September 21, 2026 · Judiciary · 10,340 words · 1 speakers · 22 segments
Good afternoon everyone. It is 1:00, so we'll go ahead and get started. Welcome to the judiciary Committee and Senator carolyn bosn from lincoln. I represent district 25, which is southeast lincoln, lancaster county, and I serve as the chair of the Committee. We're holding a legislative resolution hearing today on LR 403. For those who are joining us for the first time, interim study resolutions are introduced by senators who believe that the Legislature should investigate certain topics that may be the subject of future legislation. The judiciary Committee is here today to receive information about these topics. We will not be using our usual procedure of asking for proponents and opponents. As this is an interim study, we're going to have an introducers opening statements followed by invited testimony testifiers, and we will finish with the closing statement by the introducer. If you wish us to give one. If you are planning to testify today, please fill out one of the green testifier sheets on the table at the back of the room. Print clearly and fill it out completely, listing every organization you represent. When it is your turn to come to testify, please come forward. Give the testifier sheet to the page or the Committee clerk. Speak clearly into the microphone, telling us and spelling your first and last name to ensure we get an accurate record. We use a three minute light system for all testifiers. The light will be green when your testimony begins. When the light turns yellow, you have one minute remaining and the red light indicates you need to wrap up your final thoughts and stop. Questions from the Committee may follow. If you have handouts, please bring up ten copies. We will not accept thumb drives, cds, dvds, oversize documents, books, lists of signatures, and similar silence. Or turn off your cell phones. Verbal outbursts and applause are not permitted. Let's see if you have a position statement or excuse me if you wish to submit a position comment. There are testifier. Excuse me. There are position pages at the back of the room. They will not be included on a Committee statement. I'm not sure if this is relevant because we don't do a Committee statement. I'm just reading. Okay, we'll cover that bridge if we get to it, but I'll have the Committee members with us today introduce themselves, starting with Senator hallstrom. Bob hallstrom, legislative district one representing otoe johnson, nemaha richardson and pawnee counties. Welcome rick holdcroft district 36, west and south sarpy county. Terrell mckinney district 11, north omaha. And our introducer today is Senator, Senator rountree and you are district. Three three. Okay, sorry. All right. Also assisting the Committee today. To my left is our legal counsel, tim young. And to my far right is our Committee clerk for the day, becky bartunek. Is that how you pronounce it? All right. Acting as the page for today's hearing is joel henson.
And with that, we will begin our hearing on LR 403. Senator rountree. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair and members of the judiciary Committee. My name is victor rountree. Victorrountree, and I represent district three, which is made up of bellevue and papillion. Today I'm here to introduce LR 403, which deals with the shackling of youth involved in the justice system. Last interim, I spoke with youth advocates across the state about their experiences with the juvenile justice system. These children go through dramatic and traumatic, life changing events and can be left with deep trauma through their experiences. This session I brought LB 996, which sought to ensure that when restraints are used on a juvenile, they are used for good reason. The Committee has heard from multiple youth advocates about how their lives have been changed by having restraints used on them. We have heard of youth who have no history of violence or flight risk still being restrained for simple purposes such as medical visits. Today we will hear from testifiers who have lived experiences and from industry professionals who can help us understand how to make these changes practical. With safety at the forefront of any potential legislation. Safety for the incarcerated or detained. Youth. Safety for any drivers transporting them. And finally, safety for community members. I appreciate your time for this important issue today. There are testifiers behind me who can speak to more specific aspects of when and why shackling is used in our current practices. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that would not be better deferred to our testifiers behind. Thank you so much. All right. Are there any questions from the Committee? I'll get started just so that I know. Are you planning to close at the end? If we have, a lot of questions will come to us as the hearing goes on. And from our conversation, it sounds like what you're really hoping for is a good roundtable discussion on this. Are you going to be open for questions at the end then? I will be open for questions at the end. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. All right. So we'll just start with testifiers then. And sen rountree will come back up at the end. I'm just going to go straight down the list that was provided to me from Senator rountree with a ride care representative as our first testifier. Is there someone here from ride care? Okay, we'll go next to jason witmer from the aclu. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair, bosnian and judiciary Committee. My name is jason witmer. Jasonwitmer. And I'm here on behalf of the aclu of Nebraska to provide some input into LR 403, the routine and standard shackling of children is harmful and inconsistent with the rehabilitative purposes and goals of our juvenile legal system.
