Thank you, Chair, for your testimony. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Lisa Toks for proponent testimony. Welcome to committee. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the House Public Safety Committee. My name is Lisa McCrary-Tokes. I am the mother of Reagan Delaney-Tokes. On February 8, 2017, our daughter was abducted, assaulted, robbed, raped, and her lifeless body was left naked at the entrance to Scioto Grove Park, where she was found on the morning of February 9, 2017. Reagan was three months shy from graduating from The Ohio State University with a degree in psychology. She was 33 days shy from turning 22. Her 31st birthday is this coming Friday. March 13th. We will not be celebrating in person with our daughter because she is no longer with us, because a previously released violent offender who was out on post control wearing an ankle monitor committed this crime The ribbon I wear is Tiffany blue. It's Reagan's favorite color. Do you know how many things in Tiffany blue that are available now that you could purchase? We were to the point in life with her that she was going to be taking those next steps, those next phases, going on to graduate school, moving into an apartment or a home. I could have been selecting appliances and things with her that represent this color that she loves so much. Said I stand before you when I wear a ribbon in honor and remembrance of her because she's no longer with us, nor is Patrick Herringer or many, many, many other victims of those intent on continuing to operate in society by inflicting violence and evil and harming others. The systematic failures that led to the abduction of our daughter and the murder and the murder of Patrick and the murder of all the other victims or people that are just victims of those that violently assault is a failure of the system. They're being released into society, essentially unmonitored and unchecked at this point. While they are on an ankle monitor, if that ankle monitor is not consistent throughout the state, consistently being monitored the same way, consistent through a single vendor operation with the same parameters, exclusionary, inclusionary, all these different scenarios that would protect the innocent, what is the point? And money is already being spent on something that fails. What happened to our daughter is a prime example of the failure. What happened to Patrick is a prime example of the failure. With House Bill 667, we have the opportunity to make a difference with this, with the provisions and the parameters that it includes. The technology is there. And in the situation of Reagan, had the technology been used appropriately and data be entered into the database system that would have been accessible by law enforcement or people in enforcement agencies, her killer would have been back in jail. He would have been apprehended months previous instead of going through German village and wreaking havoc and harming and inflicting pain and violence on others until he eventually got his hands on Reagan. Same is true in the Patrick Herringer situation. We were here before. And thank you for those who were involved in the previous bill. The Reagan-Tokes law was passed in 2018, and that addresses violent offenders incarcerated to allow them to have additional time added to their sentence if they're failing to reform. Second portion of that bill dealt with GPS monitoring in real time and accessibility to those in law enforcement so they could actually use it as a tool for crime prevention. Instead of a technology-registering crailed Trump, to tie to other crimes or issues that are occurring. We were almost to the finish line in 2021, and it didn't get there. And I'm here nine years later. Eight years since my family has taken up legislative change in the state of Ohio to make the state a safer place for the innocent. How many more crimes like this have to continue to happen? How many more innocent lives need to continue to be lost until adequate change is going to occur to a system that the general public assumes is there for their protection, and it's not protecting them? When are we finally going to get tough enough on crime that there are serious consequences for the offenders and they have to face these tough consequences for their actions. They're the ones making the choice to do what they're doing. And we have the ability to work together to stop them and to hold them accountable and prevent them from wreaking havoc on the innocent in society. So I thank you for your time listening to me in support of House Bill 667.
And I'm open for any questions at this time. Thank you, Lisa, for being here and continuing to advocate for a safer Ohio. We sincerely appreciate you and sharing your story. Members, do you have any questions?
Representative Brent. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you for coming and sharing your story. I can't imagine, but I hope that through this process you can feel some form or a little bit closer to justice. but first I have a statement and then I want to do a question. I want to thank you for being so persistent over these years. It takes a lot of strength to show up here at the People's House, so I thank you for coming. Now is my question. Go ahead. Okay. I got to ask first. So in the process of going through this process of losing your daughter the way you did, what has been the support or not support when it comes to families that are going through this process? I know obviously you got connected to a legislator, but what has been your conversation with other families who've experienced similar situations of support that you felt like people should be receiving or not receiving underneath the law of the state of Ohio? And then I also have a follow-up chairwoman.
