Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee - 6-3-2026

The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Here.

Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson?

Here.

Senator Gaviron?

Senator Smith?

We do have a quorum present and we'll proceed as a full committee. Members, please review the minutes from the May 20th meeting on your iPads. Are there any additions or deletions? Without objection, the minutes are approved. We do have a very long agenda, as you can tell, with a packed room here and 16 bills up. So we are asking people to try to please limit your testimony to five minutes or less. There's a very bright screen on the podium there that you'll see counting down. It is not a hard cutoff, but I will just give you a polite, please summarize your testimony. If we do hit that five minutes, it would be greatly appreciated because we have a busy day, and a lot of members have different committees that they have to be to, and we just want as many members to hear the testimony as possible. With that, the first order of business is to call House Bill 252 for its first hearing. We will now hear sponsored testimony from Representatives Click and Bird. Welcome.

Chairman Manning, with respect to your long agenda, I will just testify that my joint sponsor did an excellent job, and I concur with everything that he said.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to give sponsored testimony today on House Bill 372. Friday, May 2, 2025 was likely a normal day for all of us. For the Henderson family, it was the worst day of their lives. Following his time with the United States Marine Corps, Deputy Larry Henderson served with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office for 33 years before retiring in December of 2024. Deputy Henderson loved our community and continued to serve special details for the Sheriff's Office when needed. One of those details was traffic control for the University of Cincinnati's Spring Commencement Ceremony last year, May 2nd, where the university welcomes tens of thousands of people onto campus. While thousands of individuals were celebrating their college graduation, Deputy Henderson was ensuring that people could cross the street safely. It was a busy street. Deputy Henderson stood at the corner of Martin Luther King Drive and Burnett Woods Drive in Clifton, near the traffic box, on the sidewalk, manually running the light. As a car entered the turn lane, waited for the other traffic to pass, and accelerated onto the corner, striking and killing Deputy Henderson. One man made the decision to kill Deputy Henderson just because of the uniform he was wearing. While proudly wearing his uniform, Larry Henderson was a man of high integrity. He had a great sense of humor. He was compassionate. He was a father of five, a grandfather, a husband, a foster father to a six-month-old and a two-year-old. Sadly, here in Ohio, as you all know, we lost four officers in the line of duty last year. I'm not going to read about aggravated murder. Everyone here knows what the ORC says. What I will say is these sections cover the intentional killing of peace officers, prosecutors, corrections officers, first responders, and military members. Every one of those groups of people work to keep us safe and free every single day in this country. House Bill 372 will establish that threatening our safety by killing a peace officer corrections officer prosecutor first responder military member will be met with serious punishment Under current law the penalty for aggravated murder is either the death sentence death penalty life in prison without parole or life in prison with parole after serving 25 to 30 years. This bill simply takes away the opportunity for parole. When a cop killer is eligible for parole, the family's friends and coworkers of the victims have to relive their death over and over again, and the pain and grief that comes with testifying in front of the parole board. House Bill 372 will make sure these families never have to go through this pain and grief again. When I was a young police officer back in the day, we used to type out a letter. Every time a cop killer here in Ohio was up for parole, we would all sign the letter and we'd fax it up to the parole board. I know I'm aging myself, but here we are. I did not believe, even back then, why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? You made a conscious decision to kill a police officer. It's important to note that we're not adding the death penalty. It's already in the code, as all of you know. Ohio's law enforcement, first responders, and military members risk their lives daily for our safety. It is our turn to prove to them that we have their back, not just with words, but with actions, keeping these cop killers where they belong, in prison. I'm going to yield to my joint sponsor here, Representative Plummer.

Thank you, representatives, for your work on this and your brief testimony. The first question goes to the ranking member, Hicks Hudson.

Through the chair to the senator, yes, ma'am, and we're going to join 41 other states.

Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you once again.

And this will stand as the first hearing on House Bill 372. The next order of business is called House Bill 20 for its fourth hearing. I will now make a motion to adopt Substitute Bill 3243-1. This amendment makes obstructing official business an F-4 if the violation creates a risk of physical harm to an emergency service responder. The question is, shall the substitute bill be adopted? Is there any discussion? Are there any objections? Seeing none, the substitute bill is adopted. And we will now hear Interested Party testimony from Stephanie Thomas.

We will submit her testimony as written. Members, please note written proponent testimony from Greater Ohio Policy Center. And I will now recognize Vice Chair Reynolds for a motion.

Chair Manning?

Vice Chair Reynolds?

Ranking Member of the Exception?

Senator Blessing?

Senator Petrona? Senator Gowler?

Senator Smith?

and this will stand as the fourth hearing on House Bill 20. The next order of business is called House Bill 195 for its fourth hearing. We did not receive any testimony but I will make a motion to adopt Amendment 2573 This amendment requires the administrative director of the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a billing to the administrative judge of the court to which a retired judge is serving instead of to the county treasurer The question is, shall the amendment be adopted? Is there any discussion? Any objection? Without objection, the amendment is adopted. I will now recognize Vice Chair Reynolds for another motion.

Chair Mayne?

Vice Chair Mayne?

Regimentary excessive?

Senator Bessie?

Senator Trump? Senator Gowbrick?

Senator Cue.

I have a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for clarification. I'm not necessarily opposed to the amendment. It's just that there are some concerns by folks in my neighborhood as it relates to the impact of this amendment, if you know.

No, in my understanding it does not. Okay.

No, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to favorably report Senate Bill 102 to the Committee on Rules and Reference. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Senator Gavarin?

With sufficient votes, the bill is favorably reported to the Committee on Rules and Reference,

I move to favorably report Senate Bill 421 to the Committee on Rules and Reference. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Senator Gowen?

With sufficient votes, the bill is favorably reported to Committee on Rules and Reference.

From the International Legal Finance Association, from Daewai Chinfemen.

