Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee - 3-11-2026

Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. We do have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. Members, please review the minutes from the March 4th meeting on your iPads. Are there any additions or deletions? Without objections, the minutes are approved. The first order of business is called House Bill 31 for its fourth hearing, and I will now recognize Vice Chair Reynolds for a motion.

The amendment makes confirming changes to the definition of victim's family throughout the bill. The question is, shall the amendment be adopted? Is there any discussion? Is there any objection? Without objection, the amendment is adopted. We did not receive any testimony, but I will now recognize Vice Chair Reynolds for another motion.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Senator Strick?

The sufficient votes. The bill is favorably referred to the Committee on Rules and Reference, and this will stand as the fourth hearing on House Bill 31. We're going to move a little bit out of order, waiting on some sponsors, but we will call Senate Bill 304 for its first hearing and we'll hear sponsor testimony from Senator Lange. Welcome Senator.

Thank you, Senator, for your testimony. First question goes to Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson.

Yeah.

Current law currently allows for 10 days, but the reality of the situation today, some of these towing companies will wait two, three months to send a notice to start that 10-day period. So we're not changing current law in terms of towing. We're just telling the towing companies you need to get those notices sent out the next day or as soon as possible after you get the car. You know, a $100 a day storage fee for three months, you're looking at $9,000.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So if they can't go after the lien holder and they can't find the actual registered owner or that registered owner is like a complete financial mess, which it sounds like the buy here, pay here dealers kind of target those folks, who then pays for the towing fees and the liability there?

Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony.

The next order of business is called House Bill 492 for its first hearing and will now hear a sponsor testimony from Representatives Ray and Abrams.

Thank you, Chair. House Bill 492 was brought to our attention by Ohio law enforcement. Law enforcement officers across our state and nation face unsafe situations during traffic stops when individuals refuse to identify themselves. House Bill 492 can be broken down into two parts, interfering with an arrest and refusal to disclose personal information. The bill expands current provisions in the ORC related to interfering with an arrest by clarifying that this applies to any law specified in Title 45 of the revised code. This includes general motor vehicle laws like running red lights, speeding, OVI. It also applies to any municipal ordinance that is substantially equivalent to any portion under Title 45. Under the bill, the penalty for this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. The bill also prohibits a vehicle operator from refusing to disclose their name, address, or date of birth when requested by a law enforcement officer. This offense is specific to an officer requesting information when they have witnessed a driver commit a violation of Title 45 offense or equivalent municipal ordinance. The penalty for this offense is a fourth degree misdemeanor. The offense in House Bill 492 is specifically related to Title 45 offenses. This specification is what separates these offenses from similar changes like obstructing official business, obstructing justice, and failure to disclose personal information. The bill gives our police and prosecutors the ability to choose which offense applies for each case. During committee hearings in the Public Safety Committee in the House, the bill saw three major changes. We changed the term law enforcement to peace officer in the bill. This ensures that all of our law enforcement police officers that perform traffic stops across our state and are OPASI certified, the law applies to state troopers. OSP is not always considered in the definition of law enforcement. The second change modified the prohibition against failing to disclose a person's identity to include the passenger. This ensures for officer safety that different rules do not apply depending on where a person is seated in a vehicle We added additional constitutional protections where an operator or passenger does not have to disclose or answer any further questions beyond their name, address, and date of birth. This inclusion matches the new provisions, House Bill 492, to the constitutional protections that are in current law for failure to disclose personal information. The final amendment to 492 modified the relevant forms of transportation by adding under-speed vehicles like motorized bicycles, all-purpose vehicles, snowmobiles, etc. Nationwide, there were 115 police officer line-of-duty deaths in 2025. There have been 24 line-of-duty deaths so far this year. For the year 2024, traffic-related incidents accounted for 46 of the 147 total line-of-duty deaths for police officers, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Our law enforcement face risk every single day that they put their uniform on and start their shift. Traffic stops and domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous situations for our police. This bill is supported by the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the FOP of Ohio, Buckeye State Sheriff's Association, and the Ohio State Highway Patrol. This bill passed out of Public Safety Committee with a vote of 7 to 3 and the floor 59 to 21. House Bill 492 provides our law enforcement with an extra tool in the toolbox as they work to keep our community safe. Thank you, Chair, for allowing us this opportunity. We are happy to stand for any questions.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, representatives, for being here. Can you perhaps expand on the reasonable suspicion component and how that could lead to maybe some inconsistent applications from law enforcement? But again, I don't know if there's a way around that, but can you speak to that concern? Thanks.

