[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6287749,"mediaKeyId","2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505","parentId",2547054,"title","Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to make assaulting hospital workers a felony; advocates and opponents clash over scope","audioSeconds",3638,"startMs",3747000,"endMs",7385000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505&start=3747&end=7385","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505/thumbnail_3747000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6287749/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-bill-to-make-assaulting-hospital-workers-a-felony-advocates-and-opponents-clash-over-scope","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287749-7256ee1dcbe9e3976f51763621a1b555/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448283&Signature=CSGNXPB-~ro6rvo2b8nkVd8xEwHoIF~1BoQOLix~Z-AL1vHbG89tc22siH~k~Gokb3F9-V45UbByJ~ExbOeveeyNOhJCDdykODKFYOQ22O216i-dTob00FNi8JsIVv3vhqcCB5jzq8Ma36diSgyaWBNov~xhP-4qm88NO6dW5MeQ7fWOfNyq~oHfX~~Tdp9eG79VLFuRS25pMwsKuovuz~V6WIn3OwjqkrxMu7CflLTfesaI93IDgUEmcB~S41DsvP0ww6R0Rjdepv6zGRACOPG2nQTukKAtTOKuLIwtya8QRS6dQaTRo2cUd~P8ayDp5-aT~47ackM-4VyXNImkPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard extensive testimony on House Bill 13‑41, which would expand the current classification that elevates assault to a class C felony in emergency rooms to cover all hospital workers across a hospital facility. Supporters from hospitals and medical groups urged the change as a workforce and safety measure; opposition witnesses said the proposal is too broad and raised concerns about prosecutorial discretion and unintended consequences.

Representative Heiner (presenting HB 13‑41) said a similar emergency‑room felony enacted several years ago appeared to reduce assaults in emergency departments and that staff across the hospital—nurses, phlebotomists, dietary and security workers—cannot always retreat from violent situations. “These people are entering rooms and not only with patients but with people who are visiting the patients,” Heiner said, arguing expansion to the whole hospital would give staff parity with existing protections.

Melissa Howard, general counsel for the North Dakota Hospital Association, and Angie Sircia, vice president and general counsel for Sanford Bismarck, testified in support. Sircia submitted data showing weapons separately detected by Sanford systems in 2024: Sanford Bismarck reported 30 firearms, 1,156 knives and 214 other items detected year‑to‑date; Sanford Fargo reported 50 firearms, 1,228 knives and 906 other items (testimony submitted to the committee). Sircia and other hospital witnesses said training, security enhancements and behavioral response teams are part of hospitals’ efforts but that statutory parity is needed to deter assaults and help retain staff.

Nursing and medical associations also supported the bill. Sherry Miller, executive director of the North Dakota Nurses Association, said nurses experience workplace violence at notably higher rates than workers in other industries and argued that stronger penalties and clearer protection for hospital staff would support retention and safety. Courtney Coble of the North Dakota Medical Association said the bill would align penalties for assaults on hospital workers with those for law enforcement and other currently protected groups.

Opponents urged narrowing the bill’s language. Jackie Hall of the North Dakota Association for Justice said the measure’s definition of “hospital worker” is broad — potentially covering everyone in a hospital, from dietary staff to the CEO — and asked whether data supports elevating felony status for all such encounters rather than targeted subsets of workers. Brad Peterson of Protection Advocacy and the State’s Attorneys Association’s representative Jonathan Byers likewise urged caution: they said the bill could create heavy administrative burdens, pose prosecutorial discretion issues, and have unintended effects when applied to individuals with mental‑health crises. Peterson also noted differences between the state hospital’s secure environment and other hospital settings and warned the bill as written is too expansive.

Committee members asked witnesses several operational questions: whether hospitals’ weapons detections were limited to emergency‑room entrances (Sanford witnesses said their detection systems were at emergency entrances and some main entrances remain locked); how “hospital worker” should be defined (Sanford counsel said a licensed hospital and employees within it are covered); and how reporting and charging decisions would be handled (hospital witnesses described internal reporting and security workflows and said prosecutors exercise charging discretion). Jackie Hall and other opponents raised that raising penalties could increase litigation and make prosecutors’ jobs more difficult.

No committee vote on HB 13‑41 is recorded in the transcript. The hearing record shows broad support from hospital systems and professional associations and organized opposition raising concerns about scope, prosecutorial discretion and safeguards for people in mental‑health crisis. Committee members asked follow‑up questions and closed the hearing without recorded committee action during this session.