Okay, thank you for the question, Representative Brent. And thank you for the positive comments. It is very difficult to do this. But I committed very early on with this that when our family learned of the failed system that I would not give up until we had resolution to make Ohio safer with the components that contributed to how tragically Reagan was taken from us. When it comes to support for other victims and their families and whatnot, I think the biggest glaring obvious is the fact that this continues to occur, because the system is not protecting the public. It's not functioning properly to prevent crime from occurring, and therefore there are so many victims that are out there that go unmentioned, unnamed, and these crimes just continue to happen To me that is the biggest glaring obvious failure and flaw at this point that we need to have this bill in place so that like I said it is doing what it was intended for when you put somebody on post control It is a preventative measure for crime, not a reactionary after the fact when we've let them run amok in society and continue to offend. There has to be consequences. Follow-up?
Yes, Chairwoman. In your testimony, you specifically talked about safeguards and monitoring. I'm writing stuff down as you're talking, so I want you to know why I'm looking down while I'm talking. You specifically talk about safeguards and monitoring in your testimony. What specific safeguards specifically in this bill do you feel like should be highlighted or are the most important to you when supervising violent offenders who are recently released? Okay.
Thank you for the question. and the component of a single vendor scenario so we have consistency across the state, I think, is vital. Number two, the data being entered into the system within a 48-hour window that is actually accessible now to members of law enforcement. In Reagan's situation, her killer was out committing crimes outside of zone, the inclusionary, the exclusionary, all the parameters of his post-release control. And this went on for months, and nothing happened to him. And so the fact that this bill encompasses those parameters, had police had the ability to enter into the database and tap into the ankle monitor and see that there is, we are outside of zone, and they have crimes going on in German Village, and, oh, we have this person out on post-release control, oh, and he's in violation of post-release control, he would have been apprehended and he would be back in prison and my daughter would be celebrating her birthday with us this weekend. Follow-up.
Last follow-up. Thank you, Chairwoman. So you brought up another good question on my other side of notes. So what is the process of establishing inclusionary and exclusionary zones for monitor offenders?
Can you repeat the question so I understand?
So what is the process? And I probably should ask this to the sponsor. What is, you should, okay. Because you just brought up about exclusionary and exclusionary zones for monitor safe offenders. You just said that like a second ago. So how did we come up with the process of establishing those different zones? Wait a minute, Lisa, just real quick.
Representative Department of Corrections and Probation decides all of that.
Okay.
Thank you for the question because that was going to be my response too.
You probably knew the answer. I did, but thank you for confirming yes. That's also, I probably should have asked it. You know, I'll be having a lot of questions. It's okay. All right. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Representative Humphrey.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, Mrs. Toks, for certainly being here. I'm going to ask a question because I think it's important in context of the bill and the scenario, but I will preface with I'm from Columbus. I represent Columbus. At the time that this happened, I was not in office, but there was some amendment or something like that made to the bill, and I was supportive of it. I believe it was in 2021. But I want to ask this. At the time that the crime was committed, did the gentleman did he still even have his GPS on or did he take it off Or you know how they do Yes thank you for the question Representative Humphrey and for the support previously
He had tampered with his device at this point, and he was clearly in violation repeatedly. They used that data to tie him to and convict him of several other crimes. after he murdered Reagan. Operative word, after.
Follow-up? No, no.
Okay. All right. Any further questions? Vice Chair Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming to testify in your repeated advocacy. My question revolves around you having to keep coming down here. Why hasn't this bill got across the finish line? Who opposes it, or what are the impediments, and is this version any different than the ones that have previously been introduced?
Vice Chair Miller, thank you for the question, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this. And yes, we're coming up on a decade. We're coming up on a decade. And why it hasn't passed? That's a very good question. It was through the House, the bill in the House at the time that addressed GPS monitoring in real time, passed through the House almost unanimously in 2021, and then it sat in the Senate. Why? I don't know. But I'm in front of all of you today asking you, pleading with you, in your positions of power to create a safer environment for Ohio citizens to please step up and take action. Because if this portion is not corrected, there is going to be another mother standing before you. There's going to be Sarah Harrigan speaking about her husband. There's going to be countless other victims that this continues to happen to. I don't know why we're not there. It's very simple. To me, it's such common sense. And it's also the general perception of the public. I mean, let's talk about technology in today's day and age. I could wear a device that could tell me how many breaths I take when I sleep. And you mean to tell me that we are not properly monitoring and using the technology and providing access to those findings to those in law enforcement that can prevent crimes instead of solving them? I mean, what part of that does not make sense to anybody? It's as basic as the nose on my face.
Follow up.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Maybe more just a comment. It just seems ridiculous to me that we would even bother to use GPS if we weren't going to monitor it. Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate all of your time. Thank you again to provide testimony.
All right. Any further questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you again for coming in. We appreciate you. That will now conclude the first hearing of House Bill 667. I will now call House Bill 725 for its first hearing. the chair recognizes Representative Kevin Miller for sponsor testimony.
