[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6287759,"mediaKeyId","2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d","parentId",2546908,"title","Proposal would presume indigence for people jailed at initial appearance, increasing counsel access","audioSeconds",1532,"startMs",10080000,"endMs",11612000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d&start=10080&end=11612","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d/thumbnail_10080000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6287759/North-Dakota/Proposal-would-presume-indigence-for-people-jailed-at-initial-appearance-increasing-counsel-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287759-0750ab7043d8dc9aa669b4f87ec9402c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971811&Signature=mBCFB5xLqVvpLgYqYykTQBwlpw-tzoyiR-r8Bs0UIXsbIVGMoqyju1GGqCxq-tBoLD3sKIHLYOhj93ZIsSX1uXQz3m0PkgJ3iShxBWA2A7AcMC9o~wY~OzedVRQ~CkxoluFSuZjkqkV1N4fdQpAFDkLMy3ohXwXSFNESxz1hfY9S7oIIvEcBgsCJIt8vf0aaJltll6QFPoNcKsql4jW~i1n94ggh0C26a0a5wpi271m15pVcXoOKJnh~57Op2EO-xKEUewJhSx79E17QQbH2i-DCYEK4kdGvycRkv9MugJS386Jm7Qz4oyag3XMOzuP95YCVKyP87Wtw8WItA~-~Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 2226, discussed at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, would change state law to treat an incarcerated person as presumed indigent for the limited purpose of appointing counsel at the initial appearance where the judge determines release conditions.

Sponsor Senator Jonathan Sickler (District 17) said the change responds in part to litigation in the Eighth Circuit (a federal district-court decision from the Western District of Arkansas) that found counsel at initial appearance to be a constitutional right in that jurisdiction. Sickler said North Dakota’s rules already contemplate counsel at initial appearance but that appointed counsel is not consistently provided statewide because indigence determinations are typically made after the initial hearing.

Travis Fink, executive director of the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence, told the committee the agency supports the change and provided a fiscal and implementation overview. Fink said the commission calculated the appropriation request by estimating the number of initial appearances statewide and projecting counsel-hour needs. The commission expects to use contract attorneys for initial‑appearance coverage and asked the committee for flexibility on implementation timing. The governor's office said it would support an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026 to give the court system, the commission and stakeholders time to implement required rule and operational changes.

Debate and questions: Committee members raised questions about cost, capacity and what would happen if a federal appellate decision ultimately rejects the constitutional claim. Fink and the sponsor said the bill is appropriate even if the Eighth Circuit were to rule otherwise because the change is a standalone expansion of counsel access that serves public‑safety and equity goals. Supporters also cited research and internal analyses showing counsel at early stages may reduce pretrial detention time and downstream costs.

Next steps: No vote was taken at the hearing. The commission said it would supply revised appropriation figures if the committee adopts a delayed effective date and the governor’s office indicated it favors a Jan. 1, 2026 effective date to coordinate rules, training and staffing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Tuesday, Mar 11, 2025 8:50 AM - 12:03 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 2226 would presume that incarcerated individuals at initial appearance are indigent for the narrow purpose of setting release conditions, prompting debate about cost, timing and a pending federal appellate case that could make the change required by court order.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28895,"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},6287764,"Uniform act proposed to allow electronic trusts, powers of attorney and other non‑wills estate documents",2204,7800000,10004000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d&start=7800&end=10004","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d/thumbnail_7800000.jpg","/articles/6287764/North-Dakota/Uniform-act-proposed-to-allow-electronic-trusts-powers-of-attorney-and-other-nonwills-estate-documents","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287764-aa4c9e6a127b9e3aedce5417377066d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971811&Signature=cRMWMs9BoQB2Ztm8FISxC0gfs3mg9iqSe6cfcMOmFhPiS0FCfKwRP3s46rU5zDAyL0yafDIVTILGPZ8PKPW7IH8jhdvCAv83tojQjgLQNbW6cHArEqspAiiAjjzUEblUF7StER1ghLkNFD-KWARRsDK61PR0VvEp6UTaWS6cOzInoPEf8DgGk05SDWWhlw-RwBaU5uVIEcGcMaMtDBxF8U~jMoZ3oJBpIkahtmDADzfVpihP9rjHtH8S3Gqp0oim1mIuFr~UIX4JcMIzvMPRmvrB6AmdpML0gtMElHEmFLO6Kc52tOZ~KuXq49k9NHDwtJ6-8frlz9nHM5CY-IUO1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 2127, which would adopt the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act to permit electronic execution and legal effect for estate planning documents that are not wills — for example, trusts and powers of attorney.