LR 403 relates to Senator roundtree's LB 996 from last session limiting, prohibited, limiting and prohibiting routine shackling and transporting children. The standard use of shackles and restraints in transport is inconsistent with other areas of Nebraska. Law relating to imposing restraints onto children. Nebraska's juvenile court permits restraints on children based on individualized findings involving physical harm, recent danger, recent dangerous behaviors, and substantial flight risk with no less restrictive alternative will work. And if restraints are ordered, courts are required to make a written findings. Nebraska's room. Room confinement law uses a similar structure before restrictions that isolate children can be imposed. Less restrictive alternatives must be exhausted, and there must be immediate and substantial risk of harm. Confinement must end when the risk resolves and documentation is required. However, Nebraska's juvenile detention standard permits the use of mechanical restraints using a slightly different standard by exempting, quote, routine use during transport, transport transfer, unquote, from ordinary approval and reporting requirements. With regard to shackling children during transportation, we are urging this Committee to adopt a similar standard of using restraint only in incidents. Instances of individuals, findings of safety concerns and substantial flight risk. Such a standard would require custodians or caregivers caretakers to use a less restrictive response when it can reasonably address that risk. Allow staff to respond immediately to a genuine emergency without waiting for prior approval, while requiring continued restraint to be recessed. Reassessed once the immediate danger is under control and again to end restraint when circumstances change and restraint is no longer necessary, and to require brief documentation explaining the restraint use and for how long. LB 996 Committee hearing it was asked whether waiting for an emergency can sometimes mean acting too late. We should not prejudge youth, and should instead use the approach that we already use in other parts of our juvenile system. The emplacement of restraints to be based on individualized and clearly expressed risk ending restraint when no longer is necessary, and documentation. We thank Senator rountree for his leadership and his work for providing opportunities for accountability and protections for our our most vulnerable populations. Thank you. Questions from the Committee. Just a couple of things. Do you know what the current policy is as it relates to shackling of juveniles from an hhs perspective versus from a probation perspective? The separation of the two? Yeah. What their current policy is. No, I would have to find out. But I believe we have somebody here with that. I did provide all the statues of what I presented. Sure. That wasn't one of them. Is it your understanding that they are shackling every juvenile in all cases currently. Transporting the. The department has. It's basically a de facto thing, just automatically that I. My understanding, I guess what we heard from the transportation in the last bill. Correct.
And they was discussing like, we don't have the, the, the infrastructures in our vehicles except for a bolt in a, in a thing. And we have elderly people and etcetera, and no cage and, and all these elements that could eliminate the use of shackling. And so our concern is the de facto is to shackle when we transport, no matter what the cause, which is why you heard it from youth who were going for medical and being shackled as if they was dangerous, with no cost and individual risk assessment, could eliminate that. Also, by putting in what we said, the concern was, well, we can't get to a judge, we can't get to this. It might be in the middle of the night. Well, it should still not be de facto, but a person could decide in that moment, like, for instance, the youth tries to run. At the moment, they don't have to say, well, see, this law made me have to call somebody instead of dealing with the situation. Sure. So I guess my question is, are you operating from the from the is the information that your opinion is based on, based on the fact that you believe juveniles are de facto being shackled all of the time when transported? Or yes. I will say yes. Okay. I guess I could go look that up, but that's, that's also all the, all the input we've been getting. And what I've been looking at is they're consistently being shackled upon transportation. And is the input that you've been getting. Essentially, the hearing that we had on LB 996, I was there. I mean, I remember the hearing in the juveniles that came in, or is there something else that you're basing that opinion on? Well, one of the things is, so the two former ones that I gave was in the court, which we know they don't always shackled when they're in the courtroom because they do the process. And then in comparison to the juvenile room confinement. So that's something different. But the similar structure that we think should be looked at. And then the third form that I gave you is the, the one that one second is the juvenile detention center, where they have it exempt, that the exemption is all transportation is shackling for and it's for detention centers. And so everybody else follows suits that I've seen from our input. So yes. And I can go look that up. But if we put consistent standards, we can stop the process of people just falling into line with this is just best practice in how do you control kids? You shackle them. Okay, so if I were to tell you that in conversations in preparation for today's hearing, I spoke with someone from dhhs and their.
The information I was provided, which I have not also verified, is that the initial transport from court to a, you know, custodial setting for juveniles is shackled. And then after that, it's on a case by case basis. That would be news to, you. Know, I read their testimony. They they said yes, initially, they shackle everybody because they don't have an assessment. And we disagree with that because that's a presumption that every child is is dangerous. And then they're, they're subject to shackling, which is dramatic. So just about every child, if not everyone. And so that's something that should be addressed because that's the de facto factor. Okay. That's the part where it's. Just you're lumping the initial transport from court to the facility in with every transport that may happen thereafter. So my recollection of her testimony was that the initial court to the to whatever placement they're moving to is shackled. And we can agree or disagree on whether shackles should be used on that. But I'm now focusing on transportation from the facility to, in your example, the dentist's office, which I believe you probably recall, the individual who testified about their experience. Yes, at the dentist. And if my understanding is correct, that hhs position is that's a case by case basis on that particular form of transport, whether or not that youth has to be shackled, that they look at certain factors. Actually, yes, I do, I do I do believe I read that however I get through saying I'm lumping it in, but that's the concern is also lumped into being shackled is them kids being, being shackled and, and transported before they're assessed. And you don't have to do a full assessment if it's intermediate things, somebody can determine right then and there, unless they're well, actually, unless there's an immediate concern, they can contact whoever, their supervisor, whoever's approved to do this assessment and come up with genuine conditions of whether why is this shackling needed? Is the kid a potential threat immediately? Is the is the child trying to run off? Has somebody said this or are we just concerned because this kid is in trouble and now this is what we do, as we shall call them, just in case? Well, I mean, as you acknowledged in your own testimony, there's there's a portion of this that comes back to the safety of the juvenile being transported. Right. And so that has to also play into it. Even if, you know, juvenile a has no run history, there's a suicidality factor that also has to come into play. That's a safety issue, right? You would agree. We wouldn't just impose a traumatic thing onto them because there may be a safety issue. We need to figure out if there's a safety issue or we're already doing something that adds to that safety issue, which is shackling. Okay.