Thank you Madam Chair Chair Abrams, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 725. House Bill 725 aims to stop the exploitation of personal data collected by automated license plate recognition systems. It prohibits the commercial collection, sale, transfer, or sharing of data obtained through these license plate readers, better known as LPRs. LPR technology has legitimate public safety uses. Law enforcement agencies can use it to locate stolen vehicles, find missing people, and assist in criminal investigations. However, outside of these defined public safety functions, there is a loophole in Ohio law where private entities or third parties can collect and monetize license plate scan data for commercial purposes, often without the knowledge or consent of the individuals whose movements are being recorded. House Bill 725 closes that loophole. Sixteen other states have enacted legislation regarding license plate readers. With my testimony, I have included information from the National Council of State Legislators on the laws in those other states. This legislation ensures that data generated by scanning a person's license plate cannot be sold or shared for commercial gain. This information can aid criminals in stalking, kidnapping, human trafficking, vehicle theft, and it welcomes the opportunity for someone to be tracked without their consent. It's important to note this bill does not interfere with legitimate law enforcement use of ALPR systems. In conclusion, House Bill 725 closes the loophole to protect the personal data of Ohioans while maintaining the tools that make Ohio safer. Chair Abrams, Ranking Member Thomas and members of the Public Safety Committee, thank you for our opportunity to present sponsored testimony, and I welcome any questions you may have.
Thank you for your testimony. Representative Creech has a question.
Through the chair, to the birthday boy, Rep Miller, thank you for being here today. Thank you for this. I'm a huge supporter of LPRs, and I've heard this conversation come up, and I've made phone calls to agencies that I respect and trust, and they claim that this information is not available. Is there situations where this has happened, or are we just playing defense to make sure that it never happens?
Through the chair of the representative, that's a great question. Unfortunately, I don't have a great answer. What I do know is the law enforcement agencies will tell you that the data is not out there, that they don't release the data. But what we do know is there are websites out there that have this data. So somehow they are getting the data, whether it's through mobile recorders, hacking into systems and things of that nature. I can't tell you the answer to that, but what I want to do is essentially shut down those websites that are providing this information.
Follow-up.
Okay. Representative Brent.
Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, Vice Chair. I feel like every time I'm in committee, I feel like I'm learning something new. The day I feel like I don't know something, we introduced a new bill, so I had to do a little research on this. So I know there is a company, and correct me if I'm wrong, called Flock Security. So from my understanding, they also do the license plates, readers. We have the home companies where we have it on our doors. what type of examples hold on, I'm not even going to make sure I'm getting my what mechanisms are going to be put in place to actually make sure this doesn't happen to prevent companies like this because this is how they make their bread and butter collecting this information for security purposes but what's in this bill that's actually going to stop this from happening?
Through the chair to the representative, that's a great question and I actually reached out to Flock to ask about their process and how they protect the information. According to Flock, their information, they have the systems, but the information from those cameras is owned by the agency. So they don't actually have the information themselves. It's not their information. So they're not selling that. What they're selling is their program, their hardware for the agencies.
So... Follow up?
Okay. All right. Representative Willis.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative for bringing the bill. This is a particular to that named system. A lot of data is out right now that's showing places where people have been able to access those systems and they're not the only company involved in these systems, but they happen to be pretty widely in Ohio. And so this is a huge concern that I'm curious if there's been any kind of look at this and other systems that we might purchase, especially with public funds, and how we evaluate them prior to the deployment. And understanding where we are with technology has gotten way out ahead of us, but is there any recommendation at this point where we not only ask that this information is protected in some way, but that we shield ourselves from future technology deployments that are not quite ready. Do we have any way to put systems through some kind of cybersecurity regimen that actually certifies them and declares them good enough to house public data? Because I know what the company says about the data, but realizing that every system that is out there is potentially something that can be accessed, and they do save that information on those systems for some period of time, and it becomes vulnerable. So I'm curious for your perspective on that. Sure. Through the chair to the representative, no, I certainly agree
with your statement, and I would look forward to maybe working with you or your office to maybe strengthen the bill. I see this as kind of a starting point with this bill. I actually have another amendment that I'm planning to include to provide some additional protections to protect this information with law enforcement similar to Oleg and LEAD's information. So if a law enforcement officer, heaven forbid, doesn't use the information appropriately, that they would be subject to a penalty as well.
