Well, uh, my name is Kelly Mohler. I'm a representative from District 48 in Shore View and I'm also the co-chair of the public safety committee. Thank you so much for your interest in being here today. Chair Noatne and I are hosting this event in order to bring awareness to important domestic violence legislation that passed this session and that goes into effect on August 1st. These bills have not received much attention and in order for them to be impactful, we need more motans to know about them. Intimate partner violence is a significant public health and public safety issue. According to the CDC, one in more than one in three women experience sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. The presence of a firearm in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%. Both Native American women and black women in Minnesota are murdered at higher rates by intimate partners. But these are not just statistics. These victim survivors are our friends, our family members, our co-workers, and our neighbors. Not all victim survivors report abuse to authorities, but when they do, we need to make sure the justice system works for them. As a prosecutor and a legislator, I have seen the system fail victims fail the victims too many times. And regardless of whether or not a victim survivor reports the abuse, all of them deserve services to ensure their safety. I'm proud to say that the bipartisan legislation that we passed this year helps to achieve both of those goals. The bills that you will hear about today were authored by my House and Senate colleagues standing with me. This comprehensive package includes the following. extending the time for warrantless arrests in misdemeanors in domestic violence misdemeanors from 72 hours to two weeks and encouraging law enforcement to expeditiously seek arrest warrants. Requiring law enforcement and judges to consider an alleged offender's history, including any current or former orders for protection. Ensuring removal of firearms from abusers. requiring that victims are notified about their right to give victim impact statements in court, providing for more robust um information gathering and data collection by law enforcement to the BCA, removing abusers from contracts for deeds that are shared with the victim. Funding victim services to make sure that critical services are remaining available to victims and survivors. and then creating a domestic violence task force to make additional recommendations on ways to improve the justice systems response to victims. And before you hear more about this legislation, I want to emphasize the strong bipartisan support we had for these bills. Domestic violence isn't a blue issue or a red issue. It's a public safety issue. And with that, I'll turn it over to my co-chair, Chair Nati. >> Thank you. As co-chair Mohler stated, my name is Paul Noati. I'm the representative from Elk River 30B. I'm a retired law enforcement officer. I did 33 years in law enforcement before becoming a member of the state legislature. And so many of these issues that we uh fixed through the legislation this year really hit home to me. When I started in law enforcement, the waiting period or the delay that you could arrest someone was eight hours after it were reported domestic. And I saw so many cases where the person would just hide out because they knew they just had to uh wait it out and that they would have to um be citation receive a citation and they wouldn't have to make an appearance before they see a judge. And we saw that giving more time as the time has creeped up so slowly over the years more of those arrests are made and the person is brought before a judge right away so we can get some intervention and get some things taken care of. And that is the important part. Some of the things that I saw in law enforcement and the interactions that they had with the offenders was that action taken against them and an intervention right away. so often led to less incidents in the future. If they get away with it once, they try to get away with it again. So, it's important that we get that intervention. And I know that some of the other people that will be coming up to talk about uh the specifics of the statues, but uh it was very important for myself and for co-chair Mohler that we have the funding for the domestic advocacies because that to me was the law enforcement response when we met with a victim to be able to put them in touch with an advocate right away and get them uh the information that they need and have someone walk with them in their journey through the court system. So, that was one of the that was the biggest part of our supplement supplementary budget that we did this year and we thought that was very important to have that. And with that, I'll uh leave it to Representative Raric. >> Thank you. I'm Representative Marian Raric. This is my 14th year. In all 14 years I've served on either the public safety or the judiciary committee and sometimes both. I've worked in domestic violence issues almost the entire time. So I want to talk about House File 4075 which was authored by Peggy Scott and it's actually a compromise bill between uh Chair Mhler and Chair Scott. They worked really hard on these details. In