So my question is there's factors in addition to just being a flight risk or having a made a bad choice. Yeah. Are you saying like the potential of harm to themselves or others is already reflecting and not just the partsch? I think that's enough. My question is if I, if I can. Yes, I testified to that. I part of that would be, yes, substantial risk of flight. That's shown potential of not just a potential, but we see that there might be a risk to their self or others in that moment or something to prove that could be in that moment. That is. I didn't say that wasn't one of the conditions. What I'm saying is if we just ease so the kids in trouble, we're just wrapping this up into we need the risk are all there, but we we want to see the risk. And we want to see documentation of why. Why. This is because with documentation, a person will be more conscious about what they're doing and then the length of time. Because again, shackling regardless is going to cause trauma. But it's different if some kids are getting shackled for 20 minutes and we're ignoring the kid that's getting shackled for six hours to drive across the state, which I've personally been part of. And they didn't shackle me. And I was all the, the, the threats and the person talked to me because as a human being, you can get through kids, even if you're not going to change your whole life in a moment and you can go from one area to another just talking and listening to them. De escalation is a real thing. It's it's really disappointing to some of us that we move into a thing where the, what we're doing to the kids is secondary to full grown adults constantly saying, oh, I'm scared of this and I'm scared of that. Well, why are you in this practice? That's, that's my concern. And I've worked in a hospital diversion house. So I'm not speaking from somebody who was not constantly subjected to people going through mental health crisis and who were full grown adults. And so that that's, that's part of the, you know, that's part additionally, beyond aclu and the civil rights and civil liberties and the protect youth in traumatic events, but we constantly seem like we're just falling into this area of, we need these tools because of the potential of what this individual, in this case, children may or may not do. However, if we're documenting, they're going to show what they, we, we, we see that kids saying he's going to hurt himself. And if we put him in the back of the vehicle, we're afraid of what will happen. And we did our due diligence and then we made that decision. And then maybe we had a conversation.
And that's the reassessment is as we was going upon a conversation and part of dealing with this youth, we decided at this time, we have a good rapport. We're going to take off the shackles, we're going to have a communication about that, and we're going to proceed on. In your mind, is this a decision that's made on a court level, or is this a decision that's made on a provider level? I think an appropriate places in the courtroom should be the court level. If you can contact somebody. But otherwise, like supervisors, your your leadership level, or if it has to be because there are some there are circumstances where it might have to be that the person that's currently available. And then, as I said in the thing, immediate situations does not detract from a person using discretion in that moment. You know, like I can't take an, I can't take 20 minutes to try to get ahold of somebody because something is happening now. The kid is, you know. Actively. Actively making a threat, running off. Yes, etc. Any questions? Senator hallstrom? Mr. Whitmer, just I've looked at the states that have passed legislation, and it seems to me at first blush that probably the vast majority of states do have restrictions on the ability to shackle in courtroom proceedings, and that you have to have, as Nebraska law does, a a court hearing and a finding by the judge before they'll be shackled. And it seems like there's plenty of justifiable reasons that have led states to come to that conclusion. Psychological issues. You're in public, you're seen in shackles, the presumption of innocence, things of that nature, the ability to take notes, to communicate with your counsel and so forth. What's the is there a gap? And particularly what I'm interested in is the psychological impact. I can see when you're shackled in public, you know, you feel disgraced, whatever. When you're being transported in a in a private vehicle. If there have been any studies or data that show that there's a gap in the psychological impact of juveniles and the difference between being publicly displayed in shackles and versus being transported privately in a in an automobile. Well, what so I'm going to relate this. So when you put a juvenile in solitary confinement in any sort of confinement, room confinement, isolation, there's a ton of. And this is this is separate from a public shaming. There's a ton of research that shows the psychological harm and etc. That is being done to that child that we often miss because we're thinking, oh, it's just I'm putting them in a room and this is the same thing. Do you equate solitary confinement to. I clay isolation. Transported in a automobile with other individuals? Yeah, I would say that, yeah. I'm I'm in a vehicle with an officer or a transporter. I'm shackled in there.
There is a person there that hopefully they talk to me like a human being. But I know one thing I'm already being, I'm already treated like I'm not one because I'm instantly I'm. As soon as I get in there, there's no grace for me. There's no saving. So I'm just. That's why people end up down the same road is they're still treated like, this is the road you're on. This is who we treat you as. It would be helpful. It would be helpful. From my review, I think california was the only state that at first glance that I saw that had a reference outside of the courtroom proceeding for transportation. And I think the sheriff or the corrections officer could make a finding in the sheriff or the corrections officer could make a finding in advance as to whether or not shackling should be imposed. If you've got any information regarding what other states are doing in the transportation mode, that would be helpful to me at least. Okay, yes, I could put that, but I will say that I did. Somebody spoke to me and I believe they have some information on other states. So if that comes, I will still visit with you to see if you want something from me. And I know you have went to another state, I believe. Did you not say, well, it's not a question for you? Sorry, but. It's a discussion. Yeah. Okay. Totally different than a hearing. And I have looked at several of those. So but I'd rather come with clear information because I'm a person that needs information in front of me and not the memory box. I'd appreciate that. Or I start ranting. But again, thank you for the questions. And, and we do this because we are the best practices are for the person that's being subject to safety and security and all that can come right along with that and still respect that. And that's why we always push on these elements. So. Great seeing no other questions. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Next testifier I have listed is carrie rumbaugh. Good afternoon and welcome to. All right. Good afternoon, chair and members of the judiciary Committee. And thank you to Senator rountree for the invitation to the administrative office for testimony today. My name is carrie rumbaugh, karirumbaugh. I'm employed by the Nebraska supreme court's administrative office of the courts and probation as the deputy administrator overseeing juvenile probation services division. I am here before you today to provide testimony regarding legislative resolution 403, the administrative office of the courts and probation is dedicated to our work with youth and families in the juvenile justice system. Our focus is providing supervision and skill building, which allows youth to remain in their communities and build rehabilitative skills which allow for successful release from probation, ultimately impacting recidivism.