The reasonable suspicion of a crime, I mean, that's, I mean, are you inferring a passenger or, like, you're saying the driver?

Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony. All right, thank you. And this will stand as the first hearing for House Bill 492. The next order of business, call House Bill 132 for its first hearing, and we'll now hear sponsored testimony from representatives Craig and Miller. Welcome.

Thank you, Representative, for your testimony. I do have one question about the fine. It's pretty significant. Obviously, it causes a death, but a $10,000 fine, I personally would rather have that money go through the wrongful death civil case and go to the family. Is the intent of that $10,000 to go to the family is like a restitution aspect to it, or is that going to the general fund?

Ranking member? Thank you. Thank you for this legislation. I'm just wondering about, as you know, that sometimes as a semi is trying to make, get over if it's a three lane, they're not able to get over because someone is on to their left speeding or they can't slow down because of the movement of traffic. How does this legislation take into account those types of factors? And then who would make that determination?

See, no further questions. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. And this will stand as the first hearing on House Bill 132. The next order of business is called House Bill 519 for its first hearing, and we'll hear sponsored testimony from Representative White. Welcome.

Thank you, Representative. The first question goes to Senator Belessin.

Well, thank you, Senator Manning, Senator – Chair Manning and Senator Blessing. An interesting thought about a tax credit, something that I find fascinating that you would propose. And so I'm very interested in looking into that and seeing if, in fact, that would be something that others would be interested in on the committee, as well as if that's something we can get through the House in a concurrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, I was being facetious. It's actually a car that was featured on Saturday Night Live. There is a way to tell criminals that you're not wealthy but smart. So thank you for that. But you are interested in the tax credit, Senator, correct? Okay. Oh, that was all made up. I was shocked that you were asking for more tax credits. Welcome to the Senate.

I do have a real question. I do have a real question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this legislation. I just need to know a little bit more about the enhancement for the juvenile offender. because you're saying that if, because in your testimony, you're saying that these offenders may or may not be part of a ring of adults that are stealing cars. Right. The whole purpose of juvenile justice is totally different than adult court. So what is the enhancement? How is someone determined a juvenile offender considered a repeat? So is it one car, 10 cars? What's that look like? Thank you.

Thank you for that answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair Manning and Senator Hicks-Hudson, I welcome that. I'll reach out to you. And I do think that this is about using these as criminal tools to steal cars. and steal items in the cars. And a lot of these juveniles are involved in kind of rings. And so I think the thought was how do we clamp down on that? And I welcome the opportunity I'll discuss further. Thank you for your question.

Thank you, Chair Manning, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and fellow members of the Judiciary Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 357, legislation that builds on the previously enacted Sierra's Law from 2018. In 2016, University of Toledo student Sierra Joggin was abducted and murdered by an individual with a violent past who lived close to her home. After that tragedy, the family of Sierra worked with then-State Senator Randy Gardner of the 2nd Senate District on legislation that would create the statewide violent offenders database. Senate Bill 231, known as Sierra's Law, would then get signed into law by then-Governor John Kasich in December of 2018. Since the enactment of that law, nearly 6,000 violent offenders have registered in the database. Senate Bill 357 builds off the previously enacted Sierra's law by improving the database so that the public can access its information from any location. It creates a publicly available online database. Whether you're on your computer at home or on your phone while you're moving your child into her first off-campus apartment, you'd be able to view this database. Under current law, the violent offenders database can only be accessed at your local sheriff's office. In In addition to improving public access, Senate Bill 57 adds second-degree felony strangulation to the offenses requiring registration and make this information available to law enforcement through LEADS, the Law Enforcement Automated Database System. So law enforcement has a heads-up when they pull over a car with a violent offender. Knowledge is power, an often-cited quote that goes back hundreds of years but still is true today. Knowledge is power for parents. Knowledge can mean having the ability to see if any nearby neighbors have a history of violent offenses. Knowledge, in the case of Senate Bill 357, provides Ohioans with another tool at their disposal to better protect themselves and their loved ones. I think we can all agree that safety is among the top concerns of citizens throughout this state and country, for that matter. We should be exploring all options that we have to keep people in our state safe. Even just giving Ohioans access to the violent offender database at their fingertips can go a long way. In what could be a simple two-minute search on your phone, you can either identify individuals with a past record of violent crimes or a peace of mind that no neighbors nearby have a violent past. Chair Manning, thank you for allowing me to provide sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 357, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you very much. Chair, thank you very much. Senator, I guess I'm wondering, because I have no idea about this, how many other states have a publicly searchable violent offender database and whether or not there are some, you know, have there been any, you know, unintended consequences in terms of vigilantism? You know again I mean if you have somebody that has you know committed a terrible crime in their 20s they done their time they out of the correction system and they a 50 just trying to live their life and are not So again, do we know if other states have similar searchable databases? Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony. And this will stand as the first hearing on Senate Bill 357. The next order of business is called House Bill 102 for its first hearing, and we'll now hear sponsored testimony from Representatives Klopfenstein and Williams. Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you, representatives.