Follow-up.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just as a follow-up, in my slowly moving brain here, it just hit me that we have an Ohio cyber reserve in Ohio that designed to help us with issues that we think are cyber related This feels like one of the things that we potentially could ask them to evaluate for us because they are purchasing a service obviously from companies to do a lot of this work But some of those systems, obviously, don't only exist on some of these that are on a light pole on the street or whatever. Some of them are in our cruisers also and other things that we own statewide. and it seems to me this would be a good mission to ask potentially the Edident General's Office to help us with just getting a good evaluation on where we are on these particular systems and then expanding that. So I'd be willing to work with you on that for sure.
Thank you. I look forward to those conversations. I think that's something that would be germane to the bill.
Okay. Representative Humphrey. Thank you Madam Chairwoman
and thank you Vice Chair for your testimony of bringing this bill forward. Now, I got a weird question, but I think it's pertinent, and it's about the bill, but it's really not. It's about, like, license plate readers. So, there was this, and everybody's about to hear this. There was a situation when I first got here, probably, like, 2021. I was driving, and I had got pulled over, not because I was speeding or anything like that, but because the officer pulled my license plate. And when he pulled my license plate, I had personalized license plates. It didn't pop up as me. It popped up as someone else who had been involved in crimes and stuff in Toledo. So thankfully, thank God, I actually got pulled over because that was helpful. But I guess my question is, with selling the information, is that possibly how, I mean, because I don't even know. I mean, he literally, because I told him who I was and everything, he literally showed me, like, this is not you popping up. This is him. Like, there's an issue. And I'm wondering, like, could that have had something to do with it as far as someone else popping up on my license plate read when he read my license?
Through the chair to the representative. Boy, I hate to comment on a kind of a what if. There's so many circumstances that could probably have taken place with that, whether it was inappropriately entered or if something was hacked and the information with the place didn't coordinate with the right person. There's too many kind of what-ifs, I guess, to give you a definite answer on your question.
Okay. Ranking Member Thomas.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question is centered around the license plate reader, it basically picks up the information on the plate, name of the owner registered to, type of vehicle, that kind of stuff. Now, and you're saying that they are, someone could conceivably take that and sell that information to market that information in another venue of some sort. That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Through the chair to the representative, yes. There are sites on the internet that you can go in and you can enter a plate, and it will, for a fee, it will send back when that plate hit cameras in certain areas or where it was found, I guess. And the concern that I have is I think that's a safety issue, right? if we've got a stalker that's looking to get at someone and do harm, you know, if they have access to this type of information, then certainly that wouldn't be good. So I don think that there a valid reason that anyone should be able to search a database and be able to tell where it is just like we don allow folks to put trackers on those things All right.
All up? Okay. Any further questions?
One last comment, if I may, Madam Chair. It seems like we kind of all went kind of negative with this. I guess I want to clear the hair. These systems have found multiple missing children and have solved multiple crimes. It's very good systems, very good programs. We're just trying to kind of put some guardrails on it here. I'm not advocating that by any stretch of the imagination that we get rid of these things. As a matter of fact, I would advocate that with the proper protections, maybe we should have more of them. I can tell you if my child was lost and was found by one of these, I couldn't tell you what the price would be that I would pay to have these types of systems. What I'm saying is they need to be secure and we need to be using them for the right purposes.
Okay, thank you. That will now conclude the first hearing for House Bill 725. I will now call House Bill 677 for its second hearing. the chair recognizes Greg Smith from the Kelsey Smith Foundation. Welcome to committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, members of the committee, thank you so much for letting me come here. I have a lot of reasons to support this bill, primarily because one section of this bill was inspired by events that happened to my family, in particular my daughter Kelsey Smith. In 2007, she was kidnapped and missing for four days. Eventually she was found where she had been strangled to death after being sexually assaulted. Not being able to find her for four days was very maddening. At the time I was a law enforcement officer. I'm a retired law enforcement officer now. I trained law enforcement across the United States on all kinds of technologies, LPRs, phones, body cameras, anything technology-wise for law enforcement, I've probably talked about it. I'm also a former state legislator from the state of Kansas. I served in both the House and Senate, so I know how the process works. And I know one thing that people are concerned about, I've heard questions about it already on other bills, is how much does this cost? The specific part of the bill that I'm interested in, other states have passed, 31 states, and And this has to do with the call location portion of the bill. Some states have called it the Kelsey Smith Act. That legislation was first passed in 2009 in Kansas, and now we're up to 31 states, Wisconsin being the last state to have passed it. There's a reason that you need this. Federal law controls what goes on with wireless devices right now. And it doesn't require the release of that information. It is a permissive type statute. You're looking at the Electronic Communications Protection Act, and you're looking at the Telecommunications Act of 1934. I realize there weren't cell phones then, but it's been amended. Both of those require a wireless provider to decide if it's an emergency or not. Not law enforcement, a wireless provider. In the case of my daughter, for two days, all she was was missing. There wasn't a crime. Being missing is not a crime. She 18 years old If she wants to go