fact, I know even Chair Noatne had quite a bit of input from the law enforcement side. But let's talk about where it came from initially. So, Carol 11 actually did a story about this all the way back in 2018. We changed the law back in 2014 to kind of rewrite a whole bunch of things regarding domestic violence. And in 2018, AJ LGO did a little look back from 2016 to see how many times when the court has ordered for guns to be removed were they actually they they were supposed to file an affidavit. So, how many times were they actually removed and the affidavit was filed? And an abysmal amount is what he came up with. It was about 4% statewide for orders of protection, which of course an order for protection is an incredibly high level, very dangerous situation for that person that has filed it. So when we started in 2016, uh orders for protections were only at about 4% that of the time that the affidavit was filed saying yes, that that had been turned over to law enforcement. Now, since then, it's gotten a little bit better. The courts have taken notice and the numbers have come come down a little bit. And when you look at all the way across the board for domestic assault, about 45% of the time the affidavit's not filed. Now, it's not great, but it's better than 96%. Um, with harassment and stalking, it's about 39% of the time. And again, this was a court look back over three years, and that was the average. Um, for OFP, so order for protection, it was 87% of the time still the affidavit was not filed. That is terrifying. And so, what we did with this bill, I'm also an author on the bill, is that we did some very simple provisions. We said, "Look, if a court has ordered for your guns to be removed, then you have to file the affidavit and within 10 days, the court actually has to have a follow-up hearing to say, "Yes, in fact, those guns were removed." And if you didn't have any guns, you could file that affidavit as well. Um, also along with that, to make sure that you surrender your permit to purchase and permit to carry. So if the court has said you cannot have guns, you are prohibited person, you also have to logically s surrender your permit to carry and permit to purchase. One other thing that's really important is that the person that's petitioning, so the victim themselves is now they're going to be asked, do you know if there are guns in the home? If so, where are they? That is an incredibly important tool for law enforcement. So those are some of the high levels. And again, Representative Peggy Scott and Representative Mhler worked really hard on this compromise bill. Um, some parts remain the same that was in the statutes, like you can still transfer to a third party, but there's more restrictions around it. So, there's more follow-up. This, I believe, will um bring the number down. And so, right now, the intimate partner homicides are an average of 21 a year. We want to bring that I'd like to bring it down to zero, but of that about 50% is actually 48% are done with a a firearm. So, the numbers are astounding. We don't uh every time we have the femicide report out, it's just heartbreaking to all of us. And so, we want to um combat that problem. With that, I'll turn it over to Senator Weslin. >> Thank you. Uh good afternoon and thank you for being here and covering this. This is actually a very important issue. Uh I want to thank um chairs Mhler and and Noatne for bringing us all together today. I am State Senator Bonnie Wesland. I represent Senate District 42, which includes Plymouth, Maple Grove, and Medicine Lake. This session, we took major steps to strengthen the response to domestic violence in our state. Domestic violence is not a private matter. It's a public safety issue. We know that the moments immediately after abuse is reported can be some of the most dangerous times for survivors. And we know that delayed or inconsistent responses can have devastating and even deadly impacts on uh their victims. It is estimated that in 2025 at least 31 motans died of intimate partner violence. The bills we passed this year have eliminated some of the loopholes in domestic violence law that we believe will save lives. Every person deserves to know that when they ask for help, our system is prepared to act. And we took steps this session toward making that promise a reality. Too often, domestic violence is treated as a single incident when we know that it is most often a pattern of escalating abuse. Uh, I am a family law attorney and I can tell you that that has been my experience in representing individuals who experienced abuse in their homes. Survivors may call for help multiple times before an arrest is made and we know that delays can have devastating and even deadly consequences. The tragic death of Allison Lucier can underscored these failures. Allison repeatedly sought help from law enforcement before she was found dead in 2024, murdered by her abuser. Subsequent reviews of her requests for help identified missed opportunities for intervention. And that's why one of the most significant reforms in domestic violence prevention that we took this year is expanding the window for law enforcement to make arrests based on probable cause in non-felony felony domestic abuse cases from