Good morning. We are in Senate Judiciary. It's May 16. We're going to be voting on the changes the House made regarding expedition procedures. It's S.87," the committee chair said at the opening of the session.

The committee examined changes the House made to procedures in S.87 that preserve the bill's existing timeline — a 90‑day initial period with a 30‑day extension option — while adding explicit judicial review if an officer or agency seeks to extend detention beyond the statutory timeframe. Committee members debated whether the retained timeline was appropriate, compared it with other states and raised concerns about potential conflicts with federal law.

Why it matters: the bill governs time limits and review rights for people held under the statute at issue; preserving a clear initial period with a required judicial review for extensions affects both liberty interests and agency practice. Committee members said the House’s addition of judicial review addresses concerns raised in testimony without changing the 90‑day baseline.

Committee members described a wide range of state practices in their jurisdictional survey: "There's some states that have a hundred and 80 days, some states that have no time at all. Others between 30 to 60 or 30 to 90 up front," one member said during debate. Another member raised a potential federal limit and asked what longer timeframes would mean under federal law, saying, "it clearly says under the federal law that no person shall be held in custody under a telegraphic request, and I don't know what that means for more than 90 days." The chair and other senators said they were comfortable keeping the existing 90‑day initial period and relying on the added judicial review to guard against undue extensions.

The committee discussed the statute-number "3020" during the exchange when members questioned how the changes would interact with existing commitment procedures. Staff counsel briefed the committee on the context of the House changes and said the House-proposed judicial review would allow a judge to consider extension requests before an extended detention period began.

After further discussion the committee member who had earlier supported the Senate version but welcomed the House changes summarized the sentiment: "I think we sent them a good bill, and they made it better. So I'm willing to concur with the House's rendition here." The committee then took a roll-call on a motion to concur; several named senators recorded yes or no votes and the chair announced they would report the matter to the floor.

The committee also noted that the final enacted language and any floor amendments in the House could affect timing and next steps; staff said the committee would obtain the final House text when it became available and bring it back if needed.

Reported action: the committee moved to concur with the House changes to S.87 and the chair announced it would be reported to the floor for further action.