Good morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the committee. My name is Daewai Chinfemen. I'm here on behalf of the International Legal Finance Association, or ILFA. I was here last year. It's nice to see everybody again. We also I was here last year for Senate Bill 10 and we also opposed HB 105 in the House. I've submitted written testimony and also we've circulated a handout. I'm not going to repeat those points here. At bottom, this is a deeply flawed bill. It is the product of a compromise with which nobody is happy. There is indications in the proponents testimony that they will be back for another bite at the apple. I know there's a lot of fatigue on this bill in this state and nationally, and to the extent any finality is sought here, this is not a durable compromise, particularly on the disclosure point. I'm going to focus on national security because that was an area of great interest at the proponent's hearing. It's also what I understand to be a driving force behind this bill. The national security ban in this bill would be extremely strong, as proponent Uber stated, the strongest in the country. Now, why are we doing that and what does it accomplish? Why are we doing that depends who you ask. From my perspective, it's a de facto ban on the majority of the market. If you're an Ohio small business and you need litigation funding, litigation funders are extremely selective. You'll be lucky if you get two or three offers. If you knock out more than half the market, because more than half the market has legitimate foreign investors disclosed to the SEC, regulated by federal law, you're knocking all of them out. Who gets hurt? The Ohio small business. Who, all of a sudden, the price is going to go up to because there's no competition. So why are we doing that? Well, I would say it's a de facto ban. The good faith argument would be, well, we're doing it because we want to protect Ohio. And it's so important to protect Ohio from these foreign threats that we're willing to de facto wipe out this market. So how do we protect Ohio from foreign threats? What we're doing is banning legitimate third-party funders from funding for-profit litigation in Ohio. If you are—so let's imagine there's two versions of me. My name's Daiwai, Chairman Manning. I butcher my name every time I say it according to my mother, and that is my testimony. But let's say there's two of me. There's the one you see before you today. I'm a litigation funder. I went to law school here. I'm American. Yes, I'm Chinese. We'll get to that in a second. By the way, every example of foreign interference here is China or Russia. You saw my testimony. We would be comfortable with a restriction on countries of concern. This is coextensive with federal law. It also prevents the act, to the extent it's enacted, from being struck down on preemption grounds. Just like many other bills in the United States that violate federal law, violate Trump's America First Investment Policy, these would be subject to federal preemption blocks under FIRMA. So not only is this not a durable compromise, there's grounds for it to be tied up constitutionally in court. Okay, so let's get back to the two of me. So here's the one before you. I am a legitimate litigation funder. Where I used to work has a large Swiss investor. It's an American funder run by Americans, has mostly American investors, does have a large Swiss investor who is firewalled off. The legitimate funder doesn't get any confidential information about the case, does not share that with its investors because it doesn't even have it itself. The funder has no control over the case. The investor has no control over the funder. But because it a Swiss Elk limited partner down the chain we going to bar that funder from operating in Ohio Okay so we going to prevent the legitimate one that can control anything How could that Swiss LP if it had a hostile foreign interest by the way, it's Swiss, it's neutral, weak army knife, but how would they even control? You need to convince, you need to control the funder and get them to violate the law and be seditious and engage in conspiracy against the United States. You need to get control of the lawyers, get them to violate their professional duties to steal confidential trade secrets, and you need to then pass that along overseas. That's very hard, and you can ban that, but what you're not banning is a true malicious actor, the me in China, who's not doing this for profit to make a living, who's doing this to steal the trade secrets. How are they going to do it? Well, this bill defines commercial litigation funders needing to have a profit interest. The Chinese aren't doing this for a profit. They're doing it to steal the trade secrets of the American company. They wouldn't even qualify under this. No disclosure of the Chinese funder that does it for a loan or not for profit, but does it for the trade secrets, for the malicious purpose. That is not covered by this bill. What if they use a Chinese law firm who does it on contingency? Not covered by this bill. The agreement requires a direct interest in the proceeds of a lawsuit. Again, those are not the trade secrets. So they can do it by doing it not-for-profit. That's the easiest way. The other way, not even third-party litigation funding, you'd still need to control the underlying party. Let's just do it as a first party. Instead of having all these restrictions on control and influence, if we're the Chinese, let's just invest in the company. Let's install a board member. Let's control the company. That way we can control it directly. We can get the trade secrets directly. We can send them to China. We don't need to have lawyers violate the rules of professional conduct and subject themselves to criminal exposure. I know I'm running a long time. Apologies if that was dramatic. But the foreign me, to the extent he's malicious, has a lot of ideas. This bill is a de facto ban on the majority of the market, which will hurt Ohio small businesses. And why are we doing it? For a loophole-filled compromise that will be back in a year and only exposes the true risks to Ohio courts to the extent they exist of bad actors, which would not be covered by this bill at all.

I guess I have one. I mean, is there a way to, you know, I know there was an amendment out there that I spoke to last week about just adversal countries. You know, I don't think that went over well. Is there a way to wall off, you know, in your situation, where it sounds like you are walling off the Swiss company where we would have language where maybe that would be as long as there is an American presence where that would be allowed? Or, okay, I haven't seen it.

We love having you in Columbus. But anyways, we can address that.

Appreciate that. Seeing no further questions, thank you once again for your testimony.

Members, please note written opponent testimony from Save Our States Action Consumer Defense and Heartland Impact And this will stand as the third hearing on House Bill 105 In next order of business to call Senate Bill 422 for its third hearing I will move to adopt a substitute bill number 2009 The substitute bill adds to the list of legitimate purposes attending public, civic, or community meetings held on school premises during non-school hours, provided no children are present at the meeting. If the offender is a student enrolled at the school attending classroom instruction on a day that the school is in session or serving in in-school suspension, being on the premise for purposes of voting on the day of election if the offender is registered to vote and is assigned to that polling place. Also adds to the list of affirmative defenses a student enrolled at the school for legitimate purpose. adds affirmative defense language when a student offender that is enrolled in the district is entitled to attend school and receive an education, giving school districts the ability to impose reasonable safety and supervision conditions on the student's presence on school premises. It also lowers the penalties in the bill to an M2 on the first offense, M1 on the second offense, and F5 on the subsequent offense. The question is, and just to remind members, this is still a working document here, but the question is, shall the substitute bill be adopted? Is there any discussion? Is there any objection? Seeing none, the amendment is adopted. Members, please note written testimony, opponent testimony, from the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and interested party testimony from the Ohio School Boards Association. And this will stand as the third hearing on Senate Bill 422. The next order of business is called House Bill 210 for its fourth hearing. We were planning to adopt the amendment today, but we are still working with the sponsors and the arrested parties on potential changes, so therefore stay tuned, I guess. So this will stand as the fourth hearing on House Bill 210. The next order of business is to call House Bill 126 for its fifth hearing. I will move to adopt Amendment 2572-1. Oh, excuse me. I will not remove my movement to adopt the amendment. We were going to adopt Amendment 2572-1. This amendment defines data centers, clarifying that product as defined in the bill does not include a data center. I think many members received emails from interested parties and opponents to data centers that were fearful that this bill could have a negative impact on BML to data centers over a nuisance. I do not believe that is the case under the current bill. I do not feel that this amendment is necessary, but I wanted to put it out there and see if members, we are not voting this bill out today, so I just wanted to at least put it out there to see if members, if this would make them more comfortable to clarify that data centers are not a product as defined under the bill. So we will not be adopting an amendment, but take a look at that and feel free to reach out to my office if you have any questions or concerns, and we will decide as a committee whether to adopt that at the next hearing. And this will stand as the fifth hearing on House Bill 126. The next order of business is to call House Bill 296 for its second hearing. We will now hear proponent testimony from Sarah Henry on behalf of the Prison Fellowship.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from committee? I guess my question would be, I'm certainly supportive of the idea behind this bill. I think I expressed previously about, you know, while not often the case, but on occasion there might be somebody that has significant assets or, you know, whether that's in, you know, liquidated assets or whether there's, you know, whether it's a home or a business or whatever the case might be that clearly can pay. their fines and costs immediately. Is there anything that we can do where maybe they're not getting that six-month bump? Do you think maybe multimillionaires that are coming out of prison should be paying that immediately?

Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you once again for your testimony.

Next, we'll hear from Emily Albalmer on behalf of the Prison Fellowship as well. Welcome.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thanks for having me back. All right, good morning Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the committee. My name is Patrick Higgins, and I have the pleasure of serving as Senior Policy Counsel for the ACLU of Ohio. As over in the House, I have the pleasure of following Ms. Vollmer and experts from the Prison Fellowship giving their testimony in support of this bill, and it's a great honor to follow their lead in doing this work. So I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 296, which we see as a straightforward approach to easing the the often insurmountable burdens faced by our neighbors who are returning to our communities after reentry, those burdens that you just heard about that can stack up in folks' lives. So the many folks who are in Ohio's prisons and those on traditional control, most of them are going to come home. We're looking at anywhere, you know, usually north of 15,000 people, getting upwards close of 20,000 people on an annual basis. We know that when folks come home, that when we support them with intention that their reentry does better. And so it's with that spirit in mind that I hope we have a shared value of supporting folks and making sure that that reentry happens successfully. So it's with that shared value that I hope we have in mind that we extend our gratitude to Representative Miller and the other co-sponsors on the bill for leading on this legislation and making the case for it so clearly. So, you know, as Ohioans return to their communities after incarceration, they face, you know, costly tasks, burdens, other things, getting out of prison, getting an I.D., which we solved in previous legislation, all costly, especially in our places where folks don't have transportation, need to get to the places appointment after appointment. So I think it only makes sense that in these instances, we follow this path laid out in House Bill 296 so that folks don't have those debts necessarily forgiven, but move back so that we can focus on those immediate expenses that reduce recidivism and facilitate a successful reentry. So rather than keeping our neighbors trapped in cycles of poverty and punishment, we believe this legislation will give folks an opportunity they previously don't have or currently don't have. Now, it wouldn't be a testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee from the ACLU of Ohio without a suggestion of how you can make this bill stronger, which is something that I know is in the back of everyone's mind. So when we look at recidivism numbers, we know in Ohio and on a nationwide basis that successful reentry can take a lifetime There no one approach But we do know that successful reentry hinges on different dates with a one timeline being the period of time in which recidivism happens most frequently or most often. So it's with that in mind, I encourage you to consider changing the timeline to a one-year timeline rather than a six-year timeline. I also notice that there's a large insect that's landed in front of the committee, so if you need to address that, I'm happy to pause my testimony. Otherwise, I'm happy to wrap up. We're grateful to the committee, to the sponsors. We hope you share that value with us, supporting successful reentry, and I encourage you to report this bill favorably. So thank you for the time.

You heard my question before. And maybe I'm making mountains out of molehills here, but I just feel like if somebody has the means to pay, they should pay right away. And I don't know what the right way to do that is. I don't want to put a burden on individuals to have to go to court and prove that they're indigent necessarily. Obviously, a lot of them have already done that to get court-appointing counsel. Or do you put the burden on the prosecutor to try to make a motion to show that, hey, this person has the means? But if, you know, we have white collar crime, we have individuals that are very wealthy that commit violent offenses and go to prison. And quite frankly, I don't think they should get a six month timeout where they don't have to pay. I completely agree with your testimony and others where if people don't have the means to pay, this is a great bill. But is there a way to carve that out without putting an additional burden on the courts or on individuals? You're smarter than I am, so maybe you can come up with that.

I'm putting you on the spot.

Well I appreciate it I hope there no further questions Thank you once again Thank you Next we will hear proponent testimony from Ms Jalou Bures on behalf of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center

Thank you so much. Is it Michaela or Michelle?

Michelle. I was trying to read it phonetically, and I screwed up even worse. But thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from committee? Seeing none, thank you once again.

Members, please note written proponent testimony from numerous different organizations, and this will stand as the second hearing on House Bill 296. The next order of business is to call House Bill 519 for its second hearing. We will now hear proponent testimony from Andrew Sexton on behalf of the Dayton Police Department. Welcome.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions? We have a question from ranking member Hicks Hudson.

It's kind of swirling in my head. Again, when you have prima facie evidence of criminal purpose, it does not remove the state's burden to prove the underlying offense. And the underlying offense suggests that no person shall possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article with purpose to use it criminally. So we still have to show that it was used for a criminal purpose. The difference in making it prima facie is when we come in, again, we have to have a burden of production to even get to prima facie. We have to show that it was used for a criminal intent to steal this vehicle. I'm not reading exactly from the law, but we still have a burden of production there. So if we meet that production, hey, there were circumstances that this person possessed us in that led to a criminal purpose, that should be the start of the conversation. and then I still have to show those being used criminally beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defendant, I would argue, doesn't necessarily have the burden in that particular case. They can raise the defense, if you will, that I'm a mechanic or I was helping someone fix their car or I was doing something different with that. So that would be my answer to your question. Appreciate it. Thank you.