Through the chair to the vice chair. So that came from research that what our current standard is of 1,000 feet and then looking at other states in the distances that they have proposed and came to a reasonable conclusion, knowing that most civil protection orders are as short as 500 feet. Soaring is typically 1,000. We wanted to at least align with what other states are doing, which will put us at the 2,000 threshold. But we're open to discussions about what we think is an appropriate footage. Some of the concerns that we heard through the committee process was how can we tell someone they have to sell the home that they already own? What if the market's down and they're underwater on their mortgage? So we put an exception in there. You don't have to dispose of a property that was owned prior to the incident. But that's still going to affect some victims. There was also concerns by the parents of the victim in this particular case. They wanted it to apply to their offender. And we outlined to them what the law says, is that I can't retroactively increase the soaring requirements. We've done that before in the state of Ohio. When we implemented, I believe it was the Adams-Walsh Act, either we got away from the Adams-Walsh Act or we instituted the Adams-Walsh Act, we gave the Attorney General the ability on his own to reclassify offenders under the new classification system and an offender sued. And the court said that that was an ex post facto increase in penalty and therefore we're not allowed to do it. So that's why we didn't try to apply it retroactively. So we've tried to address every concern that was raised. And if you have a concern in regards to the defeat, I would love to address that concern with your office.

Through the chair to the vice chair, that's a very great question. I'll start with the second point, which is we did put an exception of where when you stay here and the victim moves within the 2,000 foot proximity, you don't have to leave. Like you were already established. It's the victim who's choosing to move closer. This is intended for the individuals that essentially reside next to the victim. Think of renters mostly as what we're talking about here, where your next door neighbor was the one that took your child on their way home from school, put them into their apartment, molested them. They were prosecuted. Many of these sex offenders, I think, should be spending longer terms behind bars. But we've decided as a state that the registration is enough of a punishment. That's why you see the offender in this case gets six months of probation, 25 years worth of registration, where that is his version of punishment, which is the registry. It is difficult on you and that's the intent behind it. When you go out of the county, you gotta register with the sheriff if you're gonna stay there more than three days. If you go out of the state, You need to register in that state to make them aware that you're in a community. If you move, you need to register with the sheriff. If you change your job, you need to register. And I've had some of those cases where an individual failed to update the sheriff on their new address or their new job, and they were prosecuted for that. That's part of the punishment portion is to make it difficult. That's the tradeoff that you don't go spend 25 years in prison for molesting a child. Instead, we give you shorter sentences with this type of penalty. So that's why we address it that way. And we did two things. We allow for individuals that are already there to be grandfathered when a victim move in. And then we also gave some protections to landlords. We allowed the landlords to file an action for taking back the property. If you have an apartment complex and one of your tenants now is convicted of a sex offense and now is around little children, we want a landlord to be able to go in and say, hey, we want to be able to take premises. It's intended for if you're close to the victim, that the landlord can take back the premises and say, you know, we don't not want you, I wouldn't have rented to you if you were a sex defender in the first place, because I have a lot of minor children in an apartment complex.