missing she can do that We didn know what had happened to her If law enforcement had been able to get a hold of that location information they would have been able to locate her rather quickly. It took four days for law enforcement to find her. Once law enforcement was in possession of the location data on her cell phone, they found her body in 45 minutes. So we had four days with 21 agencies, federal, state, and local, trying to find my daughter. And eventually, her killer was apprehended, and he is serving a true life sentence in Kansas. There's no chance for parole. It was actually a death penalty case, and he pled to avoid that. But those two federal laws that I mentioned have a flaw. One, somebody other in law enforcement is trying to decide if this is an emergency. And second, who can get that information? Under those acts, it can be released to any governmental agency. And the definition of that, well, just to summarize it in my language, that's anybody from the president to your street sweeper. It's anybody that's in any government agency at any level. And what I call the Kelsey Smith Act narrows that. It's only released to one entity. It's released to law enforcement and nobody else. So those are the reasons, or some of the reasons anyway, that I support the bill. Secondly, I've never seen a state that it's passed in where that costs any money. Here's where you can do something good. You can save people's lives, and it doesn't cost a state a dime. I'll give you a couple quick examples. In Kansas, shortly after it was passed, there was a gentleman that went to a park. He was in his 60s, my age, and he had a stroke. And he was unable to speak, but he had his wife on speed dial, so he repeatedly kept hitting that button, and she called the police. They located this gentleman in the park. They were able to get him medical assistance. And as far as I know, he's still living a productive life. There was a young lady in Utah that was under supervision for social services because she had neglected her baby. And she was supposed to check in on a regular basis, and she stopped. So law enforcement determined that the child could be in danger. They located the mother's phone, and they found the child was actually malnourished. at a conference I was speaking at, these officers came up and told me this story, and they had pictures. And they showed me one, and this child's face was completely shrunken. You could tell that she was malnourished and had nothing to eat. And then they showed me a picture six weeks later, and my wife looked at that, and she goes, look, she has big, fat baby cheeks. So I know this works. That's just a couple stories. I know several. I would urge you to pass the bill I'm not opining on any other parts of the bill other than this part although I did read through it and I like what I saw but this is the part that I'm most concerned about and like I said it does save lives and I'll be happy to stand for questions at any time
Thank you for your testimony and thank you for being here to share Kelsey's story and to continue to be her voice So we're happy to have this bill in front of our committee. Members, do you have any questions? Okay.
Ranking Member Thomas. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. My question is, your bill requires law enforcement agencies to enter a warrant into the law enforcement automated database system. Da-da-da. My question is that if an individual escapes from custody, I believe a warrant is automatically entered into the system for that Individual. I'm just. Well, I'm only looking at the phone portion, the wireless portion of this bill, so I can't really speak.
Oh, okay.
To that portion. Oh, okay.
My mistake.
Okay. Okay.
Representative Brewer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your testimony. I think this is a bill that one we all would be supportive of. And I just want you to take the time once again to reemphasize how this bill would have helped not just maybe your family, but other families as well. Because I think, you know, I always tell people, make sure they tell the story. If something like this is implemented in Ohio, the lives it may save. Because it's not just about someone who may be kidnapped, but you gave a story about someone who was on the phone with their wife. and something happened. I just want you to reiterate if you know any other stories or how this truly would have helped and why we really need to urge a passage of this not only on the committee, but on to signage by the governor. Thank you.
Yeah, I mean, this legislation in other states has been used in ways that we didn't envision when we first proposed it. I had an officer in Utah at a conference. I was out, come up and tell me a story of a young lady that said she was going to commit suicide by jumping off of a mountain. They were able to locate her. Unfortunately, it was after she jumped, but she was still alive, and they were able to get her to the hospital and get her the help that she needed. There was a kidnapping in Tennessee. A convicted child molester. Why he was out, I have no idea. He used an ice cream truck as his lure to get kids to come in. Somebody saw the child go into the ice cream truck and called it in. the police there in Tennessee had a file on this guy, which included his cell phone number. So they figured out, okay, let's see if his phone is there. They found the phone, they found the ice cream truck, they found the boy before anything had happened to him. It's not always a success. We don't always intervene before someone is killed or injured. But the point is, for a family that has somebody missing, for four days I had no idea where my daughter was. my heart ached when I heard that other story earlier because I know what that feels like and not knowing during that whole time you don't eat because you don't know if your kid's eating you don't sleep because you don't know if your kid's sleeping I mean it's a horror that I wouldn't want any of you to experience but this technology is able to at least provide a resolution to that situation there is a body to bury and a friend of mine whose daughter was very similar to what happened to my daughter, they went, I think it was 18, 19 years before all they were able to find, some guy was out mushroom hunting and they found her skull. At least with Kelsey, we were able to have a funeral, that type of thing. So it provides some resolution. I don't say closure because there is no closure or anything like this. But this is a tool. Technology moves so fast, it moves faster than legislatures can. And when it does that, we're stuck with court rulings, which are fluid. Case law never stays the same. So it's important that we codify those types of laws so that law enforcement can have the tools to do what they need to do.