I do understand the question or concern, Senator Manning. the first three sections that exist currently under the law are fairly generic and would encompass lots of the examples that you gave the scale, et cetera. This is, I would say, a unique tool, and the law needs to kind of catch up with the technology in this particular area. And we've had cases in Montgomery County where we've had individuals looking in vehicles. They've had an Autel. They've had key fobs. They say, I don't know, I just have an Altel and I have key fobs, and we've not been able to get those particular charges is one example. And so if we could say, well, you're looking in cars, and they don't give us any admissions, no post hoc admissions, nothing other than the observations of the officer and the mere possession. Well, you're looking in cars, we've watched you in cars, we know that this device is used for a criminal purpose. In fact, you have key fobs with you, which we know from a criminal intent perspective is what people do with these things. There's no lawful purpose for you at 2 o'clock in the morning looking through vehicles, having an all-tell, and these key fobs. And so it does carve out an exception. I can't say that it doesn't, but it is a very, very important area for vehicle theft, the victims of these crimes. I know Representative White had her car stolen. and we were talking about that, the victims of these particular crimes, it takes a lot to get your car back, if you get your car back, and then dealing with the insurance companies and those sorts of things and then going through the legal process. This just gives an additional tool to the prosecutors in the area of auto theft to suggest that those tools, although they do have a legal, do have some legal purpose, again, auto mechanics being an example, that in circumstances in which the intent appears to be criminal in nature, to steal a motor vehicle, that this should be an exception to that, and we can use that in court to create that rebuttable presumption. And then there's important intel within those Autel devices as well, so there may be other information. If there's an arrest based on probable cause, you may be able to look at the information in there, which could lead to additional leads in those sorts of things. and when we're not getting charges taken or a prosecutor doesn't agree or I don't agree to issue a search warrant in a particular case, it does make it more difficult, not only for the case that that detective is dealing with, but the investigative leads that can come from the all-tell as well.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Melissa Boies. I'm currently assigned as a detective for the City of Dayton Police Department, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds and Ranking Member Hicks Hudson and the Judiciary Committee. I'm grateful to provide testimony here today on House Bill 519 as General Counsel Sexton has already testified. The Kias and Hyundais are no longer the prime target of our grand theft auto problem. A lot of the high end vehicles with push button ignitions are being targeted. Car thieves are breaking out windows, plugging this key reprogramming device into the onboard diagnostic, which is called the OBD port, and starting the vehicle. The vehicle can then be started with these newly programmed keys, rendering the previous keys inoperable. The vehicle's GPS is either torn out or disabled, and it makes it impossible for people to be able to track their own car. I think we're all familiar with OnStar. A lot of the times these car thieves are able to dismantle that before even stealing the car, and we are never able to find the car. One of the most commonly seen vehicles of these models, they advertise that the key reprogramming process can be completed in one minute and works on over 700 different types of vehicles. These devices can easily be obtained online. You can get them through Amazon, and they can come to your house the next day. and they can be sold with kits that come with the reprogrammable key fobs. In 2024, a $200,000 Mercedes was stolen by a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old. Obviously, the 15-year-old is not old enough to drive. They were apprehended after fleeing from the police, and a gun with an extended magazine that contained 26 rounds was recovered. These juveniles went on to become involved in multiple violent crimes, including a homicide involving a stolen car in 2025. During that theft, they were in possession of uncut key fobs as well as an all-tail device. Some stolen vehicles are taken to chop shops where they are dismantled and sold for individual parts. Like General Counsel Sexton stated, we had a large-scale chop shop located in Dayton in 2024, and a programming device recovered in connection with this chop shop was used to steal 60 vehicles. The defendants in that case were sentenced to 15 years in federal prison after 18 stolen vehicles were found inside the chop shop. Already in 2026, there's been a case in Dayton where a juvenile was found in possession of a key reprogramming device after fleeing from the police on foot. At the original time of the recovery, the juvenile did not appear to be involved in any activity that would have warranted a search of the device. after additional investigation months later that is revealed that the device was likely used to steal a truck from the city of Dayton and later crashed in Indiana the year prior. These key programming devices have allowed car thieves to victimize the citizens of Dayton and other communities repeatedly. Car owners are required to pay excessive tow bills and wait for costly repairs if their vehicles can even be recovered. Some owners may never even recover their car if it's been parted out. The drivers of these stolen vehicles endanger the public and the police when they flee with no regard for public safety. The proposed legislation will give law enforcement another tool to investigate and prosecute suspects in auto theft cases. I want to thank the bill's sponsor, Representative White, for her efforts in addressing these issues, and I appreciate your time and hope to gain your support in the passage of House Bill 519.

I do not know off the top of my head. I don't think that was the main focus in that particular one, but I do not think so. Because under the bill, I think you still have to prove that it was for the intent to commit a theft. So I'm trying to think, you know, like I had cases where, you know, an individual has a scale and Ziploc bags and even smoking devices. But if you can't find if there's no drugs and you can't find any residue, technically speaking, it's hard. You know, we might all assume and probably are right in believing that they're probably, you know, preparing to to sell some drugs. But those aren't really criminal tools unless you can show that they are being used in that manner. and I feel like under this bill you still have to prove that it was, you know, the intent of using that was to use it for the theft. So you might pull over some juveniles that have these devices on them and I guess I don't know how you prove that they're being used for theft and therefore get them just on the criminal tool because there are legitimate reasons for these devices, right? Sure, yeah. So, you know, I just don't know what this language does. I agree they are criminal tools. I'm just afraid of those unintended consequences and what the, I guess, intent of it really is. And once again, I rambled on that, but feel free to, if you do have any input on that, if you don't, no worries. Yeah, I think General Counsel Sexton already kind of said that this is just another tool to help us along and that this is a large issue with how they steal these cars particularly.

Good morning, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hick Hudson, and members of the committee. My name is John Bernjick. I'm a Deputy Chief of Police and Commander of the Detective Bureau for the Newark Division of Police. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of law enforcement, and more importantly, on behalf of vulnerable children who deserve access to protection and services, regardless of where they reside. I would also like to thank Representative Kevin Miller for taking the time to listen to our concerns, examine the issues, and pursue a legislative solution. Before I begin, I want to make it very clear that my testimony today is not intended to criticize the Licking County Job and Family Services. The Newark Division of Police has worked closely with Licking County Children's Services for more than 40 years, particularly in cases of child abuse and neglect investigation. Our partnership has been instrumental in protecting children and achieving successful outcomes in some of the most difficult cases we've encountered. In preparing for today and before we even ever started legislation discussions, I discussed these situations with the leadership of Lincoln County Family Children's Services. Their response was consistent. If we could help, we would. If we could, we would. The problem is not a lack of willingness The problem is that the current law often prevents local agencies from intervening when a child is not in the residence of their county I want to share some examples of issues that we encountered On July 9, 2020, Newark officers responded to a homicide on West Church Street. The victim, a mother of two, had been murdered by her estranged boyfriend. When officers arrived, they discovered three children asleep inside the residence. Lincoln County Children's Services responded immediately and without hesitation. Caseworkers cared for all three children at the police station until family members could be located and arrived. Two of the children were from Lincoln County. One was in Fairfield County. Their assistance was invaluable in both the children and in the investigation. I mention this case because it demonstrates how the system should work when a child needs immediate care and protection. Unfortunately, we have encountered many situations where the system doesn't work. On October 25, 2019, officers stopped a husband and wife who had been involved in a series of thefts of cold stores throughout the Columbus area. Both individuals committed felony offenses and were taken into custody. Officers discovered a two-year-old in the vehicle. When officers contacted Lincoln County Children's Services, they were informed that the agency could not take custody of the child because he was a resident of Franklin County. Efforts to obtain assistance from Plank County were unsuccessful. Ultimately, officers were forced to release the father despite the criminal circumstances because there was no alternative care for the child. On November 20, 2024, officers responded to a report of a seven-year-old child who had become separated from his father. The investigation, officers learned that the father was an Amazon driver and had been forced to take the child to work with him because he had no child care available. While making deliveries, the child exited a vehicle without the father's knowledge. The father returned to the vehicle and drove away unaware the child was no longer in the vehicle. Officers contacted Lincoln County Children's Services, but were informed they could not assist because the child resides in Franklin County.