Through the vice chair and to the vice chair question, that is a valid concern. And I first learned about the difficulties of a registered sex offender when I did a write-along with the Ohio Parole Authority a few months ago and I introduced legislation about some of the feedback that I got from the parole authority on difficulties they have in enforcing their actions. But what I learned was that if you actually are on parole and a registered sex offender, it's easier for you to find housing than if we just released you back on probation and you are a registered sex offender. Because you are a parolee, we're allowed to use reentry programs that you're familiar with and house those individuals at reentry housing that's licensed by the state of Ohio. but if you are simply a registered sex offender, you ineligible for that type of re style housing maybe we want to look at those statutes to make it where an individual that immediately upon their conviction if they have difficulty getting housing because of a new registration they are eligible for that type of re-entry housing. Because the theory behind our Soren requirements is that we want them to be employed. We want them to be housed. We want them to be away from potential victims, right? But we also want them not to re-offend. Absolutely. So that's why a lot of these sex offenders will get sentences that are suspended, hanging over their head with probation and so on. And if they reoffend, you face that 10 years that's hanging over your head. So many of those sentences are guided towards rehabilitation. So then we need to open up the reentry housing to them as well, because I've seen trailer parks that are put in rural areas specifically for sex offenders, where that's where they lease. I've also seen apartment complexes that are specifically positioned to be outside of that exclusion zone So they can provide housing and maybe the rent's $50 extra a month than what is typically market, but there's housing available. But we even had interested parties come and want these individuals banned from being close to parks or playgrounds or anywhere where a child is typically present. And we just can't do that as a state. That would make it where they can't live anywhere, and we're going to end up housing them in prison because they can't find housing. They're going to violate their conditions. They're going to be put in prison. So I'm more than willing to have a discussion with your office about looking at opening up some of our reentry programs to make these individuals eligible if they have difficulty finding housing. We could make it a sentencing requirement of the court that if they are charged with violation for not having an address that the court shall consider forcibly housing them in one of the reentry programs before they send them to prison. There's a lot of opportunity for us in that space. So maybe this could be a vehicle for some good reform when it comes to reentry. I'll let them move on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Vice Chair, for those questions because they really much follow my line of thinking as it relates to this. I do appreciate the thought behind this bill and the idea of protecting the victim. I'm just wondering about the operational aspect of it. How is it going to work? You mentioned that if the victim moves to where the offender is, the offender doesn't have to move. But, I mean, just practically speaking, with the volatility of housing and things like that in this country, how is this thing going to really work so that the victim is protected, but the offender is not at peril because of some either misidentification, miscommunication, the information didn't get uploaded into the system properly. I mean, this is such a situation or problem that we have to be so thoughtful with to protect the victim, but also to really help that offender not reoffend, not go down that rabbit hole. Because I, too, went on the ride-alongs, and some of the places where these people have to live are horrible. They're worse than maybe even being in prison. So we need to figure this out. I like the bill. I like the premise. But I just have these operational kinds of issues. If you care to respond, we can talk offline. I appreciate it.

Next question goes to Senator Gaviron. Hi, thank you. I just wanted a clarification on the retroactivity part. So in the case with the six-year-old, say the offender moves across the street, has done whatever time had, buys a place across the street, and then this law goes into effect. Does that require people to move who have bought places? I just kind of, and you said it wasn't retroactive. If you own the place before the offense, then it didn't apply, but what about people who bought after the offense and before? I just kind of wanted clarification. Would something like this help the victim that you're seeking to help?