Bradley Myers, a commissioner for the Uniform Law Commission and a University of North Dakota law professor, told the committee the model statute fills a gap: the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act allows electronic commerce and the recent Uniform Electronic Wills Act addresses electronic wills; UEEPA would allow non‑testamentary estate documents to be created and signed electronically and not be denied legal effect solely because they are electronic.

Support and benefits cited: Rick Kleberg of the North Dakota Bankers Association and John Alexander of the Dakota Credit Union Association urged adoption, saying clearer law helps banks, credit unions and customers in a rural state where in‑person execution is sometimes difficult. Lisa Cruz, commissioner of the Department of Financial Institutions, told the committee that clarity would help industry modernization and interstate consistency.

Recorder concerns: County recorders raised a technical concern about how papered‑out copies of electronically executed documents would be certified for recording. Morton and McKenzie county recorders asked the committee to clarify which parties may issue a certified copy of an electronic non‑testamentary document (for example, a notary, an attorney or a recording office) and how that certification must be presented so recorders can accept it for the land records. Several recorders said if an electronic document is submitted through an approved e‑recording vendor, the existing e‑recording certification processes address the concern, but they sought a statutory clarification for paper copies of electronic documents that are later presented for recording.

Next steps: Committee members said they would consider a drafting amendment to clarify who may certify a paper copy of an electronic estate document for recording and how the certification must be presented.","A uniform‑law proposal to authorize electronic signing and storage of non‑testamentary estate planning documents drew support from banks, credit unions and financial regulators but county recorders asked the committee to clarify how certified paper copies of electronic documents will be authenticated for recording.",{"_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},6287768,"Sponsor asks for help giving law enforcement timely access to protection orders in computer systems",382,6029000,6411000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d&start=6029&end=6411","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d/thumbnail_6029000.jpg","/articles/6287768/North-Dakota/Sponsor-asks-for-help-giving-law-enforcement-timely-access-to-protection-orders-in-computer-systems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287768-180a260f35435fdace977e7b8ae4b322/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971811&Signature=Xj6i3QqAAY2AH1ighMt46xpe3N93SnqnsR97AHECPkmfNn5CjCfsUeTGaKfkkLwA2QHwaC7eGfJAJMS0baA4PjJhPELt0UqSp4m9zGyL4tUNa~AuztveCZEBjByaBh5rOm4Cib0Zh8L2RHNWXXmN3ifAoY3moghA2iH8WdVOrU4f5k-IqdcMN-~LX1bqraxvrhPhKBQIgwjh7e5iC5ymajDYGMm4EMb2puM9SiOf6gJAHHU9dEiVX9vVVpEwcoKCoM1pxh6fqkGn-oqCxbp-g-aKZXwf26rpwwFF-QHQZoQh9yypeFaovcVh1cjrN6du2YALKLOClSengQQeUHHs9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Kristen Rohrs (District 27) asked the House Judiciary Committee to consider Senate Bill 2289, which would authorize disclosure of domestic‑violence protection orders to law‑enforcement systems so officers responding to emergency calls can confirm the existence and status of orders even when the order has not yet been uploaded to national indices.

Rohrs described repeated calls from sheriffs whose deputies encountered victims who said they had just obtained protection orders — sometimes earlier the same day — but the officers could not see the order in the law‑enforcement database they use in the field. “They look in their computer system … and there’s nothing there,” Rohrs told the committee. She asked whether limited read-only access to the court case-management system (Odyssey) or a statutory duty to disclose could solve the problem so law enforcement can verify an order while officers are still on the scene.

Support and concerns: Committee members and the sponsor said they sought a narrowly tailored mechanism to allow officers to check court records without creating broader public-access rules for sensitive orders. A member suggested victims could carry paper copies of the order; the sponsor replied that officers must be able to trust a source they can access electronically and not depend on unverified paper at 3 a.m.

Privacy and procedure questions: Committee members noted that some protection orders and sexual‑assault restraining orders are confidential under state rules; witnesses and written comments from the North Dakota Domestic and Sexual Violence Coalition (filed with the committee) asked that the bill be amended to include sexual‑assault restraining orders and that any disclosure safeguard confidentiality and avoid unintended public dissemination.