Good morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Darren Price. I retired from the state of Ohio five and a half years ago after 34-plus years of service, including service with the ODRC as well as with the Emergency Management Division of the Ohio Department of Public Safety. I currently serve as a Homeland Security Consultant, an adjunct professor, and as you mentioned, the chairperson of Andy's Law Coalition. I'm here today to express my strong support for House Bill 338, known as Andy's Law. As you may recall, House Bill 338 contains judicial and operational security reforms to better protect Ohio's correctional staff and improve prison safety. The bill strengthens accountability for violence against correctional personnel while implementing security measures designed to reduce the infiltration of drugs and other contraband into Ohio's prisons, as well as reduce violence and incentivize good behavior through earned privileges. I mentored, and this is the personal part of how this ties in for me, I mentored and trained Andy Lansing when he was first hired at Ross Correctional Institution in 1994. In addition to being a fellow correction officer, Andy was also a fellow U.S. Army veteran and my friend. So this bill is about protecting the men and women, some of who are here today, who protect us and is named in honor of correction officer Andy Lansing, whose murder at the hands of an inmate exposed some serious gaps in how Ohio safeguards correctional employees. Ohio's correctional institutions are among the most dangerous workplaces in the United States. An internal ODRC memo noted that more than 78 percent of the inmates currently incarcerated have committed a violent crime. Assaults on staff, fueled by an unprecedented level of drugs flowing into Ohio's prisons, are rising at an alarming rate. Data and experience will indicate that rehabilitation is more successful when privileges are earned versus given automatically as an entitlement. Providing higher education opportunities to inmates who continue to engage in serious misconduct and undermines the principle of earned privileges and is inconsistent with sound rehabilitative practices. And I can say this both as a practitioner who's worked in a as a correction officer, and as an academic who has taught criminal justice courses at the college level. Contrary to what some have opined, opponents and critics have opined, House Bill 338 does not eliminate higher education in higher prisons. Rather, it only restricts access for Level 3, 4, and 5 inmates who are among the most violent, disruptive, disciplinary-prone, and manipulative inmates in the department. Level 1 and 2 inmates who have demonstrated stability, compliance with departmental policies, and a lower security risk would continue to have access to higher education opportunities. In fact, because of the existing wait lists for higher education at lower security prisons, such as Chillicothe Correctional and Ristlin Correctional, higher education could be expanded at those facilities, thereby reinforcing and incentivizing good behavior. Treating all inmates as if they present the same security risk ignores realities faced by correctional staff. High security prisons are environments that are shaped by repeated violence and chronic instability. Offering college programs in these settings increases inmate movement, strains limited security resources, and creates additional opportunities for the trafficking of drugs and the movement of other contraband throughout the institutions. It's important to note that adult basic education, GED, vocational training, behavioral intervention programs, re-entry and recovery programming will remain available to all inmates, including more than 20 vocational programs and at least 14 programming opportunities at Ohio's high security prisons. Additionally, HB 338 would strengthen leadership within the ODRC by requiring that the director meet specific professional qualifications. This requirement is to meet those, for the director to meet those professional requirements, is consistent with other law enforcement entities across Ohio that have requirements for the head of their respective departments, including the Ohio State Highway Patrol, county sheriffs, and local police chiefs, such as in the city of Tiffin. House Bill 338 will put in long overdue judicial and operational security reforms to make Ohio's prisons safer. And while judicial reforms are absolutely necessary, lasting improvement depends on the operational security reforms contained within House Bill 338 being codified in law as demonstrated by the current situation in ODRC and DYS. So in conclusion, I respectfully urge this committee to advance HB 338. Andy's law is more than legislation. It's a statement that reinforces our values as a society. It honors Andy's sacrifice and reaffirms that Ohio will protect those who protect us. At its core, enacting HB 338 will help to ensure that correction officer Andy Lansing and many other ODRC staff who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty did not die in vain. And with that, thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Chair and Committee, for the time to speak. My name is Jeff Noble. I'm a retired prison warden who worked 39 years in the high prison system. I also worked as a college instructor and did prison audits nationwide. I'm up here speaking for Andy's Law Coalition, and I support this bill. ANTI law does several things Enhance criminal penalties provides legislative oversight of state prison policies establishes minimum qualifications for the prison director and implements a moral behavior-based management process in a higher prison and responds to family medical coverage in the aftermath of the death of a correctional employee. I support this legislation because in my 39 years of correctional experience, the state of corrections in Ohio and nationwide is concerning. I support the enhancements of the law in this bill, such as life without parole, stiffer penalties for throwing feces and urine, exposing themselves to staff, conveying contraband into prisons. Inmate behavior, especially criminal, illegal law violations, must be addressed through the Ohio legal process. We must also address administrative decisions and actions that improve state and inmate safety. A law helps prosecute the incident after it has occurred and depends on the prosecutor pursuing the case in the court trials. The process is after a criminal offense has been committed. We must also do more to prevent the behavior prior to the misbehavior occurring. Internal rule violations, and speaking of college programs, many internal rule violations by inmates in prisons have been reduced to minor offenses throughout the system. Rural violations such as possession, usage of drugs and alcohol, disrespect to staff, refusing to follow orders, have been processed as minor offenses in recent years. This normalizes rural violations in prison, especially Level 3, 4, and 5 institutions. This allows inmates to continue to be eligible for college programs. This makes managing prisons exceedingly difficult, especially for frontline staff. An inmate can have drugs in her possession or threaten a staff member. If the case is treated as a minor offense, the inmate is still eligible for college at taxpayers' expense and undermines prison management. Level 3, 4, and 5 need anger management classes, ethical decision-making classes, etc. Staff do not get mad at undermining an authority. They just find another job. Why are we paying for Charles Manson types to attend college at taxpayers' expense? I've recently read several news reports about eliminating college cell phones, visiting privileges, etc. for level 3, 4 inmates with this bill. I would like to remind the committee that Level 3, 4, and 5 inmate classifications overwhelmingly indicate that the inmates are initially incarcerated for serious or multiple crimes and have violated a serious institutional rule, which is a felony in the community. Inmate tablets. Tablets do help in the correctional environment when used appropriately. There have been several incidents of computer tablets being jailbroken, which allows unmonitored Internet access by inmates. This is alarming, especially at level 3, 4, 5 prisons and a high. The case in Muskingum County outlined this criminal behavior, and several inmates have been disciplined within the higher system for drug traffic, etc. Nationwide, California death row inmates were accessing pornography through tablets. In Tennessee, it was mentioned that an inmate had made a threat against an officer prior to killing him through the tablets. This access is not working in higher security institutions. Let us not be California. Allow personal tablets at levels one and two, not at level three. Do not continue to reward unruly behavior while making Ohio prisons less safe. Non visiting at level three four and five should be and can be done via electronic means and through glass barriers Again reward good behavior punish unruly behavior Why are taxpayers rewarding unruly behavior while also increasing drug and contraband traffic throughout the prison, making it more costly to taxpayers to operate these prisons? Information requests. What I would ask, and Darren mentioned it earlier, would ask the committee to ask the Department of Corrections, recommend that they request information from the High Department of Rehabilitation. How many inmates are enrolled in these college programs? How many inmates complete these programs? Provide each inmate role violation history currently enrolled in college programs. How many inmates have received internal conduct reports for illegal tablet usage? How many inmates have been convicted or investigated for crimes where an inmate tablet was used to perpetuate the crime? Again, staffing. Staffing has been several discussions throughout a high and county-owned prison staffing concerns. I advocate that high passes this law without changes, which supports staff and secure managed prisons. Staff are voting by leaving due to unsafe conditions, fear of physical assault, reduced retirement benefits, increased years of service requirements, et cetera. The bill takes a major step to improve the prisons in Ohio. Google correctional staffing shortages. Correctional staffing shortages are nationwide. Ohio can do something about it. Again, recommendation. I again urge the committee to vote in favor of the bill without modifications. The bill would help address inmate serious misbehavior and make prisons safer for staff. It would also punish inmates who commit unruly behavior while inmates incarcerated and allow time and money to be focused on rewarding good inmate behavior. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this critical issue. I'm happy to answer any questions or provide additional information if needed.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here. I appreciate your testimony so much. You made a couple of assertions in your testimony. One, about having barriers for certain level inmates. Do the, you know, I went to visit some of the prisons, and I don't remember whether or not for visitation that they have those barriers. So if we were to do that, that would require them, or do some of the prisons have the glass barriers so that there would be visits but not in the same room?