This work is essential as juvenile probation is targeted to work with high risk youth. Data from the second quarter of 2026 indicate that 77% of youth placed on probation were at very high, high or moderate risk of recidivism. Therefore, as community safety is a core priority of juvenile probation, there are times when youth are transported securely. Secure transport includes a youth being handcuffed or shackled. Over the past fiscal year, 6351 transports occurred for youth on probation and 226 were secure. Transports, 3.56%. Currently, midwest special services inc. Is the sole provider that probation utilizes for secure transport. A number of other providers are utilized for non-secure transportation. Secure transportation is used for youth in the juvenile justice system at various system points. The first point is juvenile intake, which occurs when law enforcement takes a youth into custody and requests a probation officer assess the youth for placement at detention. The probation officer uses a detention risk assessment instrument to determine if detention is necessary, and per state statute, the probation officer is to authorize detention for youth if they are a community safety risk. There is a record of failure to appear for court or for the protection of the juvenile due to a record of fleeing law enforcement, absconding placements or home committing violent felonies, multiple property crimes, or threatening to harm others. Law enforcement is to comply with the decision of the probation officer if youth are authorized to be detained, law enforcement would follow their own internal policies regarding restraints for youth. The second system point is court ordered detention. If this occurs, secure transportation is arranged by probation due to a judicial determination of community safety, and youth are shackled during the transportation. There are incidents where a court determines non-secure transportation can be utilized or changes or ordered to the restriction due to special circumstances. Therefore, it is essential that judicial discretion continues to be available for these specific reasons. Third, a probation officer has the authority under Nebraska revised statute 43286.01, section four, to take a juvenile into temporary custody without a warrant. If the juvenile would attempt to leave the jurisdiction or will place lives or property at damage, the probation officer may call upon law enforcement officers for assistance, including transportation. Finally, when a youth has committed to the department of health and human services office of juvenile services for placement at the youth rehabilitation and treatment centers, state statute requires og to provide transportation for detention to the rtc facility, and therefore og s internal policies would apply regarding restraints. Would you like me to stop? No. Carry on. Overall, when a youth is placed in a secure facility such as detention in the wire, there are standards that these facilities must comply with. Detention centers in Nebraska must comply with the juvenile jail standards created by the Nebraska crime commission.
The current Nebraska jail standards have not been updated or amended since august 8th of 1993. Secure facilities may transfer to youth outside of their facilities for emergency medical reasons. These facilities have internal policies regarding use of restraints and shackles during these emergency transports. In closing, the administrative office of the courts and probation takes shackling youth in the justice system very seriously and supports ensuring that secure transportation in the use of shackles is targeted for incidents when community safety is at significant risk. While studying this issue, it is important to note that if every decision to shackle requires a court order, this could have a significant impact on court docket, including all parties involved in the case. Thank you, Senator roundtree, for setting this essential topic as unnecessary utilization of shackling can result in significant impact to youth who are being transported. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator mckinney. Thank you. August 8th, 1993 is the day my sister was born. Oh. Yeah. No, she's younger than me. I guess my question I got I have two one. You think so? It's been what, 33 years essentially since the changes have happened. Do you think it's fair to maybe look at the jail standards and see what in that time period it's good and bad and what can we adjust? I would say yes to that. I think they do need to. Be updated and look at, you know, current research, state research, as well as national research in regards to jail standards. Okay. And I was wondering, because I'm looking at the standards and I think this is point seven use of restraints. And it talks about the need for reports. Anytime a youth is restrained, where can we find those reports? Are those unavailable for like a Senator just to kind of see what the reports are saying. So I don't work for the crime commission, so I'm not sure of where those reports are. So that that wouldn't be something I'd have access to in probation. Okay. Thank you. Any other. Senator rountree, do you have questions? I do, but I was also okay. All right. Carrie, thanks for being here. And for, you know, your explanation here. If I'm looking at page one, the bottom part of that second paragraph, it appears as though your from a probation standpoint, transports that are secure are very low, less than 5% correct. Were you here for the hearing that Senator rountree had on LB 996? I was not. Okay. We did hear from a number of individuals, and admittedly, they may not have been probation. This number surprises me, and I would assume a lot of my colleagues who are up here only because we heard from so many youth who described instances where they had been transported and were transported securely.