Next steps: Committee members said they would consult with the state Supreme Court and court administrators before advancing statutory language. No vote was taken.","A senator told the House Judiciary Committee a small but dangerous gap in records access can leave protection orders invisible to officers responding to late-night domestic-disturbance calls; the committee discussed using court case systems to supply the information but deferred action pending consultation with the courts.",{"_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},6287773,"Committee hears technical fix to ensure municipal shoplifting convictions count toward felony enhancements",762,5032000,5794000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d&start=5032&end=5794","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d/thumbnail_5032000.jpg","/articles/6287773/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-technical-fix-to-ensure-municipal-shoplifting-convictions-count-toward-felony-enhancements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287773-27cd856eac2e027a9b1a8700b6761dd2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971811&Signature=LaeHF5felRqTiWOFUSJFOL06t4ELmS63tOs2fdCybH2ElXlJR4HMBWfogJawP9Yn9iYVPKhY0bf22-xmxyyCFe7BQiZtyaAYXF31afMQ1JjIn~zwtHo2mrFlD4bi0mFByIXVLvpvTS-KLYwzGxH25qUMcAr~0b4dGNd~rXyIfhc8KjlUDwBC6~CMnDI3-VMRm0eXgLAouo936ywFv1nVD9jopn7bUqCQmJUVa~C3jMQb4W8AZT-3VYSOx8L3c5MyuyDVG~XVdoNOitpcbGQZ1JWKUA0P2asgF-I4GGe1NNdZ~bLdC0wZPL2AZnLFwF6XgfxqlGu7zmBrtOar1honGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Judiciary Committee members heard testimony supporting Senate Bill 2257, a technical amendment to clarify that municipal-court convictions for shoplifting count toward the repeat-offender threshold that elevates shoplifting penalties.

Bill supporters said the 2021 change to theft statutes was intended to deter repeat retail theft by escalating penalties — first offense class B misdemeanor, repeated offenses within three years elevated to class A misdemeanor and a fourth or subsequent offense to a class C felony — but district courts had interpreted the statute to exclude municipal convictions from that enhancement in at least one recent case.

Bill Wilkin of the North Dakota League of Cities told the committee the amendment adds the phrase “or an equivalent ordinance” to the statutory subsection to make municipal violations equivalent for enhancement purposes. Mike Rood of the North Dakota Retail Association said the change restores the deterrent effect for repeat offenders and urged a due‑pass recommendation.

Voting action: The committee later moved SB 2257 on a motion for a due pass. Representative Olsen carried the motion and Representative Van Winkle seconded it. The committee recorded the motion as carried 9–4 with 1 member absent; the committee minutes list the final tally as \"Motion carries 9 to 4 with 1 absent, not voting.\" The committee named Representative Olsen as the bill carrier to carry the measure forward.

What it means: If enacted, the statutory change would make municipal-shoplifting convictions count toward the three‑year enhancement window used to escalate penalties under the North Dakota Century Code provision cited by witnesses. Testimony cited a 2023 Ward County District Court decision interpreting the enhancement language as excluding municipal convictions.

Next steps: With a due‑pass recommendation from the committee and a bill carrier named, SB 2257 will move to the full House for further consideration.","Lawmakers heard from retail groups and municipal advocates a technical correction to North Dakota's shoplifting law intended to make municipal convictions count when enhancing penalties for repeat offenders; the committee later moved the bill out on a due‑pass vote.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287779,"Committee hears plan to allow infants to live with mothers at Hart River Correctional Center",1955,670000,2625000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d&start=670&end=2625","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546908-b137f37f30cbec6ac8f006b54b42616d/thumbnail_670000.jpg","/articles/6287779/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-plan-to-allow-infants-to-live-with-mothers-at-Hart-River-Correctional-Center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287779-8aa60047a052b5d23f4c3885694f17f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971811&Signature=mKFImFlwj-YE3ee88u5Fz7EAMQ36UTphK0LDX0pkZ9fkgKQPFxmlMgrqCDaVHDJILjWJdsE5zEtKrjGunerN6uad8~Nxitdhaik-rydym~q1lw5r9YMd0b2Aa-d2tn7gI5No9Cdaii3mXdLn~CcBZz7ssOGGCU29oIBDc8mpfZJedg5DTcESGOCXObrZQmHdC5bBkDw4ablOnqDPMBFGdSCPuWHkRIQQ2efnYIx2qSL4JpQyzmqbBNym-87hj2ndqOckE9XgJgDxQepDQ46Mw-9iquLUuqE2uGFib7AH2B6WvWW3xPtZk8ZThVb9WAsAX17PRMLhtWxELHiEDHBXbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 12 heard testimony on Senate Bill 2352, which would authorize children to reside with incarcerated mothers at the Heart River Correctional Center (HRCC) once the facility opens.

