June 25, 2026 · JUDICIARY · 4,025 words · 15 speakers · 89 segments
Thank you. Thank you.
House Judiciary Committee will be coming to order. Will the secretary please call the roll?
Chairman Briggs.
Here.
Representatives Abney.
Designation.
Carroll.
Here.
Donahue.
Here.
Hanbage.
Here.
Hohenstein.
Designation.
Howard.
Here.
Kenyatta.
Designation.
Kincaid. Here. Mays. Designation. P.L.E. Here. Rob. Designation. Sanchez. Here. Schusterman. Designation. Chairman Kaufman. Here. Representatives Bonner. Here. Borowitz. Designation. Ham. Designation. Kale. Designation. Kerwin. Designation. Clunk. Here. Krupa. Here. Kuzma. Designation. Ledbetter. Here. Pugh. Here. Rigby. Designation.
Mr. Chairman, a quorum is present.
Thank you. Having a quorum, we will proceed with today's agenda. First on the agenda, I will be calling up Senate Bill 1259 introduced by Senator Capoletti and Senator Baker. We are joined by Chair Capoletti on teams. I will first allow you to make remarks on your bill, followed by any other description needed by counsel. Chair Capoletti, you are in order for remarks on your bill, Senate Bill 1259.
Thanks for joining us. Thank you, Chairman Briggs, and thank you to the members of the Judiciary Committee. As the prime sponsor of Senate Bill 1259, along with Senator Baker, I again thank you for providing me an opportunity to discuss our bill. This legislation restores a longstanding confidentiality protection in the parole decision-making process, while expanding transparency for individuals who are denied parole. For more than four decades, dating back to 1982, our courts have recognized Parole Regulation Section 61.2 as establishing a confidentiality framework for parole records. This provision has been a cornerstone of Pennsylvania's parole system, ensuring that correctional staff, prosecutors, judges, mental health professionals, parole board members, and even family members of incarcerated people can provide an honest assessment to the parole board without fear of retaliation or intimidation. In the 2025 Tolland v. Parole Board decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified that while Section 61.2 remains valid as a confidentiality rule under the right-to-know law, the parole board cannot rely on it as an evidentiary privilege because only the General Assembly or the courts can create one. The result shifted a significant amount of sensitive material into potential civil litigation discovery. The court was clear. If such a privilege is to exist, it must come from us. Importantly, the General Assembly has already recognized the need for confidentiality in this setting. We previously created a statutory privilege specifically to protect victims and their families who provide statements and information to the parole board. We understood then, as we do now, that victims and their loved ones must be able to speak candidly without fear of retaliation, exposure, or intimidation. Senate Bill 1259 follows that same principle, restoring the former privilege of Section 61.2 in a way that preserves these protections. But more importantly, the privilege restored by Senate Bill 1259 is not the sweeping one created in the old regulation. It is a narrow and tailored application. It applies to the Board's internal decision-making materials and to the documents provided by public officials specifically for that process. This ensures that the most sensitive materials, correction staff feedback, psychological and medical assessments, home plan evaluations, and parole's decisional instruments remain protected where necessary for safety and candor during the parole decision process. At the same time, Senate Bill 1259 markedly improves transparency for incarcerated people. Under the current law, individuals denied parole receive only a brief statement from the board as to why they are denied parole. This legislation changes that. Senate Bill 1259 requires the board to provide incarcerated people with areas of emphasis that they can work towards for future parole considerations, including recommended programming, behavioral expectations, and compliance standards. That means real information, real direction, and real opportunity for growth. It ensures that every person who appears before the parole board, and we know that more than half of the individuals are denied at their first hearing, will receive substantive, actionable feedback. And by contrast, extremely few people have the ability, resources, or legal grounds to challenge parole decisions in civil court where most cases are dismissed at the earliest stage and where there is no legal right to parole. This bill delivers benefits that actually matter. And let me be clear. Senate Bill 1259 does not limit discovery in federal court. Federal habeas petitions and Section 1983 actions operate under federal evidentiary rules, which do not recognize state-level privileges. People retain full access to federal remedies if they believe their constitutional rights have been violated during the parole process. Senate Bill 1259 strikes the right balance by restoring a confidentiality protection that has existed since 1982 one our parole system has relied on for decades and does so in a narrower and more principled way. It protects the safety of those who participate in the parole process and provides meaningful transparency for our incarcerated community members who seek parole. This is smart, bipartisan legislation. It's responsive to the courts, fair to incarcerated people, and protective of public safety. I urge an affirmative vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator, I'm sorry, you're muted.