But again, that may have been and I think it probably was largely kids who were in detention or who were going to or from a white rtc. So that would not involve you. But is this number lower? I mean, I know it says over the past fiscal year, so admittedly, you're only doing a look back from july of 2025 to july of 2026. But is that number disproportionately smaller than, say, five years ago for probation? So I would need to look at that data to be able to answer that, make sure I have an accurate answer for you. But from the experience with probation, I, I would be surprised if that number has changed much. And if so, not like 70%, right? Correct. You also talk a little bit about the juvenile jail standards that are created by the Nebraska crime commission. Is there an actual individual on the Nebraska crime commission who is in charge of the juvenile? And maybe I'm asking you something you don't know the answer to, but is there someone, if you know who is in charge of the juvenile jail standards on that commission. My understanding is it's denny mccumber, but I'm not 100% sure I believe. You say that last name one more time, mccumber. I'd have to go find the spelling for you to make sure I don't spell it incorrectly. That's all right. But he's been with the crime commission for several years. Okay. Has he been there since 1993? I don't. Know, okay. Like, did he offer them? Okay. And I guess from your perspective, if a probation officer takes temporary custody without a warrant of a juvenile who's on probation, let's say I'm at home, and I got pretty significant concerns. My mom calls my probation officer, my probation officer comes out and makes a determination. I can't leave to go get a warrant. I'm going to place this juvenile. I'm going to have you detained at this point. They call law enforcement. Does law enforcement shackle them at that time? From my experience and I have not been a probation officer for lots of years, but when I was law enforcement was not fully shackling, but they would cuff the young person behind their backs. So that's what my experience has been. I don't recall seeing law enforcement ring shackles, usually with them to assist probation officer. Yes. And that's essentially for the ride from my home to the detention center. And so that doesn't count as shackling because shackling is, if I'm correct, the definition is ankles, wrists, and they're bound at my waist. Correct. And so being handcuffed behind my back and placed in the back of a cruiser would be certainly a detention. And I'm restricted in my movement, but I'm not meeting the definition of shackling. Correct. And probation officers also don't have means to shackle youth themselves.
Probation officers do carry cuffs and they are trained in how to use them, but they would never have shackles that they would be utilizing. And we do not encourage utilization of our probation officer doing any kind of secure transport. So we're always calling on law enforcement to assist us with that. Unless there would be some sort of emergency situation that exists. I'm in rural Nebraska. No one's around. I'm by myself. There's a high risk that might be something that could possibly happen. Not that I have heard of it happening. So it is not the standard practice that a probation officer would place me in handcuffs to take me anywhere. Especially a juvenile probation officer. Okay. I think those are all my questions. Any questions in light of that? All right. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you. Next we have sarah mitchell. Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you for having me. Alrighty. Well, hello and good afternoon. My name is sarah mitchell. Sarahmitchell. I am in support of LR 403. And before we begin, I want you to imagine something. Imagine being a kid sitting in the back of a transport vehicle or police car. The air is stale. It smells like old seats, sweat, and whatever was left behind by the people transported before you. There's a hard seat beneath you, sometimes a metal divider in front of you, and no way to roll down a window or get away from the smell. Your hands and feet are shackled. Every bump makes the metal dig farther into your skin, and every time you move, you hear the chains dragging and clinking together. Clink, clink, clink. You don't know exactly where you're going or what will happen when you get there. You are scared and uncomfortable, but you're trying not to show it to the stranger sitting in the front seat. That smell, that sound and that feeling stays with you. This is personal for me because I was one of those kids. I was from wayne county, but I was taken to the juvenile detention center in madison county and then transported from there to the rtc. I was shackled even though I was there for a nonviolent crime. I was being taken somewhere that was supposed to rehabilitate me, but I was brought there in chains. All of us girls came in there with bruises and marks around our wrists and ankles, because the shackles were put on too tightly. Sometimes those marks turned into scars. And then there are things people don't think about, like needing to use the restroom during transport. Imagine being a young girl with your hands and feet shackled, trying to pull down your pants, use the bathroom, and clean yourself while being transported by a male officer. There is no privacy or dignity in that. You feel helpless. That stays with you to, especially when you already come from trauma.
Being shackled makes you feel like people have decided you are a dangerous person before they even know who you are or what your story is. It does not matter that you are a child and that your crime was nonviolent, or that you have never caused a problem. During transport, you are treated like a threat anyway. From an 11 year old girl who weighs 85 pounds, being restrained like a full grown adult to a young person being shackled for 13 hours during an out of state transport to what was supposed to be a safe place, quote unquote. These shackles were supposed to keep everyone safe, but who was keeping us safe? The kids sitting in front of you today is not necessarily who they will be when they grow up. Kids change. Kids naturally mature from the words of a wise woman. Opportunities change. Behavior. Belonging changes behavior. Having someone believe in you changes behavior. But how can a kid do the work to change when the system continues to treat them like the same bad kid? I'm not saying restraints are never needed and I'm not condoning violence, but shackling should not be automatic. I want you to think back to your teenage years. Could anything stop you once you had your mindset to it? No. Probably not. If a team wanted to cause harm to someone around, shackles would not do a thing but give them a weapon to use, it should be based on that individual child and an actual safety concern. Shackles will not fix the trauma, anger, fear or pain behind a young person's behavior. I remember how something as small as being treated kindly or stopping at a mcdonald's made transportation easier and less scary for everyone. How you treat kids matter. These children do not need more bruises, more scars, or another experience that strips away their dignity. I'm asking you to place real limits on what young people can be shackled. It should never be the automatic response. These are children. They should not have to prove they deserve to be treated like children. Thank you, Senator roundtree, for introducing LR 403. And a big thank you to Committee member. Committee members, for letting me share you a little snippet of my story. Thank you for sharing your story. Yeah for sure. Glad to be here. Other questions from the Committee. Senator mckinney. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for sharing. So I just a tough question, but go for it. So when you went to the restroom, it was a male supervisor there. Yeah. I've never had a female transport driver. Okay. Because because I'm looking at the jail standards and the cross under the cross gender situation supervision, it says, except in emergency situations, should a male have probably been there, but. All right. Yeah. Probably why we need to update them. Yeah. Yeah, it's one of those things.