Thank you. Just follow up. And just one more question. You're talking about the level 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s, and then you make the assertion that they are there because of their behavior in prison. Am I correct in understanding that that's what you're saying?

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.

Well, the chair and the committee, probably eight years ago, I would say no. In recent years, policies have been manipulated or changed that makes it exceedingly difficult to manage prisons. That's where I sway back in the legislative oversight. Again, I can't stress staffing levels, and it's just not in a high, our staffing levels in prisons are at dangerous numbers right now. People are getting what they call froze for shifts continuously. They're getting abused. The conduct reports aren't being processed appropriately. The segregation is not being addressed appropriately. You know, Darren talked about earlier, college programs, we're wasting money at level threes and fours. They're dangerous people. They're committing felonies. So, yes, I think legislative oversight has forced that because, you know, directors and administrators can change, and they can change policies pretty easily. Laws can't be changed as easily, and oversight can't be changed easily. I think sometimes it takes an outside look at facilities to judge. I've done it 39 years. I know what I'm doing, but I get a brain fog after once in a while. Sometimes I have to have somebody have a different perspective. I just think legislators, I know it's another job you added to your plate, but it's not working in New York. It's not working in North Carolina. and it's not working throughout the country, At prisons, I always use the, I don't know if you're, I don't want to, I don't know if you ever watch the movie Moneyball where it says, the general manager says the guy can hit, but why ain't he hitting? Well, if the prison system is working right now, why is it not working? And that's what I would say with legislative oversight. There's got to be something differently done because it's not working.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Kim King. I am a sergeant at a maximum security prison in southern Ohio. I have been with the department for 18 years, all at the same maximum security prison. Our inmates are classed as a high security. Some are due to their continued behavior while at SOCF, continuing to assault staff on a regular basis. from physical assaults to throwing urine and feces on staff members. Typically, these individuals do get charged and prosecuted for these actions. However, it is usually six months they receive for their actions. We have several individuals that are close to going home, so typically they will assault staff by bombing them out, which means throwing the urine and feces on the staff. Due to they sometimes are close to going home that they know they will get out before having to return back to the prison to serve their six-month sentence. Several individuals will state to you that they can do six months standing on their head, that that ain't nothing. At the beginning of January of this year, I started working for DYS at Indian River Juvenile Facility due to their staff shortage. I volunteered to work up there every weekend on my days off. Their staff shortage is due to the many assaults that take place at that facility. These are juveniles that are 15 or 16 years old who will go home at the age of 21. So basically there are no consequences for them. They basically feel and actually do what they want because in their mind they are out the door at 21 no matter what. On March 28th of this year, I was working at Indian River. I was working in a unit by myself, which is against policy and procedure. However, due to they have no staff, that is what has to be done. So they tell you to move one youth at a time for a restroom call. I had gotten a youth out for the restroom for no reason at all, and without warning, he punched me in the face, knocked me unconscious, stole my keys and radio, let other youth out from their rooms. He then returned to me and took my pepper spray off of me and pepper sprayed me while I was still out. I believe that is what made me wake up when I got sprayed. I then staggered to the door waiting for help. Luckily, there was a case manager in the very back of the unit who had heard a lot of commotion, which was the youth that had been let out by the one who assaulted me that had taken my keys and started letting all the youth out of their rooms. They began destroying everything in the unit, including all the sprinklers which caused the unit to flood. It took response four minutes to get to me that one inmate or any of the others that were out could have killed me in seconds. They also went in a couple of the youth's rooms and assaulted them as well. I had to be taken out by ambulance to the hospital I had a severe concussion bruised ribs face and eyes swollen black and blue fractured teeth sprain of the right shoulder joint sprain of the muscle and tendon at the neck level, strain of muscle and tendon of back of the thorax, sprain in my left shoulder joint, contusions of my head. I am still currently off work since the assault. I am going through physical therapy and also going through mental health. That is why I'm here testifying today in support of House Bill 338, also known as Andy's Law. I strongly feel if the incarcerated individuals know they would be facing an additional five to seven years for their choices they make in assaulting staff, I feel strongly that a lot of them would change their mind on doing it. I also feel if they want to be that person that wants to better themselves to get and head back to the community and also be able to get their level dropped to get a lower security institution to gain more privileges, then Andy's Law would be successful in the individuals making the better choices, in which all staff working corrections would be a lot safer and less assaults, and would definitely make a huge difference in the DYS facilities and also make all state of Ohio prisons safer for officers to work in. I thank you for your time and consideration on this House Bill 338.