Ending: The committee took no formal action during the hearing and recessed after closing testimony; sponsors and opponents were asked to provide clarifying language and information for future consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Tuesday, Mar 11, 2025 8:54 AM - 11:56 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 13‑41, which would make assault of any hospital worker a felony by expanding protections that now apply in emergency departments to the entire hospital.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28907,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287745,"Committee hears competing views on bill to seal dismissed or acquitted records; court staff warn retroactive sealing would be administratively heavy",2417,7694000,10111000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505&start=7694&end=10111","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505/thumbnail_7694000.jpg","/articles/6287745/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-bill-to-seal-dismissed-or-acquitted-records-court-staff-warn-retroactive-sealing-would-be-administratively-heavy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287745-6e9e39e9656b483373c3474f4212cad0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448283&Signature=LjldbGUR5MsBegtzxE2eiG0SmcohjgMQm~M-GrTNCIGEq4H1QGhKhF3jz7PqAekqg8VhNZlAZBQ9UGj5ID1~LRqu1hn9JynnTwOWCT0bBWn3~dDlTrWr4pHO~SLgpbCNnRRx3t2f9adCLyXNodhdIzCHQg0lTKlzpxmqxywQWNRqzUCWdx12aS3MgepxZv1mAGyLyqwoJPFWTWsMi-tIREW0owPXa3yzif~QGsKqnZRAPdNdD6z8xI3yaih98YbvCdCYgPRyCu6LQ0dQ-UfX2VL51pyHAJI0Xpy~6q3Qfk9FT8cTFNa-FtaqSBs-37fBmx4a56R1yvom-7KgzWG4Iw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 11‑66, which would create a process to seal criminal records when charges are dismissed, a defendant is acquitted, or a governor’s pardon is granted. Supporters said sealing the records prevents undue stigma, helps with employment and licensing, and restores the practical effect formerly produced by court administrative practice. Court staff and other officials testified that retroactive sealing and an immediate effective date would create large administrative and IT burdens and recommended more narrowly tailored language or phased implementation.

Sponsor Representative Brandy Pyle said changes in North Dakota Administrative Rule 41 left some dismissed or not‑guilty records accessible through name searches on the court website, including older cases. “Some of these records were 30 to 40 years old,” she said, and described unintended consequences for people seeking jobs, housing or relicensing. Jackie Hall of the North Dakota Association for Justice and other supporters urged reinstating a retroactivity clause to restore protections for older cases opened by the administrative change and asked the committee to add an emergency clause.

Opposition and neutral testimony focused on technical and transparency concerns. Sarah Barrons, staff attorney for the state court administrator, said the court rewrote public‑access rules and removed language that had previously prevented name searches; she emphasized that sealing a record differs from restricting remote access. Barrons said the courts’ forthcoming case‑management replacement system will not support the same name‑search restriction and that retroactive, emergency sealing would require extensive manual work by IT and clerks and could be impossible within an emergency timeframe. Cammie Shook, a court business analyst, explained the existing system had been modified to comply with prior practice; the vendor’s new application does not include the same back‑end customization, and adding it would require additional work, funding or an enhancement.

Other supporters included the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence (Todd Ewell), Protection Advocacy (Brad Peterson), defense attorneys and a newspaper‑association witness who asked for a short delay window so journalists covering breaking stories can confirm dispositions. Adam Justinger, a criminal defense attorney, described a client whose dismissed DUI remained visible online and said the bill would make the sealing process consistent with other sealing paths that already exist for deferred sentences and pretrial diversion.

The committee discussed possible amendments and clarifications — including limiting the bill’s scope to court electronic records rather than prosecution archives, clarifying that all charges in a case must be dismissed before sealing, and setting a short public‑notice delay to allow media to report on dispositional changes. Court staff urged removing an emergency clause if the bill is amended and suggested technical fixes or appropriations might be needed to implement retroactive sealing.

Ending: The hearing record shows stakeholders on both sides and multiple technical options for amendments; the committee closed the hearing and asked staff and parties to confer on drafting and implementation details. No committee vote on HB 11‑66 is recorded in the transcript.","Lawmakers heard competing testimony about House Bill 11‑66, which would automatically seal records after acquittal, dismissal or pardon; supporters say sealing protects privacy and employment prospects, while court staff warned retroactive sealing with an emergency effective date would be administratively burdensome.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287752,"Committee advances bill to allow protective orders up to sentencing and to provide removal process",214,2160000,2374000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505&start=2160&end=2374","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505/thumbnail_2160000.jpg","/articles/6287752/North-Dakota/Committee-advances-bill-to-allow-protective-orders-up-to-sentencing-and-to-provide-removal-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287752-b66b077cd76bb142067d81888f566cd7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448283&Signature=F9IGOTW9zxWhvuSSqjavC4kCln3TE8MsT4leDPXv6mS9eKdpwNtnpv3fxI~GLjtU0MYDyexHIfoum-d4h0ok8fx71HpNo3lhTmh46XlkaujtHKfMbR9Ha7RA75lzEtTx3d89xLqpJrA-2i3duRM~Ix4~QExfBqtPuz~MFfQmRtfPIfkhW1WsI06lbfKi2TQScZ17vjGpvwI3WEDCCw9etiBnldxiuUEOslPaDh0YPyLPy8l3pcfVdFWcZy8rbvPDlqpukOQnpJM3dLEk4dBVyA-7NUOvlmZwOrPiV5fEF4qyx8RbDVeYiCIy4YB9RXlYAPim-hqkpxGuVTgGp9wQMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 13‑36 after a brief hearing. Representative Bernie Satrim presented the bill and described it as similar to the earlier item on sentencing‑based no‑contact orders but focused on allowing orders prohibiting contact through the period up to sentencing and adding a process to remove those orders.