Could you repeat that?
No, I'm just kidding. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. She's my senator, so I can tease. Thank you very much. Counsel, any additional comments?
Great, great summaries.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The bill passed the Senate 50-0 on June 2nd. The bill takes effect immediately, and there are no amendments.
Thank you, Counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, Senate Bill 1259? Are there any comments on the bill recognizing Representative Kincaid?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the bill for all of the ways in which it helps to provide more transparency for folks who are seeking parole. I think that it is important that people not just get a denial but also an action plan. If we want people to rehabilitate, then they need to have a process to do that. I have significant concerns about this legislation as it applies to the privilege for the parole documents, largely because the case that this came out of, Toland, raised an issue that an inmate was denied due process because he was repeatedly denied parole, and because he was actually able to access the materials, was able to demonstrate that there was a due process violation. By privileging these under statute, we cut off that relief for anybody else. So while it is an extreme exception, this is one person, one time, you know, the ability for the parole board to deny somebody due process and then have no real relief for that causes me significant concerns. And I think that the benefits of this legislation outweigh my concerns, but I have a real hesitation on this because I don't think that we should be allowing the parole board to get away with not providing due process if there is an issue that arises. and I have real issues with the response of the parole board that they would basically approach it as a different approach to justice and more hesitation on granting parole if we do not do what they want, which is not how justice is supposed to work in our commonwealth. I will be a yes on this bill, but as a lawyer, I think it's important to develop the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Kincaid. Representative Carroll on the bill, House Senate Bill 1259.
Yes, thank you, Chairman. First, I would like to thank the Senator. I want to thank you, Senator Capaletti, for your leadership on this bill. I've had an opportunity to visit many correctional facilities across this Commonwealth, and as I talk to people who are currently incarcerated in these facilities, One of the biggest concerns has always been when they go up for parole that they don't know why they got the knot. And, you know, one of the things I mentioned before is that we must give people progress reports if we want them to achieve what we believe should be rehabilitation. So I really wanted to just, you know, name that and just say thank you for that. I want to thank the chairman for bringing this bill up, and I look forward to being a guest on this bill.
Any other comments before we go to a vote? Seeing none, are there any – oh, sorry, Representative Bonner on the bill, Senate Bill 1259.
Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a question following up with the good representative's due process question, and that is can an explanation be given as to what, if any, appeal rights that a convicted individual has from the parole board's decision?
Sorry, what was the question? Any response?
Any appeal rights. So once the parole board makes its decision, is there an appeal right of a convicted individual to a court? I'm just wondering what the due process is following the parole board's decision.
Is that for me, Mr. Chair?
uh if if we we counsels talking but if you want to address it senator you you're more than welcome to sure so we don't have a right to parole now so when they are appealing um almost always they are the the appeals are denied immediately so um i don't know that i can't give you an exact answer but i believe as it stands it would continue to be within that same framework. But yes, as of now, very few people are able to overcome the legal requirements when they make those appeals as there is no actual legal right to parole.
Thank you, Senator Capoletti. Council Bat?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And yes, I'll echo the comments of Senator Capoletti. There is no right to parole, and there currently is no right and never has been to appeal from the discretionary decision of the parole board in denying parole. However, it has been recognized by our Supreme Court at least since 2001 that there is an actionable right to bring claim of mandamus in the Commonwealth Court to challenge the legal foundation, the legal parameters on which the parole board is exercising its discretion.
Thank you. That's a very good answer. Appreciate it. Thank you. Well, since you're satisfied with that, I'm not going to tell you what I was just told, but we can all talk after. and before if this gets brought up on the floor to discuss concerns and other matters.
So any other comments before we go to a vote? Seeing none, are there any negative? The question is, will the committee report the bill? Are there any negative votes? Seeing none, if the Secretary could report this as passing unanimously.
Thank you, Chair.
and thank you for joining us and working on this bill. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the commissioner. I apologize that I joked.
No problem But not really Thanks Senator Next on the agenda I will be calling up House Bill 1434 by Representative Amon Brown I will recognize the representative for brief remarks. Some folks on the committee want to hit the road. And then we're going to follow up by counsel. So Representative Brown on the bill.
Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman. and thank you to the committee for considering this very important piece of legislation. And I'm going to keep it brief because this legislation is very simple. In far too many communities across the state of Pennsylvania, especially in the city of Philadelphia, you have these pop-up smoke shops ravaging our communities. Literally on Fortifton Market where my state office is located, you have three of them. and during the school year you see lines of children and you know that they're children because they have backpacks on standing in line and walking out with these electronic cigarettes or vapes and things of that nature. I think that it's time that we side with the children and hold these retailers accountable. They're not carding, they're not doing anything, but what we do know is that they are harming our children in the Commonwealth. So I urge an affirmative vote on this legislation. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Counsel, anything to add to the bill?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, House Bill 1434 by Representative Alvin Brown amends Section 6305B2 of Title 18 to increase penalties for retailers who repeatedly sell electronic nicotine delivery systems to children for a first or second offense, the fine is $5,000. for a third offense, the finest $5,000, and permanent revocation of a repeat offender cigarette license. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there is one amendment.
Council, you're in order on amendment A03947, Briggs Amendment.
Amendment A03947 changes the term cigarette license to tobacco products tax license. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee adopt the amendment? Are there any comments on the amendment?
Just to clarify, it's really just a technical definition of what the actual license is. It came to us from the Attorney General.
Any questions or comments on the amendment? Any negative votes on the amendment? The amendment passes unanimously. Now we are on. um the question recurs will the committee report the bill as amended are there any comments on the bill as amended are there any on the bill as amended yeah um representative kincaid on the
bill as amended uh just a quick question um the from my reading of the bill it's not clear to me who would be charged under this um and maybe that's something that we can work on because I would not want to have a store clerk necessarily charged if what we're going for is the owner of the business.
Yes, it would be the owner of the business.
Okay. I don't know if that's clear in the language. Okay. Thank you.
So it would be the holder, right, at the license?
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Well, we can double down on that, and if it needs clarification, I'm sure Rep. Brown would be happy for a floor amendment. But I think it's clear. Thank you, Representative. Any additional comments on the bill as amended? Any negative votes on the bill as amended? seeing if we could record House Bill 1434 as amended as passing, and it will be reported to the floor as amended. Thank you. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Oh, sorry. Next on the agenda, I'm going to be calling up Representative Jones' bill, House Bill 2273. When you're ready, Representative Jones, I'll recognize you for some remarks on your bill and then followed by counsel to address any additional comments. So, Representative Jones, you're in order.
Thanks for joining us. Thank you, Chairman Briggs and Chairman Kaufman. Thank you to the members of the House Judiciary Committee for your consideration of HB 2273. This legislation advances a simple but important policy. When the government seizes someone's property, that individual should be aware of their rights and the manner in which they can exercise those rights. Asset forfeiture remains an essential tool for law enforcement in its fight against drug trafficking, organized crime, human trafficking, and other serious criminal activity. By depriving criminals of the money and the assets used to facilitate crime, our forfeiture laws help prevent criminals from being able to continue profiting from the victimization of others. In recent years, there have been repeated calls to curtail the use of civil asset forfeiture here in Pennsylvania. Many of those well-intentioned but misguided proposals would significantly limit law enforcement's ability to seize and forfeit assets connected to criminal activity. I believe that my legislation offers a more balanced and constructive approach to addressing some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the forfeiture process. Rather than restricting the tools available to law enforcement, my legislation focuses exclusively on due process. and the access to information. It simply provides that when property is seized, individuals should be furnished with basic information regarding the forfeiture process and the rights and remedies that already exist under Pennsylvania law. By ensuring that property owners receive clear notice of those rights, we can promote transparency and public confidence in the forfeiture process without undermining its effectiveness. this. I've had positive conversations. I am aware of some of our friends in law enforcement have expressed a few concerns with this legislation, but I'd be happy to work with those stakeholders to make any necessary changes to address those concerns. But I respectfully ask for the committee's
support of HB 2273. Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative. Council, any additional
comments on House Bill 2273? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 2273? Are there any comments on the bill? Seeing no comments, are there any negative votes on House Bill 2273? Seeing none.
No.
No? Tim's good. Okay, okay. The Secretary could report it as passing unanimously, and we will report it as committed. Congratulations, Representative.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next on the agenda, I'm going to be calling up Senate Bill 45 by Senator Dush and Senator Collette. I don't see either Senator here, so we are going to go to council on an explanation of Senate Bill 45.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 45 by Senators Dush and Collette moves the offenses for promoting prostitution patronizing prostitution promoting prostitution of a minor and living off prostitution living off prostitutes which offenses are currently located in Chapter 59 of our Crimes Code It moves these offenses into Chapter 30, which is related to human trafficking, and leaves only the offense of prostitution in Chapter 59, which relates to public indecency. The offense of prostitution is now reduced to a third-degree misdemeanor with no grading enhancements. The bill further establishes the prevention of human trafficking account within the general fund to create a dedicated ongoing funding stream for anti-trafficking programs, the coffers of which are to be filled by the imposition of mandatory escalating fines for any violation of the newly established patronizing prostitution crime in Chapter 30. This bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments.