Good morning, Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Senate Judicial Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Jeffrey Lewis. I have served as Correctional Officer of Southern Ohio Correctional City since August 15, 1994, with more than 30 years of experience working inside the institution. I currently serve as the Visiting Room Shakedown Officer, where I am directly involved in monitoring and preventing the introduction of contraband to the facilities. Throughout my career, I have witnessed changes in policy, leadership, and operational priorities. Some of these changes have proven beneficial, while others, though well-intended, have made our jobs more difficult and, in some cases, less safe. Prisons are not isolated from society. They reflect it. As the world outside changed, so do the environments within our correctional facilities. While change is necessary, what concerns me is how often we forget the hard lessons learned at a very high cost. When those lessons are ignored, we place staff, inmates, and visitors in danger. My testimony today focused on how Andy's Law would directly enhance safety within SOCS visiting area and positively impact correctional facilities across Ohio. Implementing non-contact visitation, high-security institutions would send a clear and consistent message that the state of Ohio is committed to maintaining a safe environment for staff, inmates, and visitors alike. SOCF is often referred to as a jail within a jail. Inmates assigned here typically arrive after repeatedly failing to comply with rules and regulations at lower security facilities. A large portion of the inmate population has rule infractions or convictions related to drug use or trafficking contributing to an ongoing attempt to introduce contraband into the institutions. Drugs are one of the biggest drivers of violence inside a prison. They create a power structure based on control and money. The visiting room is a high-risk area for the introduction of contraband. When inmates persuade visitors to bring in drugs, it generates both financial gain and influence within the inmate population. Inmates now have access to electronic devices, including the GTL tablet, which allows for phone calls, messaging, and financial transaction. While these tools serve legitimate purposes they also provide additional avenues to move money and support illegal activity tied to contraband Inmates do not typically begin their sentences in high facilities Bureau of Classification rarely assigns them to level one or two institutions When they repeatedly violate rules and policies, they are advanced to level three and four facilities, bringing those same behaviors with them. Transitioning to non-contact visits, the high-security levels would significantly reduce the introduction of drugs and other contrabands. A clear example of this occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. In-person visits were suspended from March of 2020 until May of 2021. During that time, there was a notable decrease in positive drug tests. However, once in-person visits resumed, it took less than two months before a visitor was caught attempting to bring contraband into the facility. Specifically, Suboxone strips hidden inside a candy bar with an estimated value of $12,000. Since then, similar incidents have continued on a regular basis. These incidents also create a financial burden on taxpayers. When visitors are caught, they are prosecuted and in some cases incarcerated, further increasing the cost to the state of Ohio. Officers frequently left working alone for extended periods. I have raised these concerns multiple times and filed formal grievances, yet the situation has not improved. This reflects a broader issue. Too many decisions affecting prison security are made without sufficient input from frontline staff. When experience is overlooked, policies can unintentionally compromise safety. There has been a noticeable increase in disruptive behavior within our visiting areas, and over 30 years at SSCF, I have never seen this level of conduct. I have witnessed visitors throwing water on the inmates, smashing food into their faces, and escalating conflicts to the point where violence feels inevitable. These are clear signs that visitation privileges are no longer being respected. I have also observed instances where inmates have committed serious assaults have had sanctions reduced or have been granted special visitation privileges. This sends a confusing and dangerous message to both inmates and staff. These issues reflect a broader structural problem within the department, the promotion of individuals into supervisory and administrative positions who lack meaningful security experience. Decisions affecting institutional safety are increasingly made by individuals who have never worked front-line security posts and who disregard input from experienced officers. This weakens security operation and undermines accountability. Andy's law establishes accountability. It reinforces that privileges must be earned and maintained while ensuring meaningful consequences for misconduct. In closing, Andy's law offers hope, hope for safer prisons, reduction in contraband, decreased violence, and a correctional system that learns from past experience rather than repeating them. Thank you for your time and your commitment, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Good morning, Chairman Manning, Ranking Member Hicks Bottom, or Hick Hudson, I'm sorry, and other members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 338 and East Law. I also want to thank Representative Johnson and Plummer for bringing this legislation forward and recognizing a reality that corrections professionals across Ohio live with every day. Working inside of a jail or prison is one of the most dangerous jobs in public safety, and too often the law has not kept pace with that risk. I serve as the sheriff of Soda County. I have 38 years of law enforcement including time as a correction officer at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility I have worked the road worked investigations and I have worked in and around secure facilities I can tell you plainly when correction officers put on that uniform and walk through those doors, they are stepping into an environment where attentions can turn to violence in a second and where an officer does not have the same space, cover, or escape routes as the street officer may have. I also want to speak from a professional or personal experience that has never left me. In 1993, during the SOCF riot, when Officer Villanihan was murdered, I provided security at the SOMC emergency room as a portion of police officer. I saw the aftermath up close. I will never forget the look on the face of a correction officer who had been held during that riot when they brought him into the ER for treatment. It was real fear, and it was earned fear. That moment drove home something too many people outside corrections do not understand. Correction officers are not behind the scenes. They are the front line. To give you a clear picture of why Andy's Law is needed, I ask my staff to pull our internal numbers for the last two full years along with the year-to-date figures for this year involving assaults, threats, drugs, and vandalism within the Soda County Jail. Assaults on our staff as of June 2nd, we have had 13 this year, 40 in 2025 and 28 in 2024. Threats towards our staff so far this year, we have had 59, 110 in 2025 and 79 in 2024. Drug incidents inside the jail, we've had 19 so far this year, 51 in 2025 and 48 in 2024. Vandalism was inside the jail. So far, we've had 27 this year, 102 in 2025, and 56 in 2024. Those numbers are not abstract. Every assault is an officer going home sore, injured, or worse. Every threat is an officer wondering whether the person making that threat will carry it out today or whether that threat follows them home to their family. Every drug incident increases volatility and medical risk within our facility that is already under strain, and vandalism is not just damage to a building. It is often a warning sign that discipline is breaking down and that confrontation is coming next. These incidents take a real toll on my staff. They affect retention, recruitment, overtime, morale, and most importantly, safety. Correction officers are expected to maintain control, keep people alive, prevent contraband from entering, respond to fights, manage mental health crises, and do it all in close quarters. They do it while still respecting the constitutional rights of the people in our custody and while maintaining order in a setting where order is challenged constantly. House Bill 338, Andy's Law, is a common-sense step to better protect the men and women who do this work. It sends a clear message that assaults and serious misconduct directed at correctional staff will be treated with the seriousness that it deserves. It strengthens accountability for those who choose violence inside a jail or prison, and it helps create a safer working environment for our officers, medical staff, and even inmates who do not want to live in a chaotic, dangerous unit. At the end of the day, this is not about politics, and it's not about being tough. It's about being responsible. If we expect our correction officers to walk into danger to keep our community safe, then we owe them laws that recognize the reality of their job and back them up when they are attacked or threatened while doing it. For those reasons, I respectfully urge you to support House Bill 338, Andy's Law. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

It's a mix. We recently had one individual that we picked up on a warrant out of Texas. It was after he had actually shot at a juvenile in the city of Portsmouth. He was being held awaiting trial. He attacked and assaulted a number of inmates. He constantly attacked and assaulted our staff, damaged a lot of property. We moved him into a more secure location, even up there, attacking our staff, asked to go if they were being taken out, transported to the shower. I mean, attack our staff. I spoke with him. I advised him that he needed to learn about concurrent and consecutive prison terms. I said that I was going to speak with the prosecutor and judge and recommend that he serve each offense as a consecutive term. And after that one, he actually went to court and pled and started his sentencing. but he had no regard to the safety or anything. I'm going to prison. I'm going to do as much damage as possible, and what are they going to do at another charge? I mean, it's nothing to me.

No, he pled quickly. I did not have an opportunity to speak with the judge on that. he automatically went probably the following day and fled out.

We, depending on the charge, if we go after assault on our staff, yes, we charge for that. But if they are in there for a murder charge or a very serious charge, they're looking at, well, it's an assault on the correctional staff. It's not going to be more than my time for murder.

I prefer rather than specs to have a mandatory prison sentence that's consecutive to anything they're serving, which I think would also... Yes, I believe that would help tremendously if we're serving consecutive sentences. I advised him that. I said, you're going to be 500 years old when you get out of prison.

So I want to first applaud you for that. But the second question is because you are operating a jail, do you see, and this is kind of on topic but a little bit off, Do you see, because there's a lot of comments about the jails are actually the extension of mental health hospitals. Are you finding that to be the occasion of some of the people within your facility, that they may also suffer from a mental illness untreated?