“For the record, my name is Bernie Satriman,” Satrim said in the hearing. He described a scenario in which a victim and a convicted defendant both attend a public event and said without this change a victim might have to contact a probation officer and wait while a potential revocation is considered. Satrim said the bill “extends rights to victims” and argued the burden of proof has already been met at conviction, so requiring a civil order is unnecessary in those circumstances.

There was no recorded opposition in committee testimony, and Chair Larson closed the hearing after receiving no requests to testify in opposition or neutral testimony. Senator Castaneda moved a due‑pass recommendation; Senator Myrtle seconded. On roll call, members present recorded affirmative votes and Chair Larson announced the motion carried. A committee member volunteered to carry the bill to the floor.

Discussion vs. decision: The committee record shows support from the bill sponsor and no opposing witnesses; the committee took formal action (do pass) and named a floor sponsor. No amendments were recorded.

Ending: With the committee vote recorded in favor, committee staff and members discussed sequencing bills on the floor to present them back‑to‑back.","House Bill 13‑36, which extends the timeframe for orders prohibiting contact up to sentencing and creates a process for removing such orders, received a do‑pass recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287754,"Senate Judiciary Committee gives ‘do pass’ recommendation to bill letting courts impose no-contact orders at sentencing",655,371000,1026000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505&start=371&end=1026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547054-1dcd4c47eb9f9bed8d035b460337a505/thumbnail_371000.jpg","/articles/6287754/North-Dakota/Senate-Judiciary-Committee-gives-do-pass-recommendation-to-bill-letting-courts-impose-no-contact-orders-at-sentencing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287754-aea2f609087527522583f68f03e630df/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448283&Signature=hx3FGXie-eIu7FthRUncWS34oOkSF6i4XGJhbhIpQ4K~F1eUDpT5IpywQCVTIiHRqFQBXP86WXpT9lA6XLIzdQVHWG4SGZDmER~TZe4I26f3EqKw3fppobE2GE3954K2op95ANdk0rtypIgnX3F6d0vKM-IYcRBDt4YbDi3Ps7yYwgqId6SFIIXLZd2IY4wHPCSgRCubQcabOQXqDlaud8tdpHSgVk4bR2ccyLnwyaqCDAzSmeePcnPF0S8PN~V4qwzOH~goW18vx7QsL6Lst1D-VRsKmVLXA7tO2aXelrMKPULiBAp5E2E5aeCLti~XZvdXr5TRldlLl8DYzDjFoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to give a ‘‘do pass’’ recommendation on House Bill 13‑13, which allows courts to impose no‑contact orders for victims during sentencing rather than requiring victims to file a separate civil petition. Senator Bridal moved the committee recommendation, and Senator Lewick seconded the motion; the committee then recorded affirmative votes and advanced the bill.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Bernie Satrim, told the committee the change is intended to spare victims the trauma and cost of filing a separate civil action. “It just makes it very clear that during sentencing, they can put together a no contact order,” Satrim said. He described the change as “very simple but very important.”

Jonathan Byers, testifying for a state prosecutors’ group, said prosecutors support HB 13‑13 but raised a question about language on page 3 that previously told the Department of Corrections it could prohibit contact during imprisonment. Byers said the language was removed because the new sentencing subsection duplicates it but added that leaving the prior text in would not be objectionable.

Committee members discussed whether the authority to enter a no‑contact order already exists in law and whether the bill is largely clarifying statutory language. Senator Lewick said the change “should be in the law already.” Representative Satrim and others explained the bill is more prescriptive in the sentencing context and preserves judicial discretion to impose or not impose the order depending on circumstances.

After discussion, the committee took a roll call and recorded affirmative votes from members present; Chair Larson announced the motion carried. Senator Castaneda agreed to carry the bill on the floor.

Discussion vs. decision: The hearing included testimony in support and clarifying questions about whether the change duplicates existing authority. The committee made a formal recommendation (do pass) and chose a floor sponsor. No amendments were adopted in committee.

Ending: With the vote completed, committee leadership set timing to schedule floor action and moved on to other agenda items.","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony and voted to advance House Bill 13-13, which clarifies that courts may enter no-contact orders for victims at the time of sentencing rather than requiring a separate civil petition. The committee voted to give the bill a ‘do pass’ recommendation and selected a floor sponsor.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to make assaulting hospital workers a felony; advocates and opponents clash over scope

Committee hears competing views on bill to seal dismissed or acquitted records; court staff warn retroactive sealing would be administratively heavy

Committee advances bill to allow protective orders up to sentencing and to provide removal process

Senate Judiciary Committee gives ‘do pass’ recommendation to bill letting courts impose no-contact orders at sentencing