Item 5: Ratification of IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Pam Berrian 03/07/2013 Pri 1 Oppose Comments: The bill is preemeptive of local authority and would generate revenue loss among other adverse impacts which I will not expand on at this time because on 3-7-13, I was informed by LOC that the Committee Chair stated with certainty that this bill was dead. That said, we will watch for any ressurection of the bill or text during the session and report back to the IGR Committee. HB 2019 Relating Clause: Relating to sex trafficking of children; declaring an emergency. Title:Creates crime of patronizing a trafficked child. Punishes by maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both, if victim is child under 18 years of age. Punishes by maximum of five years' imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both, if conviction is based on offer by or to law enforcement officer posing as child under 18 years of age. Enhances penalties for crime of trafficking in persons if victim was minor or force was used and trafficking was for purpose of commercial sex acts. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Chief Sponsors:Regular Sponsors: Sponsored by: Representative Tomei, Representative Gilliam; Representative Bailey, Representative Barker, Representative Barnhart, Representative Boone, Representative Dembrow, Representative Frederick, Representative Freeman, Representative Gelser, Representative Hicks, Representative Komp, Representative Krieger, Representative Nathanson, Representative Reardon, Representative Vega Pederson, Representative Witt URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2019.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Nathan Reynolds Curt Newell EPD 03/20/2013 Pri 1 Support Comments: House version of SB 673 – Same statement from Detective Curt Newell applicable in this bill - I think this bill would be helpful to those trying to combat human trafficking in any area of country, including Lane County. As we know, the demand drives the supply and currently there are fairly weak laws pertaining to the customers or “Johns” involved in these types of investigations. Thus the demand is as high as it always is. I think if the message got out there to the “Johns” in the form of this newer stricter law, then those on the fence might change their mind about soliciting prostitutes, and hopefully reducing the demand even that small bit. And for those who are intentionally seeking out under age children to solicit for prostitution, we would have the ability to punish them more severely than we currently can. A local example of a case I worked a couple years ago where this new law would’ve been nice and a service to our community: We arrested a “John” who specifically sought the sexual services of underage girls via his pimp. We learned he paid minimal amounts to his victims and engaged in sexual encounters with several different underage girls (we proved two, learned of eight total). The best we were able to do on this guy was a sentence of 8 total months in local jail and he was out before our investigation concluded. He was convicted of misd. Prostitution and 8 different sex related crimes which netted 30 days each. This is an example of just 3 | Page March 20, 2013 IGR Committee Meeting