Next question goes to Vice Chair Reynolds. Thank you. And I appreciate the bill and I appreciate your explanation. I think a proper amendment may be, or just exception for those reentry programs that are in communities, because they have to abide by the storm laws as well. So I think that if there is a halfway house or a transitional living program or something that is licensed and certified, they shouldn't have to necessarily consider that a victim lives, you know, because everybody's going to have a victim. and at some point are they going to be able to, is that, we want to keep people accountable so if this entity is in the neighborhood to keep someone accountable, then if it has to factor in, well, your victim may be here or your victim may be there or they can't live here because they're victim, I think it's going to make it harder for even to keep them accountable because at the end of the day that's what we're trying to do. So I think that there may need to be some type of exception if you all would consider that. But that's just my take on it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome and proceed and ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I approach? I did make an evidence packet for each of you. We'll have somebody come around. Okay. Thank you. This is on House Bill 168. So through the Chair, Senator Manning, and also to Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of this committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding House Bill 168. My name is Angie Hall, and I am here as an interested in party in support of this legislation and to urge for the immediate inclusion of the Public Parks and Playgrounds Amendment 136-0786. House Bill 168 takes important steps to strengthen penalties for registered sex offenders convicted of child enticement and to clarify Ohio Revised Code 2950 so it can be enforced consistently by law enforcement. Those updates matter. However, this bill is currently drafted is incomplete and because of that children remain at risk. The bill does not include protection for public parks and playgrounds and this admission is unacceptable to the public and our residents. During the review of Ohio sex offender statues, several gaps in the existing law were identified. One of the most serious failures was the exclusion of public parks and playgrounds Places that are specifically designed for our children to gather and play and participate in community life. We maintain that Ohio Revised Code 2950, subsection .034, was written in the spirit to protect our children where they regularly gather and play. The omission of our parks and playgrounds can be addressed with this amendment and bill. These locations are not incidental. They are central to Ohio families, and they deserve explicit protection under the law. Ohio Revised Code 2950.034 was clearly intended to protect our children in locations where they're most vulnerable Yet due to the missing language, public parks and playgrounds were left out And as a result, sex offenders are regularly moving and living in close proximity into the spaces where they can target their victim types Last week, we heard from the Ohio Trafficking Association We know that sexual offenders do not just target children for their own offenses, but also funnel them into this network. And by living next to a park where they can remain unseen behind their windows, the public is not aware that they're there. Parents watching are not aware that they are there watching for the opportunity to take a child. Predators do not need to stand outside those parks. They can observe our children currently with this gap from their nearby homes and properties. Public Parks and Playgrounds Amendment 136-0786 directly corrects this failure by prohibiting registered sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of public parks and playgrounds. House Bill 168 is the appropriate and responsible vehicle for this amendment. There is no policy-based reason, and there's no moral justification for excluding it. This gap was identified by our own concerned citizens. More than a year ago, this proposal has been discussed with the sponsors of House Bill 168, who advised that this amendment to the bill was the most effective path forward. Their guidance was followed. The amendment was drafted by the Legislative Service Committee last September. Ohio's General Assembly has the authority to act decisively on this legislation with broad bipartisan support. With that authority comes responsibility. Choosing not to include this amendment is not a matter of timing or process. It is a decision to leave children unprotected in the very places where we intend to keep them safe. This amendment is not a punishment. It's a preventative measure. It falls in line with the protective measures already in existence in Ohio law. It does not target a specific individual or group unfairly. This amendment applies uniformly to registered sex offenders consistent with existing residentiary restrictions and does not create a new class It cracks an omission We also understand due to the Hiles Constitution that anybody that currently lives within 1 feet of our public parks and playgrounds are grandfathered in. This closes the gap so that we do not continue to see an influx in the future of them residing near public parks and playgrounds. It does not require anybody to move that already resides there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome. Good morning, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Leah Sakala, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Alliance for Safety and Justice, a multi-state public safety organization. We organize a nationwide network of underserved violent crime victims, which includes 13,000 members here in Ohio. We are proud to support SB 291 because research-based community control is a powerful public safety tool. It allows courts to craft flexible sentences that prioritize accountability, address drivers of crime, and keep people in the workforce supporting their families. And like any tool, following the research brings the best results. SB 291 is needed because right now, Ohio is a national outlier in its over-reliance on community control, which weakens supervision as a safety tool. Ohio keeps far more people on community control than other states do. In fact, more than almost every other state in the nation. Ohio's community control supervision rate is twice as high as the national average, and it outpaces every one of its neighboring states. Also, as a direct consequence of this overuse, technical rule-breaking violations of community control are a major driver of prison admissions, another area where Ohio outpaces nearly every other state in the country. Ohio has