Medical Assistance Services, Department of; asset location and recovery. (SB773)

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield): DISORDERLY CONDUCT. BECAUSE THEY THREW A TRASH CAN OR SOMETHING. AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE KID KNOWS HE DID IT, BUT HE CAN'T HELP HIMSELF BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF HIS PROBLEM, SOME SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS WILL CHARGE THE KIDS WITH A CRIME AND A LOT OF US BELIEVE THEY SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, BUT SHOULD BE TRYING TO EDUCATE THE KID. SO CONVENTIONAL WISDOM WOULD BE JUST A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ASK YOU TO ADOPT IT AND I DO FEEL OBLIGATION TO TELL YOU THERE HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONTROVERSY DEVELOPED SINCE THIS BILL WAS LAST YEAR. THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS HATE THIS. THEY DO NOT LIKE IT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THIS BILL IS CREATING A WHAT IS CALLED A DIMINISHED CAPACITY DEFENSE. SO IN VIRGINIA IN ORDER TO BE FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY, YOU HAVE TO BE TO THE POINT WHERE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING OR CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. HERE, A KID WITH AUTISM FOR EXAMPLE MIGHT KNOW HE IS THROWING A TRASH CAN, BUT CAN'T HELP HIMSELF. SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS FOR JUST THE CLASSIFICATION OF MISDEMEANORS, BY KIDS, ON SCHOOL GROUNDS CREATES ARGUABLY A DEFENSE CALLED DIMINISHED I CARRIED IT BY BECAUSE I WANTED CAPACITY. THE LADY TO REPRESENTS THE AUTISM MEETING AND THEY COULDN'T I THINK IT'S A GREAT BILL. AGREE. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHAT IT WAS DOING. THE AMENDMENT IS MERELY CHANGING THE NOTICE SO WHEN THE KID GOES TO COURT, THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY IN ADVANCE THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING THEIR IEP REPORT IN DEFENSE AND IT USED TO BE 14 DAYS NOTICE, NOW, 10 DAYS NOTICE. I HOPE IT BE THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE TO ADOPT THE SENATE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CHESAPEAKE, MR. SPRUILL.

Sen. Lionell Spruill (D-Chesapeake): WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: I YIELD.

Sen. Lionell Spruill (D-Chesapeake): GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

[Unknown]: IS THERE A GROUP WITH A COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY? BECAUSE THAT IS ALL THEY DO IS LOCK PEOPLES UP. IS THERE A SECOND OPINION? IN MOST CASES WHEN COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS HAVE A CASE, IT'S THEIR JOB JUST TO LOCK YOU UP, NOT TRYING TO HELP FOLKS. I ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN IN OUR DISCUSSION OF THE BILL, ALMOST EVERYBODY LIKED THIS EXCEPT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS IN MR. DAVE ALBO'S OPINION CREATED THIS PROBLEM FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PROSECUTING THESE KIDS. WE WANTED TO LIMIT IT, CAREFULLY, JUST FOR KIDS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY PROBLEMS, ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AND JUST FOR MISDEMEANORS. SO WE TIGHTENED IT UP. MR. SPEAKER, ANOTHER QUESTION. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT SAME KID GOES OUT ON THE STREET IN A DEPARTMENT STORE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SAME KID AND THROWS A CHAIR? WHAT HAPPENS THEN? MY ORIGINAL BILL INCLUDED EVERYBODY. IN ORDER TO GET IT THROUGH THE HOUSE, WE WANTED TO, EVERYBODY WANTED TO MAKE IT JUSTIFIED TO SCHOOLS. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN. WE HAVE HAD A BUNCH OF US HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH CASES THAT HAPPENED TO US AS ATTORNEYS, AND IT SEEMS TO US A LOT OF TIMES SCHOOLS GET FRUSTRATED WITH THE KIDS AND CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME, IN MY OPINION, JUST KICK THEM OUT OF THE SCHOOL INSTEAD OF EDUCATE THEM. AND YOU DO MAKE A GOOD POINT. MR. SPEAKER, FURTHER QUESTION. GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. AS A LAWYER, IN THIS HOUSE YOU'RE GOING TO COURT AND DEFENDING A CHILD WHO IS NOT IN SCHOOL, CAN YOU USE THE ARGUMENT THAT ACCORDING TO CODE, IT'S IN SCHOOL AND HAPPENED OFF CAMPUS, AS A LAWYER, COULD YOU USE THE ARGUMENT THAT SHOULD BENEFIT THE SAME KID? . I DON'T THINK YOU COULD. BECAUSE THE CODE SAID THE DEFENSE IS RELATED JUST TO SCHOOL GROUNDS. HOW FAR, YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO USE THE ARGUMENT AFTER A DETERMINATION OF GUILT. SO THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT THEY HAVE A TRIAL, THEY DETERMINE WHETHER THE KID IS GUILTY OR NOT. IT'S CALLED WHETHER THEY WERE DELINQUENT OR NOT. THE JUVENILE COURT HAS MORE DISCRETION TO DO THINGS. THE CIRCUIT COURT CALL BALLS OR STRIKES. AND IN JUVENILE COURT, THE COURT IS DESIGNED FOR REHABILITATION. SO AFTER, SO IN YOUR SITUATION, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A KID WHO, SAY, HAS AUTISM AND GOT DISORDERLY CONDUCT OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. UNDER PRESENT LAW, AN ATTORNEY COULD STILL ARGUE YOU SHOULD NOT CONVICT HIM BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE JUVENILE COURT IS TO REHABILITATE. LAST QUESTION, MR. SPEAKER. ONE FURTHER QUESTION. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. AS AN ATTORNEY, IF YOU KNOW THAT A KID HAS A PROBLEM, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S ON SCHOOL, OR OFF SCHOOL, AND YOU COULD PROBLEM YOU KNOW KNOW IT'S TRYING AND NO DISEASE OR SICKNESS THE KID HAS. WHY ARE WE CHARGING THE KID WITH A MISDEMEANOR AND KNOWING THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL. FOR THE SCHOOL GROUNDS SITUATION. A WELL MEANING POLICE OFFICER MIGHT CHARGE SOMEBODY. HE MIGHT NOT KNOW THE KID HAS A PROBLEM. AND WHAT THEY'D DO IS ASSUME UPON LEARNING THAT, YOU HOPE IN NEGOTIATION WAS THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY THEY'LL AGREE TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE FINDING A CHILD GUILTY OF A CRIME WHEN THE CHILD CAN'T HELP HIMSELF. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROBLEM THAT STILL EXISTS AFTER THIS BILL PASSED. I HOPE THE BILL SOLVES A PROBLEM FOR KIDS CONVICTED OF MISDEMEANORS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORFOLK, MR. LINDSAY.

[Unknown]: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. GENTLEMAN YIELDS. MR. SPEAKER, I WAS GOING TO INQUIRE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE'S SPOKEN TO SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE PROPOSED BILL BUT THE QUESTION THAT COMES TO MIND NOW IS HAVE YOU RUN THIS BY DELEGATE HABEEB?

---