Follow-up?
Representative Brent.
Thank you, Chairwoman. From the Chairwoman to our witness, thank you so much for providing your story. And I think a lot of times stories like yours is what drives us to do policy because we wanna be able to learn from what happened in our history within our country so we can make sure we prevent this So thank you for your strength. Now I do have a question, Chairwoman.
Okay. Thank you.
I knew you would. So I have a question and also I have a follow-up.
Sure.
Okay.
No, she has to.
Okay.
I'm looking at her. Go ahead. Do whatever you want to do.
What's the trend you serve you?
Whatever you want to do. Go ahead.
I used to be a chair. to have it. So in a time where people always like to say Big Brother is watching him, I run into constituents who think, hey, you're the government, you're probably watching me through my phone, my TV, my this, that, and the other. People always think we're like the Big Brother. So with the increase of privacy concerns, how does this bill balance people's constitutional privacy responses and emergency response when dealing, addressing this? That's a great question. Thank you,
Madam Chair, Representative Brent. I would say if you own one of these, commercial America knows more about you than you would believe. I got to. Much more so than the government does. But there is always a concern about privacy when it comes to things like this. There's case law out there that shows in an exigent circumstance that this is not a search. It's not considered a search. and when you're trying to rescue someone in the heat of the moment or something like that, this would be an exception to the Fourth Amendment as far as privacy goes where a warrant is not needed. The bill is narrowly crafted. I mean, we're talking has to be somebody who the police have a reasonable belief is missing and in danger of harm or death. It's the only time it's activated. You can't just say, geez, I wonder where Bill is and try to find him. you have to meet those requirements in order for that to happen.
Follow-up? Thank you, Sherwin.
I told you she has to okay it.
Okay. So my other question is that since you've seen this happen in multiple states, and obviously you started with Kansas and you moved to other states at this point, what challenges have our law enforcement occurred by implementing when trying to obtain cell phone locations?
Sorry, I have hearing aids and a cochlear implant, so I didn't get all that. I apologize. I might not have been talking that clear. So I'll say it again.
What challenges have law enforcement, since you've introduced this as passing to law into multiple states, what are some challenges that have occurred from this being put into place for my law enforcement when trying to obtain people's cell phone location?
For the most part, there haven't been that many. There are some states where shortly after it's enacted, maybe a cell phone provider's not aware that they have that obligation now. I know shortly after it was passed in Kansas, they had another missing person case where a girl had been abducted and the cell phone provider was not giving the information to law enforcement, the same detectives that worked my daughter's case. And they called me and they said, what are we going to do about it? And I said, call them back and tell them that the Kelsey Smith Act is passed in Kansas and if they don't understand what that is, here's my phone number. They can talk to her dad. And they got the information.
Thank you, Chair.
You're welcome. Any further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you again for being here. Your service to the great state of Kansas, both in law enforcement and in the legislature. We appreciate you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The chair now recognizes Aaron Haslam Adams County Prosecutor and a member of the Governor Missing Persons Working Group Welcome to committee Thank you for being patient Good afternoon Thank you Chair Abrams Vice Chair Miller Ranking Member Thomas members of the House Public Safety Committee.