this outlier status because current law allows people sentenced to community control to receive terms as long as five years, even for a first-time misdemeanor. While some counties have adopted the kind of targeted research-based terms in this bill, conversations with stakeholders across the state have shown that this is far from the norm everywhere, and the statewide data clearly underscore the problem. This overuse of supervision is counterproductive. It undermines public safety by driving recidivism rates up, it weakens the Ohio workforce, and it uses limited resources that could instead be focused on preventing crime and supporting victims of violence. SB 291 is a balanced, research-based, smart-on-crime approach that advances two key public safety goals. First, making supervision focused on the time period that brings the biggest public safety return. and second, making supervision flexible to ensure real accountability, which includes addressing the drivers of crime. And I'll briefly explain how. So the first goal is that supervision is focused and the research on this is really clear 12 to 18 months of supervision is the critical intervention window that brings the biggest public safety return and that should be the focus of supervision terms Terms that are too long actually undermine public safety by leading to higher recidivism and technical violation rates. And this is why there's overwhelming consensus among supervision experts and major professional organizations, including the American Probation and Parole Association, that standard community control terms should not exceed this 12 to 18 month window. SB 291 would set an initial term cap of three years for misdemeanors and lower level felonies, better aligning Ohio's community control structure with what we know works. Now the second goal this bill would advance is that community control is flexible, and this means shaping supervision to prioritize public safety based on accountability, responding to the needs, circumstances, and conduct of each person. This bill creates multiple pathways for courts to extend the initial three-year terms up to the current five-year limit. Judges will be able to extend terms to respond to violations, address ongoing treatment needs, and ensure that someone finishes required programming and meets restitution obligations. The bill also creates a standard review at the two-year mark for people with lower-level felonies who have followed all the rules, completed all requirements, and stayed crime-free. Together, these provisions ensure that judges have the ability to extend terms when necessary and give people on community control a powerful incentive to take responsibility for their rehabilitation and follow the rules. SB 291 also creates a structure for tailored responses to low-level technical rule breaking, including time in jail, in a community corrections facility, or in needed treatment. Research shows that these kinds of swift and certain sanctions work to hold people accountable for violations and reduce recidivism, keeping people in the workforce and out of prison. So in conclusion, SB 291 is a balanced bill that reflects common sense and research-backed improvements that will make Ohio safer. The bill reflects extensive feedback gathered on last session's version from key Ohio stakeholders, including judges, probation officers, and community corrections associations. The provisions in SB 291 have received widespread support from public safety and corrections experts across the country and align with best practices adopted by other states. I thank Chair Manning and Vice Chair Reynolds for sponsoring the bill. I thank the committee for your time and consideration today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair, Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hugson, and members of Senate Judicial Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide pro bonant testimony on Senate Bill 291. My name is Trish Perry, and I'm co-founder of Ohio CAN, which stands for Change Addiction Now, a grassroots organization that supports families and communities impacted by substance use disorder. Our mission is to educate, embrace, and empower families while working to remove the stigma surrounding addiction and recovery. Before I was an advocate, I was a mother, and I am still a mother, of a child that struggles with substance use disorder. More than a decade ago, I learned that my son was struggling with substance use disorder. Like so many families across Ohio, I had no roadmap. I did not know where to turn for help and I quickly discovered that addiction does not just affect one person It affects the whole family And I have seen the heartbreak that addiction brings to the communities across our state This experience led me to become involved with Ohio Can and began working directly with people who are struggling with addiction, homelessness, and the long road to recovery. In this work, we meet many people that are involved in the judicial system and are trying to rebuild their lives while under community supervision. What I have learned through the work is simple. Recovery and stability take time, support, and opportunity. When people are trying to overcome substance use disorder, maintain employment, reconnect with the family, and follow the conditions of supervision, long and inflexible supervision terms can sometimes create additional barriers instead of helping the people to succeed. Many individuals we meet are doing everything they can to move forward. They're working, participating in treatment, recovery programs, and complying with the conditions of their supervision. Yet they remain under supervision for years, even minor technical violations such as missing an appointment because of a transportation or work conflicts can result in serious consequences that disrupt their progress. SB 291 represents a thoughtful step toward a more balanced approach. By creating a tiered system of community control terms based on offense severity and allowing for judicial review after two years for individuals who have complied with their supervision requirements, this bill provides an incentive for people to stay on track and demonstrate accountability. For people in recovery, incentives matter. When someone knows that their progress maintaining sobriety, holding a job, and complying with supervision can create the opportunity for early completion of supervision, it reinforces positive behavior and encourages long-term stability. Just as important, Senate Bill 291 maintains the discretion of judges and supervision officers to continue supervision when legitimate public safety is a concern. This ensures that the system still protects the community while allowing individuals who have demonstrated progress to move forward with their lives. From the perspective of families affected by addiction, we know that recovery is fragile and often hard won. Policies and support stability, employment, and reintegration make a difference in regards to whether someone continues on the path to recovery. Senate Bill 291 reflects a smarter approach that focuses supervision resources where they are most needed while giving people who are doing the right thing a meaningful opportunity to succeed. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to support Senate Bill 291. Thank you for your time and your commitment to the policies that strengthen the families and communities across Ohio. and I'd be glad to take any questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, well, thank you all, and thank you all to Chairman Manning and to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearing my testimony today. Thank you to Chairman Manning for bringing this important piece of legislation. I work for an organization called Unified.US. It was created in 2025, and we work on national and state policy across the country that make our economy stronger, our family stronger, and our community stronger. It's kind of a merger of economic conservatives and faith-based conservatives. Former senior staff of CPAC and Faith and Freedom Coalition and kind of merge together to form this organization. And we believe that strong families create strong communities, and that is why we are strong advocates for reforming public policy in our criminal justice system where we believe there are better solutions. Today, we join our voices to the efforts to modernize Ohio's community supervision system by incentivizing hard work and successful rehabilitation. SB 291 represents a practical approach to community supervision that will make Ohio safer, stronger, and more prosperous. As such, we urge you to embrace this policy. As you can probably tell, I'm not from Ohio by my accent. I'm from Georgia and have worked on a lot of policy in the state of Georgia. And in 2001, we passed a Senate bill, Senate Bill 105, that was probation reform. form. And at that time, Georgia had more people on probation per capita than any state in the country. So it was signed into law, and this bill created a pathway to termination for felony probation after three years, if specific conditions were met. This bill was designed to reduce recidivism, encourage good behavior and rehabilitation, reduce the caseload for probation officers, and lower the overall cost for the state's community supervision program. The results so far have been pretty good. Since implementation in 2021, roughly 27,000 people have had their sentences reduced by an average of 3.3 years, which has given the state a total estimated savings of $71 million that could be reallocated to active supervision or cases that may require more intensive case management. The cases where there was judicial approval for early probation termination, the recidivism rate was around 5 percent. And Georgia's overall three-year felony recidivism rate is about 27 percent. SB 291 was structured with a lot of the same goals in mind. This bill caps probation terms of three years for individuals on probation who remain in compliance with the conditions of their supervision. while completing key milestones that demonstrate the personal responsibility, which in turn will correlate to lower risk of recidivism. This bill also gives judges the flexibility to extend an individualized supervision plan if the probationer is not in compliance. This creates a process of accountability and matching community control time to meet the needs of public safety. SB 291 also allows those on probation who commit technical violations another pathway to settle their misconduct, rather than sending them back to prison where they cannot be at home with their families or continuing to further their career at their place of employment. All these improvements will enable Ohio's probation officers to focus their time and resources on individuals who pose a higher risk, thus reducing caseloads and improving overall public safety. In closing we ask for your favorable consideration of SB 291 because the evidence is clear When individuals secure steady employment complete treatment and earn educational and vocational credentials their chances of reoffending drop profoundly All of us should want those who are not a danger to society, who have served their time, and who have paid their restitution to be able to transition back into society. instead of getting stuck in what can become a never-ending cycle in the criminal justice system. So on behalf of Unify U.S., thank you for letting me give testimony today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks very much, Chair Manning. Thank you, sir, for appearing in committee. Just so, I want to dive into the data that you've got, second-to-last paragraph on page one. the 27,000 people that had their sentences reduced and only had a 5% recidivism rate as compared to, you said, I think 26%? For three-year felony probation, folks. So, okay, yeah, I'm trying to, I mean, obviously that. Well, keep in mind, too, it's 2026, right? So I guess those numbers could go up. But as we see, I think this was 2025 data, and I'm happy to provide you with that study that was done. And it was retroactive, so it went back to 2017, the Georgia bill did. So from folks 2017 to 2021 that were able to get petitioned to get out early, those folks have had a recidivism rate of, I think it's like 4.9, actually. but 5% as we sit here today in 2026. Okay, but what was the other percentage that you had? I was just saying George's recidivism rate was right at 27%. That was it. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, I guess my question would be, yeah, Is there a way to quantify when repeat offenses take place? And is it like, is it more likely to happen in the first four years? Is it more likely to happen, you know, I'm like, there's, I'm somewhat familiar with divorce theory. And I know that for some reason divorce happens, you know, kind of here, here, and here, you know, and there's just a very interesting curve. And so I'm just kind of wondering if there's similar spikes or ebbs and flows in repeat offense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I mean, look, good question. I would say the majority happens in that first three-year window, but certainly it's going to happen longer. I don't know what Georgia's number is. Look, I think it's fair to say that at least in Georgia, for the folks, for the judges, giving them a shorter sentence has appeared to be working as we sit here today, for sure.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