Yeah, and thank you once again.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'd say vice chairman, she's not here, and Mrs. Hicks Hudson, Senator. Anyways, I waited seven months to talk to the committee today, and I hope it's all for the good. I'm an active correctional officer at RCI. I've been there 11 years, and I've watched our correctional officer's ranks decline dramatically, drug use skyrocket, and violence continually escalate and become even more derogatory. Just three weeks ago at RCI, we had over a 20-man fight in North Rec, which you will never know about because everything stays in-house at ODRC. The next day we had an 11-man fight. It's a violent prison, Level 3 and 4 camps. They're not like Level 1, 2 inmates. Like you chose to be a senator, they've chose to be a criminal. That's what Level 3 and 4 inmates are. That's their career. Level 1, 2 inmates, they're actually good people. Level 3 and 4 inmates are good people, but they've chose a career of crime, and it's sad. But there's a lot of good people in our prison that committed crimes. Anyways, not to go sidestroy too quick. Unfortunately, during the same time, DRC policy has changed to allow more access to nefarious opportunities and allow more violence to proliferate. Corrections is currently at a crossroads, and we need your help to keep staff and inmates safe and keep inmates from not coming back. The state doesn't even track the recidivism rate by security levels. They combine levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 into one group, and they call it 20.1% recidivism rate. The true recidivism rate that I've tracked personally in the last six months is 38% of RCI. Within six months, they're coming back. They're getting reincarcerated. So all the programming we offer, that's great, but we've got to work on behavior. It's behavior that will change, and drugs, but we've got to work on those two things to get these guys not coming back. House Bill 338 seeks to address serious challenges with our correction system, adding transparency, accountability, safety to our system, and specifically mandates that canine dog units cross the prisons and utilize no contact visitation high risk level three and four prisons IPs are reviewed every year for behavior and can become a level two or one They're not stuck at level three or stuck at level four. Every year, based on their actions, they can get their levels dropped. And then when they get their levels dropped to two and one, they can go back to hugging their family. But level three and four is very violent. Just last year, we had an inmate that had a female visitor from New York. He throws a table at her in front of women and children, jumps on top of her and starts beating on her face over and over and over until multiple staff additionally responded to break him up. That assault happened in front of everybody. That's one main reason. But the biggest reason that no contact visiting will work, and it's not to punish the inmates, is because the drugs, it's the number one highway for drugs coming into prison. The drugs are just, every day they got the, they got G-tail tablets that you guys know about. And I'm going off script just for a second. They will call a girl and she will three-way them to the other inmate. That's why we've given them a network to run drugs into prison. That's what the G-tail tablets are. A lot of functions on the tablet like movies, TV series, things like that. That's great. education. They can get emails from their family. They can send pictures to their family. They can't send, but they can receive pictures. That's great about the tablets, but the tablets are used against us. And not every inmate in prison is running drugs, so don't think I'm paranoid. We're not trying to micromanage. But the tablets, we've given the inmates a highway for cell phones. Anyways. CO Andy Lansing, surviving widow, went to refill a prescription a few days after her husband died and was brutally murdered. The pharmacy tech, not the state of Ohio, told her, I'm sorry, you're not covered by the state anymore. She was shocked. She called into RCI HR department and was told all of your insurance had been canceled as of January the 1st, six days after Andy Lansing's murder. She lost every benefit from the state. House Bill 338 corrects that atrocity by keeping the surviving spouse on state health care and can no longer be abandoned. Her family or herself can never be abandoned anymore in the future. That's extremely a terrible thing that happened to her and that she had to live with. Now I want to cover something important here. What ODRC did for post damage control, because I've been a general manager, district manager, VP of marketing sales, I ran businesses. Corrections just ran poorly, period. That's why the centermism rate isn't known to you. They keep it hidden now. It is freaking hidden. You guys can't find unless you tried. Anyways, immediately after Andy Lansing was murdered, technicians were going around inside RCI checking all the mandal receiver boxes, and several did not work and were being fixed or replaced. All this happening within days of Andy's murder. I only know this because I was in a tie shack. The technician comes in. He was tearing this little box apart. I said, what are you doing? Oh, my gosh. He says, I'm replacing a man down box. The receiver doesn't work. The tie shack that Andy was murdered in was retrieved and taken off the compound the next morning. Andy Lansing never had his man down go off. He never got to pull it. He never got to push a button. We don't know. It may never have worked. He might have hit his man down. But the state knows that stuff didn't work proper. August 2025, the state deployed series 10 tasers. They bought 100 of them for $350,000. We don't need tasers. We barely use them. Pepper spray worked great, and it's way more affordable. Only two prisons use the taser system right now, guys. I'm sorry, Senators. Only two, us and Trumbull. There's two others in training, but it's been a year, and only two with all that money is using tasers right now. They're deployed, too. I appreciate your time. I thank you for the consideration. I really respectfully urge that the committee favorably report House Bill 338 as soon as possible. The correctional officers are waiting on your help daily and we need you I studied the cost of the BWCs the Taser cameras Visiting it will go from the floor to the ceiling ma I know she asked that the Senator asked that earlier It will go from the ceiling to the floor There will be zero contact And, sir, we're not micromanaging, Mr. Chairman. Corrections isn't being ran by a manager. It's just being funded every year, no matter what product we turn back out to the community. You've got poor people in management that don't understand corrections. And the previous director had never kept an inmate in her entire life. and she was appointed the director of corrections. You would not hire a plumber to be an electrician. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chairman.

Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Meg Burr, Hicks Hudson, and Senator Kent Smith, really appreciate the opportunity to read to you today the testimony from Steve Spaulding and Percy Pitzer, co-owners of Creative Corrections, a correctional consultancy. I support the intent of House Bill 338 and appreciate the General Assembly's commitment to improving safety within Ohio's correctional institutions. Correctional officers perform difficult and often dangerous work and the state has an obligation to ensure that they have tools Policies and protections necessary for safety to safely perform their duties The tragic circumstances that gave rise to this legislation demonstrate the serious risks faced by correctional professionals every day As the committee considers House bill 338 I respectfully request consideration of an amendment establishing an independent review process for all in custody deaths within Ohio's correctional institutions Such a review process would not diminish the bill's focus on officer safety. Rather, it would strengthen public confidence in Ohio's correctional system by ensuring that deaths occurring while an individual is in state custody receive a thorough, objective and transparent review. Independent reviews can identify operational deficiencies, training needs, medical care concerns, mental health issues, facility conditions, or other systemic factors that may contribute to future tragedies. Specifically, I recommend that the bill be amended to require independent review of all inmate deaths occurring in state correctional institutions, participation by individuals or entities not directly employed by the institution where the death occurred, written findings and recommendations focused on prevention and system improvement, and an annual reporting of aggregate findings to the General Assembly and the public while protecting confidential information. Ohio has an opportunity to advance a comprehensive approach to correctional safety, safety, one that protects correctional staff, promotes accountability, improves institutional operations and strengthens public trust. House Bill 338 seeks to address serious challenges within our correctional system. Adding an independent in custody death review provision would further that goal by creating a mechanism for continuous improvement and ensuring that lessons are learned whenever a death occurs in state custody. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully urge the committee to favorably report House Bill 338, with the addition of an amendment establishing independent in-custody death reviews. I'm available for questions.