North Dakota State's Attorneys oppose bill requiring investigations of obscene materials

During a recent House Appropriations meeting held on April 10, 2025, significant concerns were raised regarding the fiscal and ethical implications of a proposed bill affecting North Dakota's state attorneys. The discussion centered on the responsibilities that the bill would impose on state attorneys, particularly in relation to investigating and prosecuting cases involving potentially obscene materials in libraries.

Jonathan Byers, representing the North Dakota State's Attorneys Association, articulated the challenges that state attorneys would face under the new legislation. He emphasized that the bill would require them to take on roles they currently do not fulfill, such as conducting investigations and determining the obscenity of materials. Byers pointed out that most state attorneys operate as small offices, often with just one attorney and minimal support staff, making it impractical for them to handle these additional responsibilities without incurring significant costs.

One of the key issues highlighted was the ethical dilemma posed by the bill. Byers explained that state attorneys would be required to act as investigators, expert witnesses, and prosecutors in cases where they had previously determined the materials to be obscene. This dual role raises ethical concerns, as it conflicts with the principle that prosecutors should not also serve as witnesses in the same case. Consequently, state attorneys would need to hire additional prosecutors to handle these cases, further straining their already limited resources.

The committee also discussed the lack of prior complaints regarding compliance with existing laws on obscenity, suggesting that the proposed changes might be an overreaction to isolated incidents. Byers noted that anecdotal evidence should not drive sweeping legislative changes that could burden the entire system.

As the meeting progressed, committee members expressed their concerns about the practicality and fairness of the proposed bill. The discussions underscored the need for careful consideration of the implications for state attorneys and the communities they serve. The committee ultimately decided to pause further deliberation on the bill, indicating that more discussions and evaluations are necessary before moving forward.

In conclusion, the House Appropriations meeting revealed significant apprehensions about the proposed bill's impact on state attorneys in North Dakota. The ethical and fiscal challenges raised by Byers and other committee members highlight the complexities of legislating issues related to obscenity and the responsibilities of legal professionals. As the committee prepares for future discussions, the focus will likely remain on finding a balanced approach that addresses community concerns without overburdening state attorneys.