Representative Peck presented a draft juvenile‑justice package aimed at tightening school responses to in‑school drug possession and distribution, aligning juvenile recidivism definitions with adult measures and restricting repeat nonjudicial adjustments. The committee discussed the draft at length and did not recommend it for passage.

Peck said the package grew from parent and school reports that students were avoiding school bathrooms because of heavy drug use and vaping. She told the committee that Tooele School District and other local districts had asked for clearer authority and more consistent consequences so staff and families could work in partnership to change behavior.

The draft includes several components: a definition of juvenile recidivism calculated over three years, new tracking of school‑based referrals, a prohibition on nonjudicial adjustment for students who distribute controlled or counterfeit substances at school, and a rule that possession may be eligible for a single nonjudicial adjustment but require petition and court action for a subsequent possession offense.

Supporters included local school resource officers and parents who said current administrative responses do not deter repeat offenders. Officer Faith York of Tooele City Police (school resource officer) testified that juveniles often escalate from tobacco or vaping offenses to more serious drug charges and burglary and that parents and officers feel the justice system gives “slaps on the hand” rather than consequences that change behavior. A parent, Jacob Jensen, described his son avoiding school bathrooms because of hot‑boxing and urged stricter responses.

Defense and juvenile‑justice advocates urged caution. Pam Vickery, a juvenile defense attorney, told the committee school administrators already have constitutional authority to search students under TLO and that administrative discipline, reporting practices and local discretion vary widely. Vickery also noted that USBE incident reporting bundles many categories together (dress code, infractions, etc.) and that local counts do not clearly show a broad epidemic of repeat, escalatory drug offenses. She and others urged better data before statutory change.

Representative Miller asked for comparative recidivism evidence and whether outcomes for nonjudicial adjustments were worse than petitioned cases; presenters said nonjudicial routes show certain completion rates but cautioned that completion does not always equal durable behavioral change. Committee members debated whether additional judicial consequences would reduce repeat offending or simply push more youth into court without better treatment resources.

The committee considered an amendment proposed during committee discussion: require a school resource officer to accompany or collect evidence when a school administrator conducts a student search, to preserve chain‑of‑custody and evidentiary integrity. The committee instructed staff to draft language for that change. A subsequent motion to favorably recommend the draft — as amended in committee instruction — failed on a roll call; members who opposed cited concerns about data, breadth, and the potential to increase formal processing of students without proven reductions in recidivism.

Why it matters: The draft tries to systematize school reporting, prioritize distribution offenses, and align juvenile recidivism measurement with adult frameworks. Supporters say it will protect other students and push repeat offenders into more intensive interventions; opponents worry it criminalizes children and lacks strong evidence that stricter court involvement reduces reoffending.

What comes next: Sponsors said they will continue stakeholder discussions and data collection; the committee did not forward the bill to the full legislature.