Supporters, including the bill sponsor and Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials, said the proposal aims to strengthen mother–child bonding, reduce recidivism and reduce foster-care costs. Cheryl Thomas, women's services manager for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told the committee the agency has a draft policy, floor plans and a proposed application process for participation.

The bill sponsor, Senator Dever (District 32), outlined research from other states showing very low return-to-prison rates among mothers who participated in prison-nursery programs and said federal Title IV‑E funds can pay some child-care and welfare costs. “It is necessary that corrections plan for that, and I think it necessary that they have the support of the legislature to do it,” Dever said.

Why it matters: Supporters argued the program will promote rehabilitation by preserving family bonds and could be less expensive than placing infants in foster care. Multiple human services and child-welfare speakers testified that careful policy and interagency coordination would be required to protect children.

Key details and program design: Department testimony and handouts describe a dedicated building within HRCC designed with four apartment-style units intended to be segregated from general population. The plans presented to the committee show each apartment could contain up to six bedrooms; the Department said the apartment building could house up to 24 mothers (without children) and up to 32 residents if used as general housing. The draft policy circulated by the Department says the program would begin at the child’s birth and—per the draft policy text—extend “to 18” (the policy wording appears to differ from other testimony about an 18‑month participation window; the committee discussed both an 18‑month eligibility window and language in the draft policy). The Department said participation would require an application and review process and listed eligibility factors including pregnancy at admission to HRCC, a plan for the mother to be the child’s primary caregiver upon release, parole or good‑time release within the stated participation period, medical and mental‑health clearance, immunizations and background checks; registrable offenses involving children would disqualify applicants.

Funding and oversight: Department and supporters said Title IV‑E foster-care funds and other federal benefits (WIC, SNAP, TANF) may be available for children in the program; the Department also said Medicaid would cover the child’s medical care. The committee questioned whether the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Corrections should submit fiscal notes; the sponsor and Department representatives said they had consulted DHHS leadership and were coordinating on policy and funding questions.

Concerns and conditions: Jackie Hall of the North Dakota Association for Justice testified in opposition, saying the bill lacked required parameters to ensure safety and adequate oversight before a program launch. Hall urged either statutory language that requires interim reports or a final report to the Legislature on policies and procedures before the program admits children. She also repeated concerns raised earlier about liability releases and statutory caps on damages for injuries to children in state custody.

Other testifiers included Dennis Meyer, director of the 3 Rivers Human Service Zone, who urged interagency collaboration and training requirements for staff and caregiving residents, and Missy Barranca of Aspire ND, who described the developmental and mental-health harms that separation can cause and urged the program as a public-health and prevention step.

Committee discussion: Members asked about the program’s effect on recidivism, staffing and training, security and how long children would remain in the program. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the facility’s planned design (locks, counters, changing stations and a segregated apartment unit) will be finalized and whether policies will require criminal-history checks, pediatric CPR, mandated‑reporting training and formal agreements with child‑welfare agencies.

What’s next: Committee members did not take a vote at the hearing. Several lawmakers asked the Department and stakeholders to finalize policy language, provide clearer fiscal notes that identify which agencies will absorb costs if federal funding changes, and confirm whether the draft policy’s wording about the program’s length is 18 months or until the child is age 18. Department witnesses said construction for HRCC is proceeding and that they will continue work with DHHS and zone directors on policy details.","A bill to authorize children of incarcerated parents to live at the new Heart River Correctional Center drew broad support from corrections staff, human services directors and advocacy groups at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, while justice advocates urged stronger safeguards on liability and policy development before the program opens.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Proposal would presume indigence for people jailed at initial appearance, increasing counsel access

Uniform act proposed to allow electronic trusts, powers of attorney and other non‑wills estate documents

Sponsor asks for help giving law enforcement timely access to protection orders in computer systems

Committee hears technical fix to ensure municipal shoplifting convictions count toward felony enhancements

Committee hears plan to allow infants to live with mothers at Hart River Correctional Center