Thank you, counsel. So the question is, will the committee report the bill, Senate Bill 45? Are there any comments on the bill?
Chairwoman Klunk on the bill, Senate Bill 45. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you bringing this bill up. I serve as one of our bicameral, bipartisan co-chairs of our Anti-Human Trafficking Caucus, along with Senator Dush, Senator Collette, Senator Marty Flynn, Senator Kristen Phillips-Hill, Representatives Burgos, Owlett, myself, and Young. And this particular bill has been endorsed by our Anti-Human Trafficking Caucus as a bill that we have gotten behind. Appreciate your support in bringing this forward today. So hopefully we can increase these penalties for those promoting prostitution, patronizing prostitution, creating this fund, and hopefully helping our victims here in Pennsylvania. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Any additional comments on Senate Bill 45 from the members?
Representative Kincaid, you're in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this bill is great. I think it's also important to remember that not every person who engages in sex work is human trafficked. And in fact, sometimes individuals who engage in prostitution or other sex work are actually utilizing it as a means of getting out of human trafficking because they have a criminal record as a result of being human trafficked. So I think this is a great bill, but I also think that as we talk about this, we have to remember the nuance of, you know, adults engaging in something that they are actually consenting to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Great. Thank you. Good point. Any additional comments? Are there any negative votes on Senate Bill 45? Seeing none, if the Secretary could report it as passing unanimously. It passes and will be reported as committed. Thank you, members. Next on the agenda will be Senate Bill 111 by Senator Argel. I don't see Senator Argel here, so counsel, please provide a description of Senate Bill 111.
Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 111 by Senator Argel, immense Title 61, to eliminate the residency requirement for corrections officers, The bill allows the Department of Corrections to hire an applicant as a corrections officer at a state correctional institution who resides outside the Commonwealth. The bill also includes a residency preference that awards Pennsylvania residents five points on a final examination for hire and promotion purposes. The bill passed the Senate 50 to 0. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there is one amendment.
Counsel, please provide a brief description of Amendment A03393.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment changes the preference language in the bill to apply to appointments and not promotions and makes the bill clear that when all things are equal, hiring preference goes to the Pennsylvania resident. The amendment is agreed to by the prime sponsor and is needed to address constitutional concerns by the Office of Administration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee adopt the amendment? Are there any comments on the amendment? Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing no negative votes, please record it as passing unanimously. Thank you, members. The amendment is adopted, and the question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended?
Sorry, I hand up. No.
Are there any negative votes on the bill as amended? Seeing none, if the Secretary could please record it as passing unanimously. Senate Bill 111 passes and will be reported as amended. Thank you, members, for that. Next on – is this the last one? Last on the agenda, I will be calling up Senate Bill 1235 by Chairwoman Baker. Counsel, please provide a description of Senate Bill 1235.
Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 1235 by Chair Baker amends Title 61, Section 6111 to extend the period of time a board member may serve after expiration of their term from 90 days to six months. The bill passed the Senate 50 to 0 on June 2nd. The bill takes effect in 60 days. There is one amendment.
Please provide a description of the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, Amendment A03958 by Chairman Briggs amends Title 61, Section 6115 to clarify that members of the board may not engage in any business, profession, or employment unless they receive prior approval from the Office of General Counsel. The amendment also changes the effective date to immediately. The amendment is agreed to by Chair Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, counsel. So just for the information of the members, this amendment was late filed, and under our rules, a late filed amendment may be considered if both chairs agree. And I want to thank Chairman Kaufman for agreeing to allow us to consider this amendment today. We did get the language out to the members before as well. So the question is, will the committee adopt the amendment? Are there any comments on the amendment? Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing none, thank you.
Secretary, please record that as passed unanimously.
The amendment passes and the question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Are there any negative votes on the bill as amended? Seeing none, Secretary, please report it as passing unanimously. unanimously Senate Bill 1235 passes as amended and will be reported to the floor. Thank you, members. Just it's June. I don't have really anything else on our agenda. We may be having some additional bills from the Senate next week, so we'll try to communicate as best we can. We probably won't be able to meet notice requirements, so we'll do our best to let folks know what what is going to be considered and have a meeting off the chair, but I'll coordinate and communicate with Chair Kaufman. Thank you, members. This meeting stands adjourned. Thank you.
Thank you.