House Judiciary panel reviews major amendments to S193, the proposed forensic facility bill

The House Judiciary Committee on May 20 reviewed a package of amendments to S193, legislation to create a secure forensic facility and set standards for commitment and review.

Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council walked the committee through several changes, saying the Appropriations Committee’s amendment would prevent Human Services and related departments "from advancing the development of the forensic facility other than what is required to complete the forensic facility plan" until the feasibility plan is returned to the legislature. Fitzpatrick noted the bill includes a two-year window before the facility takes effect (he said the effective date is Jan. 1, 2028) and said the amendment is intended to stop departments from entering contracts before legislative review.

A more substantive set of edits discussed would change the commitment standard. Under the proposed amendment, the committee was told, a court would need to find that a person both has a qualifying condition and — independently — that releasing the person would create a substantial risk of bodily injury. "It's not required that the qualifying condition cause the risk of harm," Fitzpatrick said, summarizing the change as a decoupling of the causal link between condition and dangerousness. That language appears multiple times in the draft and alters when and how someone might remain at the facility.

The amendment also refines the forensic risk assessment: evaluators must be "appropriately qualified for the qualifying condition of the person," and assessments should include, but not require, recommendations on evidence-based treatment and whether a community-based placement might be appropriate. Fitzpatrick said those edits were meant to make explicit an option that already existed in practice.

Deputy state's attorney Jared Bianke, speaking on behalf of the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs, urged caution. "As the bill was initially introduced, it was a nine-page bill. It was 16 pages when it passed the Senate. ... [version 7.1] now totals at least 29 pages long," Bianke said, arguing that the bill’s expansion makes some changes difficult to assess quickly. He singled out three proposed edits (identified in the committee materials as amendments 3, 4 and 5) as particular concerns and warned they could be interpreted to require community placement recommendations or otherwise change longstanding interpretations. Bianke also said that one procedural change that allows petitions after 90 days and subsequent six-month petitions risks creating repeated, resource-intensive hearings and "litigating and reviewing" on an ongoing basis rather than allowing cases to settle.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how competency findings, custody location (hospital, correctional facility or licensed forensic setting), and periodic reviews would work in practice. Fitzpatrick clarified that criminal courts handle competency determinations, that evaluations are often contracted and can occur in hospitals or correctional settings, and that the bill retains a 12-month review while adding the new petition rights and medical-director triggers. The amendment also modifies staffing and clinical-setting language so that required clinical staff be available "as clinically necessary" rather than on a 24/7 on-site basis.

Several members said a newer draft (referred to in committee discussion as version 2.1) had been circulated to address some concerns. Kim McManus of the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs told the committee that 2.1 adds the word "including" to make community-based placement an option rather than a mandate and that the department views the changes in 2.1 as addressing some of its earlier objections; she said the department would prefer additional cleanup in conference but supported moving the bill forward.

The session closed without any formal straw poll or vote. The committee chair said members would defer informal polling for the morning and said Representative Teresa Wood would be asked to appear later to explain the amendment further.

What happens next: the committee paused consideration to allow members and interested parties to review the most recent draft and to hear Representative Teresa Wood and other witnesses before any straw poll or formal action.