No worries, you got it. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, and Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to offer proponent testimony on Senate Bill 291 I also want to thank Chair Manning and Vice Chair Reynolds for introducing and advocating for this bill I am Allie Alfonsetti and I serve as a legislative strategist for Prison Fellowship Prison Fellowship is the nation's largest Christian nonprofit equipping the church to serve currently and formerly incarcerated people and their families. Prison Fellowship serves men and women in nine Ohio prisons through values-based programming like the Prison Fellowship Academy. In 2025, over 16,000 individuals were under supervision with a community control sanction in Ohio. Community control requirements should strike a balance between providing individuals with stability and guidance while also ensuring public safety. An individual's stability can be challenged with no public safety benefit when minor non-criminal violations lead to incarceration that disrupts that individual's job and home life. Nationwide, an estimated one in four prison admissions are the result of technical violations of probation or parole rather than new criminal conduct. This can undermine the nature of the crime, distort justice in overcrowd facilities with low-risk individuals. SB 291 reforms the current protocol for community control sanctions to better set individuals up for success by tailoring punishments for technical violations. This bill also allows courts to order individuals sentenced to temporary incarceration for a violation to serve their time on nights or weekends, helping to minimize disruptions to their employment and family responsibilities. Additionally, SB 291 reduces unnecessarily long community control terms. Excessively long probationary periods can cause roadblocks for individuals earnestly seeking their second chance. Community control policies that are proportionate, outcome-oriented, and swift will steward resources and fulfill our community's best interests. SP 291 streamlines community control terms by setting maximum supervision links within a tiered system based on offense class. The bill will also provide the opportunity to ask for early termination after two years of felony community control sanctions, encouraging individuals to prioritize productive behavior and compliance with their court-ordered conditions. A justice system that aligns with Mercy acknowledges that transformation is possible while preserving accountability. SB 291 provides judges with the tools to improve supervision outcomes and enhance public safety. Ohio has an opportunity to encourage success for Ohioans on community control by passing and supporting SB 291. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Members Hicks-Hudson, and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on Senate Bill 291. My name is Vicki Miller. I'm the creator of the Training Assessment Placement Project, a former vocational educator with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and owner of VMC Consulting. Through my work, I engage every day with individuals who are returning to their communities after incarceration and working to rebuild their lives. I see firsthand the challenges they face in finding employment, maintaining housing, reconnecting with their families and complying with the many requirements of community supervision From this experience I strongly support Senate Bill 291 because it reflects what those of us working directly with returning citizens see every day Supervision works best when it's focused, purposeful, and tailored to individual progress, not when it is unnecessarily prolonged. Under current Ohio law, individuals on community control can remain under supervision for up to five years, regardless of the severity of the offense. In practice, this often means people who have done everything right, completed programming, maintained employment, and complied with supervision requirements remain under supervision long after they have demonstrated stability. Long supervision periods can unintentionally create barriers to successful reintegration. Individuals who are trying to move forward in their lives often face technical violations for minor issues such as missed appointments, scheduling conflicts with work, or transportation challenges. When these technical violations accumulate, people can be sent back to jail or prison, even though they have not committed a new crime. This disrupts employment, destabilizes families, and undermines the very progress supervision is intended to support. Senate Bill 291 introduces a smarter, more balanced approach by creating tiered community control terms that reflect offenses severity and allowing the judicial review after two years for individuals who have complied with all requirements. requirements. The bill creates an incentive structure that rewards progress and accountability. People who demonstrate that they're successfully reintegrating into society should have the opportunity to move forward without unnecessary supervision. Importantly, the bill still preserves judicial discretion. Courts will retain the ability to continue supervision when public safety concerns exist or when an individual is not complying within the terms of their supervision. This ensures that supervision resources remain focused on individuals who need them the most. In my work with formerly incarcerated individuals, I see how powerful positive incentives can be When people know that they're hard work, maintaining a job, supporting their families, staying compliant can lead to earlier completion of supervision. They're more motivated to succeed. Senate Bill 291 promotes accountability, supports rehabilitation, and allows our criminal justice system to focus resources where they are most effective. It helps people who have already proven they're ready to move forward while maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect public safety. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to support Senate Bill 291, and thank you for your time and consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.