Hailey’s Law final draft for introduction as a Bill!

Would you like a chance to see what caused commotion on the House floor recently?  Well now is your chance!

As visitors to this site who also frequent our Facebook page already know, legislators have been feeling the heat on this issue and I’m pleased to say they’re receptive to taking action.  Some don’t want things in the media, some don’t even want to hear Hailey’s name.  That should make you ask why.

NOTE: With the help of an outsider, a language error in the to-be-introduced version had been identified.  It said that an Amber alert would need to occur within 15 minutes of verification.  That IS NOT how it should have been worded.  It was to be worded that the Department of Public Safety and local media would need to be contacted within 15 minutes for the issuance of an Amber Alert.  This would ONLY occur upon verification.  The corrected copy is now visible.

Hailey’s Law for introduction

So I ask all of you, what is it that these people are scared of?

We’ve been told the following excuses:
There is no need for knee-jerk legislative action, action has been in motion since late November.  Untrue, if this were a knee-jerk reaction then it would be extremely harsh and it would point fingers at the people involved rather than going after the procedure as the problem.  If action was started in November, it’s already half-way through March (4 months later) and little has been seen as accomplished at this point.  Hailey’s case shouldn’t have even occurred this way if action had been started and stressed as a priority.  Tax-driven field folks, remember that.

Every case is different, so it is impossible to compare them and there is no need to continue to bring them up.  True and untrue, that’s why we need to get the records of each and every case to see what was different in these cases and what was the same.  It’s the only way to approach this procedure with surgical precision.  The statistics aren’t enough, getting into these cases from start to finish is what is needed.

People will focus on what’s broken rather than seeing the efforts to correct the problem.  Untrue, the people already see what’s broken and they are expressing support to correct the problem, but it must be done so that the procedure is corrected in a manner that helps ensure this will not happen again in Missouri.  Have any of you seen what efforts are being made to correct the problem other than grassroots efforts like this?  This is the Show-Me State and we’ve yet to be shown anything.

We need other states to follow our lead on addressing this issue in the manner we are going about it.  Both true and untrue, other states have differing processes of their own and without examining each and every one of these, there is no way to make such a statement honestly and accurately, especially since the program is voluntary.  Those that do participate, follow the Federally mandated criteria as a minimum.  Other states that see us take immediate action to rectify this problem should follow our lead and examine their own process for flaws.  Several from across the country have already sent Hailey’s Law to their own state legislatures outside Missouri.

It will cause false alerts.  Untrue, the verification process stays in place, but it needs sped up.  The 15 minute window does not start until a verification has occurred.  Of the 68 issued in Missouri, only 3 were false alerts, 3 have ended in the death of the child.

It will muddy the waters by confusing law enforcement about the process.  Untrue, the process stays the same, but law enforcement are pressured into streamlining the steps to achieve a proper activation.

It will cost $10,000 to put this into place and it will not be in effect until August, then there are rules to be created.  It will take over a year to get there.  The money would be better spent elsewhere.  Untrue, the cost may be apparent, but an emergency clause will activate this upon signing by the governor.  The rules are already in place, they just need to be shuffled around slightly to expedite the process.  I will keep this excuse in mind the next time is see garbage legislation being put forward that costs at least $10,000 to the taxpayer.

You just can’t lock law enforcement into a 15 minute window on issuing an alert.  Why not?  If one reads the bill, this only requires the 15 minutes to reach out and contact the MSHP Troop F and the local media within that window, NOT for the issuance of the alert itself.

Well this all comes down to a lack of training, so that’s going to have to be the focus.  Untrue, anyone who reads the form and is given minimal training on how to ask investigatory questions and handle domestic custody situations should be able to read the form and understand what it means.

The committee being unmanned for two years is because Governor Nixon hasn’t appointed people to it.  True and untrue, those leaving the committee were supposed to know who their successors were PRIOR to their departure from the committee per the statute, thus the 2-year staggering of members. See RSMO 210.1014.4 for more information on the Amber Alert Oversight Committee.  Why didn’t those people speak out?

This can all be fixed with technology.  Untrue, the small departments that have very little manpower, may be running on nothing more than reserve officers (unpaid), and have no money for technology will not be able to afford a technology upgrade.  This is what we call putting a band-aid on a bullet wound, it helps, but it isn’t a proper fix for the problem.  Technology needs to play a role, so don’t think I’m against that.  The key is what do we do for those who don’t have access to the technology, cannot afford it, or when the technology can and does fail?

The technology as a software…….  Untrue, this again poses the possibility of massive procedural delays.  Consider this, an officer is at a call 20 minutes away from the station and does not have equipment with secure internet capabilities to access a software program.  There’s 20 minutes to drive back, now add the time it takes to fill out the form and submit it, which is an unknown at this point because the software isn’t in-hand.  This also means that even if the software were in-hand today, none are trained on it.  What will the cost be to issue and train EVERY officer in the state and keep training new officers to use it?  The end result will be that officers won’t be trained to use it and a single operator will be implemented and the line-officer will not be “in the know”; more red-tape.

A smartphone application……  Untrue, not every department has department issued smartphones for their officers and asking an officer to use theirs for business purposes is quite unethical and unreasonable.  Who is going to pay for these?  Will their internet capability be abused by officers?  Will every officer in every jurisdiction have one or will they be forced to share one which could result in one being lost or forgotten somewhere?  Don’t even get me started on the security risks of a smartphone app.

 

2 thoughts on “Hailey’s Law final draft for introduction as a Bill!”

  1. Patrolman need to know NO red tape will be tolerated when it comes to “saving” lives. They have to live with themselves, the public, & GOD. IF facts are obvious, let common sense free!!!
    Unnecessary Red Tape, BE GONE~

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five − = 3

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>