My name is Aaron Haslam, and I have the honor of serving as the Adams County Prosecutor. Additionally, I had the privilege of serving on Governor Mike DeWine's Missing Persons Working Group as the appointed representative of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. And I want to stress to the committee that the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association supports House Bill 677 wholeheartedly. During the work of the Missing Persons Working Group, we heard from law enforcement, prosecutors, and families across Ohio about the challenges they face when children and vulnerable persons go missing. One of the common themes that consistently emerged in all of these situations and cases was the need for better tools to locate missing children as quickly as possible. House Bill 677 helps address that need. First, it strengthens Ohio's interference with custody law when a child is taken across state lines. It ensures warrants for the offenses are entered into the national law enforcement databases, such as NCIC and LEADS. The bill also allows officers to obtain CLI, call location information, the real-time location of a wireless device during emergency situations involving a danger of death or serious physical injury. This authority is limited to true emergency circumstances involving immediate risk that's consistent with existing emergency exceptions recognized under federal law. Finally, the bill establishes a statewide endangered missing child alert program to help coordinate efforts to locate children who are at high risk of serious physical harm. This helps address cases that do not meet the narrow criteria for an Amber Alert. but where a child may still be in significant danger. The experiences that I've seen in Adams County reflect the same challenges that were discussed during the working groups meetings. They're not uncommon in other counties across Ohio. Let me briefly share three examples from my county that illustrate why these tools matter. Adams County operates one of the few remaining county-run children's homes in Ohio, and we've had juveniles repeatedly run away from that facility and they remain missing for weeks or even months at a time. When they are eventually located, many return suffering from severe drug addiction and sexual exploitation by adults who took advantage of them while they were missing. In another case, we had a minor mother and her infant who were under protective supervision through the Adams County Children's Services Agency while living with a relative in another county. During the night, that mother was lured away by a 49-year-old man, and she left not only with herself but with the baby. They were later located across state lines in Greenup, Kentucky. In a separate case, we had a father with limited court order visitation that simply failed to return his child and took that child across state lines into Kentucky. For several days, no one knew where the child was or whether the child was safe. Although he was ultimately convicted the offense was only a misdemeanor which does not provide a meaningful deterrent when someone hides a child from a custodial parent In each of these situations time is critical The ability of law enforcement to quickly obtain cell phone location information can help locate the child sooner, protect them from harm, and hold those responsible accountable. When a child goes missing, every minute matters. House Bill 677 gives law enforcement the tools they need to act quickly and bring those children home safely. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 677. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer or entertain any questions the committee has.
Thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions?
Representative Brent. Thank you so much Chairwoman. I think I might just have one question. Go ahead. Thanks. So from the Chairwoman to the witness, thank you for coming before and really just showing us all the time of how what a public servant looks like by doing this work and stepping up for this committee. My question is, I just looked up that Adams County has a population of 27,000 a little bit, give or take.
That's correct.
So I live in Cleveland Ward 1. We have about 26,000 people, so that's like one ward of Cleveland. Reason why I'm asking that, and I have a question, Chairwoman, is what is the capacity of different areas when you talk about a county of Adams County, which has 27,000, to a county of Franklin County, I think they have 1.9. I'm going off the dome, so that's not an accurate number when I say that, about implementing this and the timeliness of getting that done. When you talk about maybe one county might have one case, and maybe in Franklin County they might have a couple cases where they might need to implement and reach out and do that. To the chairwoman, to the representative, great question.
Adams County, 27,000 people. What you probably noticed as well, geographically, land mass-wise, we're one of the five largest in the state of Ohio. So not only do we have a small population, but we have a large geographical area, which makes the need for this tool and other tools that much more imperative. Implementing it, it's like everything else that comes down from Columbus. It's going to be a challenge. A lot of unfunded mandates that make their way to Adams County. But that being said, the need for this is welcomed by law enforcement, and they would be more than happy to do whatever it takes to implement this to make sure we protect people that go missing.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Okay, thank you. Any further questions from the committee? All right, seeing none. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the opportunity, and happy birthday, Vice Chair. The chair now recognizes Lisa DeGeater, Ohio Domestic Violence Network. Welcome to committee, Lisa. Thank you.
Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the Public Safety Committee, my name is Lisa DeGeater, and I am the Senior Director for Policy and Prevention with the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. ODVN is Ohio's federally designated DV coalition, representing 76 shelters and programs across the state. And we're happy to be here in support of this bill. And you have our written testimony. But I wanted to come in person to testify, because this is really kind of an unusual situation for us. And I realize I'm speaking to a number of former law enforcement officers. So you all know far better than I do the extraordinary responsibility that law enforcement officers bear and how frequently law enforcement agencies are You're resourced. And what we see when we work cases with survivors of intimate partner violence, domestic violence, is we see folks who get civil protection orders. Those aren't criminal by definition. We see folks, particularly when you're talking about missing children, who have custody orders in domestic relations courts, which are also not criminal. So we appreciate that law enforcement aren't process servers and they're not social workers. Law enforcement responsibility is around public safety. So what we see is families who bring issues to law enforcement and get somewhat turned away because it's civil stuff. There's not a crime yet. And I also want to explain that oftentimes when tools like this are introduced, we know that even though there are survivors they can help, they can also be, when someone makes a false allegation, misused against survivors. So we're usually very cautious before we weigh in on these kind of issues. But we shared in the written story, the written testimony, a story about a particular family, and even that's kind of exceptional for us. Because we take confidentiality very seriously, and normally when we give an example, we de-identify it, we don't include personal information. But this particular victim had worked with one of our member programs and worked directly with ODVN to get legal services. This particular mom did everything she was supposed to do, and she did it in the way she was supposed to do it. She ended up with court orders in civil courts, not only in Ohio, but in Virginia, and still in the end she had to bury her son So I want to be here to make it really really clear that we do support this We know these civil matters This is an egregious example of the case that is in the written testimony. But our legal program regularly works with many families in similar situations. And I am the person at ODVN who's responsible for the team that compiles the annual fatality report. and one of the things I did last night was scribble down the side of my testimony the first names of the 45 children who have been lost in Ohio due to a parent or a step-parent killing them in the past three years. So we do believe this is, when you look at the bill, it seems like it's about process because we, different people have testified and they're focusing in on different pieces and this looks like it's kind of a procedural thing. There's a process. We're going to put this an NCIC, we're going to put it in the leads. This isn't just a process. We have a deadly chasm between our court systems, and this bill builds a bridge that will save the lives of Ohio children. So on behalf of ODVN, I want to say thank you to Rep. Abrams and to Rep. Seinenberg for the work that you're doing to protect Ohio children. I can happily answer any questions, and if I may, Chairwoman, I would like to leave behind copies of our most recent fatality report, and I also have a notice from the Center on Judicial Excellence that has a further snippet about what happened with Leo. Sure, absolutely.
Thank you. Yes. Members, do you have any questions for Lisa?
Representative Brent. Thank you, Chairwoman. I didn't think I was going to have a question, but you provoked some thoughts. So from the Chairwoman to the witness, thank you so much for coming before our committee. You spoke about something particularly interesting. In 2018 we passed a law House Bill 1 that will actually protect victims of dating relationships The Honorable Congresswoman Amelia Sykes passed it It was House Bill 1 It was a priority for the Statehouse to make that a civil case of protection targeting particularly college students. And I know that was very profound because that's why we can add bills like this, because it will be there for House Bill 1. For clarification, because not everybody's keeping up with the old and with the new when it comes to the bills, since this is built upon civil law how does it complement when you go over to the criminal law
well thank you through the chair to the representative thank you for the question and quite frankly having watched the hearing I would have been hurt if you didn't have one but this is the issue if a parent has custody law enforcement is understandably loath to interject themselves in that situation It's a civil matter. If nobody's alleged to commit a crime, if other investigations are pending, it complicates things. And having this information available and having these types of warrants entered into NCIC and leads will give us what we need to say, no, there is something here that this should get a law enforcement response. In the case that's in the testimony, there was an Ohio court custody order. Dad was supposed to have a three-day weekend. He kept the child, didn't bring him back to Ohio. The father was living in Virginia. And Ohio law enforcement understandably said, we're not driving to Virginia to get this kid. There's no crime underlying this. Dad just didn't bring him home on time. Leo spent five weeks in Virginia with his father when he was supposed to spend three days. And we ended up getting attorneys to go into court in Virginia to use a statute similar to this to get a warrant so that the father had both Ohio court orders and Virginia civil court orders and he was told to bring the child to the police department So at some point, statutes can't change all of this. Dad's response to that was to shoot the child in himself. But it was as close as we had gotten. We needed that to get law enforcement to respond. Like I said, they're very busy, and they're under-resourced, and this is kind of extra. And this makes the tie and the link that will allow those resources to get there to help more kids. Okay.
Thank you for your question.
Are there any further questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you.
Yes.
Go ahead and set them right over. Right there is fine. Perfect. We'll get them to the committee. Thank you so much for your testimony. Members, direct your attention to the iPads for multiple pieces of written testimony. and that will now conclude the second hearing for House Bill 677. I will now call Senate Bill 273 for its third hearing. Members, direct your attention to the iPads for written testimony. There also, is there anyone here in person that would like to give testimony on Senate Bill 273? Okay, seeing none, that will now conclude the third hearing for Senate Bill 273. I will now call House Bill 654 for its third hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to give testimony on House Bill 654? All right, members, direct your attention to the written testimony on your iPads, and that will now conclude the third hearing for House Bill 654. Okay, I will now call House Bill 200 for its second hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of House Bill 200? All right, seeing none, members, direct your attention to the iPad for several pieces of written testimony. And that will now conclude the second hearing of House Bill 200. With no further business before the committee, we're hereby adjourned.