And it's like first and foremost, it's already hard. If if and I'm going to assume none of you guys have been shackled before. Hopefully not. Maybe some have been there done that. You can't move. You can't. Your hands are to your side. I am totally down. The most I can move is maybe up a little bit. Can you imagine trying to pull your pants down? Like seriously, truly. Imagine trying to pull your pants down with some chains on your hands. It's impossible. Thank you. Yeah. For sure. Since he opened the door and you. Opened the door. No. Go for it. Tell me about this transport. I mean, you're transported from the madison county detention center to the yrtc. I assume it was in hastings at the time, or was it at. I'm a geneva girl. Okay. Yep. Did you stop along the way? Yeah, I had to go. Yeah. Okay. So I actually was picked up in my house. I was shackled at home in front of my mom, and then I was transported to the jdc from jdc. I sat there for 30 days and from the on a shoplifting charge. What is a jdc? The juvenile detention center in madison county. Okay, sorry. No, you're good, you're good. And then. So from there, the same same the same cop came, came and got me, which is a cop I've known for many, many years. So he knows that I was nonviolent. It's, you know, small town usa, right? So wayne, Nebraska, everybody knows everybody. He knew me very for a very long time. I'm not, I'm nonviolent like. And he still had to put me in shackles. He apologized for it even. Yeah. Okay. And so somewhere between wayne and geneva, you stopped. There wasn't another probation officer that they could call from a community there. Okay. No, they didn't they didn't try. It wasn't like something that was it was like a, hey, I need to go to the restroom. Like, all right, well, can you hold it? No, I can't hold it. Okay. Yeah, I agree, that's interesting because jail standards definitely don't allow that unless it's an emergency. So, I mean, I don't know how old you are, but you don't look old enough to be detained in pre 1993. No, ma'am. I'm not. Okay. Any other questions? No, ma'am. I'm not. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you for being here. And again, thank you for sharing your story. Thank you for having me. Yes. Our final testifier on my list is katie nungesser. Did I forget anyone? Senator rountree? No. Okay. Welcome. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chairperson bosn and members of the judiciary Committee. I'm katie nungesser, spelled katienungesser. I'm here representing voices for children in Nebraska to speak about shackling of youth. Nebraska believes in protecting children and building systems rooted in fairness and care.
We're here today because we're concerned with the normalization of routine shackling of kids. This Legislature already expressed in a bipartisan way that shackling in the courtroom was harmful. And we're just here to close that gap. The youth that we work with have consistently brought this up. I've been listening really closely to Senator bohannon's questions, as she's trying to map out all the different ways that kids get transported and shackled. But I've yet to be in a room with a group of kids when we ask this that don't raise their hands. We were with a group of kids last week, about 18 of them in omaha, and asked about being shackled to go to doctor's visits and community events or community like, sorry, community programs. And almost every single kid in there raised their hand. So we are still trying to get to the bottom of that. Also, the kids have been really clear that it changes how they see themselves. Raquel henderson spoke at our event this month about her journey from the system to city hall, and she outlined it in a way that made sense to me, that we need to make sure that these kids know that you made a bad decision, that you're not a bad kid. That's the distinction we need to protect. As we're looking at this statute, these young people may have committed offense. That's a part of their experience. But when we are routinely, without looking at their individual case, handcuffing them, using labor stains and waist restraints, we're sending a very powerful message to them about them being dangerous and that they cannot be trusted. Some of these kids are already struggling with their identity, belonging, trauma, and shame, and we're sending them a message that reiterates that and how they see themselves. This matters because rehabilitation, which is what we are trying to do in our juvenile court system, depends on relationships, belonging and opportunity. We want these kids to successfully return to their community, and we should be asking whether this practice is helping the community see their potential, or are we just reinforcing labels that these kids are already trying to overcome? I want to lift up andrew's story really quick as I'm running out of time. But he was the young man that spoke about beatrice nonviolent, not running, no consistency when he was being transported from his group home to appointments. One time, he'd go to the full shackles, dragging him through that town, embarrass him the next time, the next person might not shackle him at all. And there was no rhyme or reason. But what we consistently hear from kids is the third party transports that seem to be causing them the most issues. So we hear about midwest transport. I'm not familiar with all of them, as we're still kind of trying to research with the public service commission who all holds those.
But we'd like to know more about what does that training look like for those third party groups? How is this being reported? We do know that other states have done away with this. Vermont and illinois were two of them. I found vermont requires. I understand the not wanting to have a whole nother hearing, but vermont requires either a judge or a mental health professional. So there's some wiggle room that can be used there to not add or slow this down for kids. But this idea that we are making this a routine and we are normalizing, shackling kids that have no violence, no running, we're doing serious damage to them mentally and how they're seeing themselves. And I hear senators acknowledging that. So we just want to continue that conversation and see if we can clean up statute to make sure we're using this very rare. Thank you. All right, Senator mckinney. Thank you. Thank you. Quick question is, I kind of get the reason, but I really don't now that I think about it, why the psc is in charge of giving out the contract to midwest. Yeah. So I'm actually digging into this too. I, I had a call out, but we didn't get to finish the conversation. But I think it just has to do with that licensing. So we're more curious to see like, what are their standards? How does that apply? You know, we were I was just looking at some of the probation documents talking about transportation. And it talks about things like insurance and this and that. But like, I, we're really curious on like, what does that training look like on how to handle youth. And what we're hearing from these kids are these third party contractors are just really quick to shackle them up, which is probably their own safety in their mind. Somebody mentioned earlier they might be out in those remote rural areas, but are we really saying this is an okay practice just because of where the kids are located? So but again, with the public service commission, we're hoping to continue those conversations and see like, where does their accountability and like boundaries lie with this? And then what part is dhs? And then we're also looking at those jail standards and hoping what's left of the jay dia group can keep looking into those. All right. Thank you. And just since we're in a nontraditional hearing type, I will just interject our vice chair, who could not be here today. And I had a discussion with Senator roundtree about that particular question. And she could probably do a better job of explaining it. But the psc regulates who can have some of those state contracts for transport, think like taxi providers even. And so it's them who has to approve midwest is my understanding in this example. And then midwest can say, here's what our requirements are for providing that service.
So it's almost like a double layer of red tape for transport. I don't know if that answers your question or at least helps, but my, my conversation with Senator roundtree and Senator deboer before the hearing was we may need to do some follow up after this hearing with the psc. And I anticipate that Senator roundtree and I will be working together to get that done, so. Okay. Senator hallstrom. Yeah, I would presume that it might be, since they're being compensated, they might be a common carrier that would come under the purview of the public service commission. Uber, lyft, taxi companies. Et cetera. One of the things we might want to explore is if there are any insurance ramifications from them being in that position, that they may have some concerns with regard to their employees and others that might factor into that, that need to take into consideration. Yeah, that's a really good point. I know a couple of states have figured it out. I really wishart, the ride company that was able to make it. I think there's more conversation that Senator roundtree can have with them, because they have found a way around that, and so have other states. And one state I was reading about, was it a company in missouri was arguing, I'll have to find it and email it out to the Committee. But they were arguing that like their insurance actually would not allow them to shackle the kids because it added some liability there. But it's hard in these. I'm from the panhandle, so I know some of these companies are transporting from medicaid reasons for getting seniors where they need to be. It's not like maybe a company in the metros would be busy enough to focus just on this. It adds that layer of complication, but I think that we're settling with the bare minimum of like, just shackle these kids that are going from gering and scottsbluff all the way to madison. That's a minimum of six hours being shackled. And as you heard sarah mitchell's story, you know, you're going to have restroom breaks. You're going to have things go on. And do we really think the evidence is there to show that the violence is there and it's not. So we just need to take a beat and take a look at these kids cases and find a way to not lengthen their court experience, but find a way to protect them. More on this front. I guess. Let me push back. I mean, when you say that there so is it your position we should never shackle? I think there are reasons for that immediate risk, just like we have in our court statute, that there are times that the judge may say, we need this. I think it's going to be very rare.
My concern is like, as you were speaking about dhs stance and things is it's a case by case. We want to know exactly who's making the decision because from what we're hearing from the youth involved, it sounds like the transporter. So this guy that might just be driving his minivan around the panhandle to take people to appointments, get to decide how safe he feels around a kid that he has no background on. Okay, so I guess I'll ask you the same thing I asked mr. Whitmer in terms of who would make that decision. Is it in your mind? I mean, if you could wave your magic wand that it would be the judge who makes that determination? Or would it be the person who's got the care, custody and control of the juvenile in that instance, whether that's a probation officer who may know the youth better than the transport worker or, you know, the the placement at, you know, cedars who can say this, this kid isn't running. They can go to the dentist, they want to go, don't shackle them. Who would be making that ultimate determination? I think that's the part we're still kind of sticky with. Even when we looked at the bill that Senator roundtree bought last session of just the judge isn't always going to be there. Finding some way that people can make sure it's really hard because you want that like privacy and dignity for the kid, too. Like, how much of their case are you going to share with that transporter? And so from what I was reading from other states is it's something that's hopefully decided when they're sitting down with probation, when they're deciding like detention or not having someone that's at a level that sees their case sign off, but more so like, what's the accountability on the back end with the reporting? Would this naturally become less and less if they had to really report every single use? Why? How long, what kind of restraints? So that we actually had something collective that's not just probation, but is any time a youth in Nebraska is under shackled. I think some of the states that I was looking at went as far as to age 21, which is a little a little much, but even just starting with, you know, 19 and under. Well, and I guess I my concern is, is that as soon as you say it has to be a court, you're going to have kids who. Because the day they're detained, we're in a very different mental state are now being shackled who three months later at their placement, are thriving, extremely successful, but still being shackled because they haven't seen their judge in three months, versus if you gave some of that flexibility to the placement.
I think, I guess, and I know I'm maybe preaching to the choir, but I think that flexibility allows the placement to say, you know, from the time carolyn came here till today, three months later, we're not talking about the same youth. She wants to be successful. This is we don't need to shackle anymore. Whereas maybe the judge on day one was like, this is for your own good. Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And I think from what we hear from youth, that is something they want people to hear is they do grow, they do change. And so I think you're on to something there that the people that have that day to day interaction, if there's a way, I don't want to say, score a kid, but to be able to say, well, they believe. Everything else. Yeah. It just feels like one more label. But if it if it stops us from using this as a normal practice, like the way we see it and what kids are asking for is this should be as rare as it can be. And it seems like we're doing the exact opposite right now. Any other questions? Thanks for being here. All right. Unless there's anyone else that you wanted to hear from. Did anyone from ride share? That's a great question. Does anyone here from the ride share program? All right, Senator roundtree, come on back. Thank you so much, chair. Bozeman. I do wish ride care would have been able to come to that. I know we've had conversations with them and could answer some of the questions, but we will be reengaging again with the Committee on continuing to have this discussion. But first, I would like to thank all of our testifiers for coming today and for sharing. And I also heard miss raquel henderson's on her testimony last week when we were out at their function. But a powerful testimony, testimony of care, testimony of not being judged at where I am now, but seeing what I can become and being encouraged to come there. So Senator hallstrom was asking about some of the psychological impacts. I just did a quick look, and I'm going to read this really quickly, said the practice of transporting youth in mechanical restraints such as handcuffs, leg irons and belly chains exerts a profoundly negative psychological impact on their mental health. Major medical, psychological, and child advocacy organizations, including the american academy of child and adolescent psychiatry, the naacp, and the child welfare league of america. Cwla state that shackling children, causing severe emotional harm and directly contradicts the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice and foster care systems. So it talks about the trauma and then retraumatization. So I appreciate all that's been offered today and prior discussions with our justice department and with other stakeholders prior to coming today, I learned a lot.
We don't have a lot of standard across the way. And I think that's some of the things that we saw today. And to answer your question, you might have needed to be shackled when you first came to detention or in the wire or wherever. But changes come and you're ready to do great things, as we heard in testimonies. So I wouldn't want to bind you to shackling as you were when you first came in. Now that you have, you're ready to go out and do great things. So we should be able to flex and adapt as our people grow and as they make positive changes. So who should be making that decision? Thank miss rumbaugh for letting us know about the 8th august 1993. I was preparing to come back from germany in that time, being in the air force about 13 years at that time, getting ready to come back. But that we talked about changing and updating and revising policies, some of those things that would maybe alleviate some of what we experienced in today with dhhs and their ojs provides transportation, their internal policies, having an opportunity to go back and look at what those internal policies are and, you know, bringing those up to date, seeing what happens there. I appreciate the fact that the statute does talk about the judge. And we talk all the time in this Committee about giving our judges latitude to make decisions, but it can also stifle up the system if everything had to be made by the judge. So some of that responsibility, based upon standards that we might have in place and organizations, could determine whether a person needs to be shackled or not. I still cannot follow miss mitchell's statement on how she finally went to the bathroom. My mind won't draw that picture being shackled, but she's here today, so I know it happened. And you know there's a way that we can make that better, especially looking at who transports and so forth. We want to take care of that as well. And then in some of our conversations with rod care, I know they sponsored one of our navajo luncheons earlier this year, and from what I understood with them, we talked about being transported all the way from the western part of the state to here to the middle part or over to our urban areas, having to wait for someone to come and pick them up. And so I'm just going to speak to some of the things that I thought we talked about was having people pre-position in many different parts of the state. These are sometimes retired law enforcement members that are fully capable of a non shackled transport. So if you get the call out in gering, somebody close by ready to take care of a transport or to get a member where they need to go.
So those are we have a lot of potential here and I think I can we can balance that need for the safety of our children, safety of the organizations and the safety of the community. Balance that well with the dignity of our youth and the rehabilitative process, and ensuring that all safety concerns are taken care of. So, yes, there is more work to be done. Today was an opportunity to get testimonies out, an opportunity to listen. I think the questions from the Committee were very good questions, a lot of thoughtful input, and we'll continue to work on that to see how we can get a a type of standard across the way. So at different decision making points or different decision making entities have something core to base, whether or not a person has that risk of hurting themselves, hurting the community, flight risk, and all the things that a judge would take into consideration when they're in the courtroom. All right. Questions for Senator rountree. Senator hallstrom. Thank you for the additional information. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thanks for being here today. As you and I continue working on this. And if someone else wants to work with us on it, I'm happy to do that as well as I assume you are based on our discussions, the things that I think we probably also need input from would be law enforcement. And I'll follow up with you on this. But when are they using them? What are they using them for? And what the detention centers is? Policy is on them because there's nobody here from the detention center. But I'd like to know, okay, are they required? Is there some reading in their own internal policies that they think requires it? And you know, someone from hhs to articulate for all of us when they're being used in their minds, because I think, you know, to miss nungesser's point, if 18 youth are interviewed and let's say 16 of them all raise their hand, is that because they were shackled one time during their transports, in which case that might be different than if they had raised their hand, that they were shackled every time they were treated. Right. So I think if we're trying to reduce the number of times that a youth is shackled, we have to have some flexibility in today. Carolyn had to be shackled because she was completely out of control. And she found out she was going to the rtc. And so we were concerned that she may, you know, be a harm to herself or others. But once I've been at the rtc for a few months, I can come back to court and I don't need to be shackled, you know? So those kinds of differences, I think, are things that you and I can certainly follow up on.
Someone before the hearing today also pointed out to me that you and I should take a look at the testimony that was provided in the 2015 bill that prevented kids from being shackled in court because they said we might find some interesting nuggets of conversation in there. So I will follow up with you on that as well. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. That will conclude today's hearing. Thank you, everyone for coming.