just 72 hours from the time a call is made to law enforcement to 14 days. When officers have probable cause to arrest, but they can't locate a suspect right away, they should not lose the opportunity to act within a reasonable amount of time. The bill also requires officers to promptly seek an arrest warrant when a suspect is gone on arrival and cannot be immediately located. It also strengthens reporting requirements for documenting investigations and creates more consistent statewide standards for responding to domestic violence cases. Together, the new laws establish uniform enforcement measures across the state, expanding officer authority while formalizing agency documentation and property c proper proper custody mandates. The expanded arrest windows are really a key important part of this. We know that the most dangerous time for someone who is reporting and experiencing domestic violence is that moment where it is reported. No law can undo the harm that survivors and families have already endured. But we must learn from those tragedies to strengthen our laws so that there are fewer outcomes like Allison's. This policy package reflects a commitment to better protect people experiencing domestic violence, to make sure our response is consistent and prompt, and to help law enforcement intervene successfully to save lives. Thank you. And I will now turn it over to my colleague, Senator Uma Verbaton. Thank you so much. Um, my name is Claire Uma Verbaton. I have the honor of representing district 66 in the Minnesota Senate. I also serve as the vice chair of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Uh and I was the chief author of the bill to fund crime victim services. I just want to ground us um in what crime victim services are. Um it funds a number of really essential services for our victim survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. Um, co-chair Noatne talked about how important it is for um, survivors to be connected with an advocate. Those advocates will attend court with survivors. Um, they are also the folks who will meet with uh, survivors at the hospital to support them through sexual assault exams. They help survivors navigate uh, the crime victim services uh, reimbursement program. They provide a safe space uh for survivors to live and find work. Uh they help survivors gain confidential address and name changes. They centralize investigations involving child victims so that the child is not exposed to repetitive and traumatizing interviews. This funds um the shelters that provide um again housing for our survivors. and they also are advocates um for survivors in really the face of law enforcement systems that sometimes don't believe them. Um and they educate and collaborate with those same systems to really improve responses in the future. These are like very essential life-saving services and we've seen a significant decrease in federal funding over um the last several years. And so it has really come down to the states to provide funding for these essential services. We received information from the Office of Justice Programs this year that the gap that we were facing for crime victim services was $12 million. And um this group here, we we worked together in a bipartisan manner to fund that $12 million gap. um really proud of the work that we did this session because we knew if we did not actually fund that gap at that level, we would see shelters close. We would see um counties lose maybe their their only advocate, especially our counties um in greater Minnesota. So um this was very important to get that funded at that level. And I do just want to name that we're still facing this crisis of uh ongoing funding. It's something that we're going to have to come back to next session. I um certainly plan on bringing forward legislation to find a solution and find an ongoing funding source uh for these essential services which are crime victim services. So thank you and I will pass it to my colleague Senator Gustoson. >> Thank you. Um I'm Heather Gustoson. I represent SD36. It is nine cities, but Vadness Heights, White Bear Lake, and Lino Lakes are the largest cities in my district. Um, too often survivors and perpetrators of domestic abuse um become trapped in a joint contract for deed with no remedy or resolution. And for the survivor that not only is it hard to recover from the trauma, as long as they are connected through contractual property obligations, the trauma will persist. So, thanks to this new law, survivors in this situation will have the ability to petition the courts to extinguish the joint interest of their abuser in a contract for deed when the abuser abandons the property and stops making their obligated payments. In many cases, survivors who remain the equitable owner of the home can continue to make their payments, but they are forced to remain contractually tied to their abuser. And additionally, there is also the looming fear that an abuser may lay claim to the property at some point in the future despite not making payments. Uh, this new law provides a remedy for that and allows victims of domestic violence to sever these ties from the perpetrator. A lot of that is technical talk, but what it means is the survivor of a domestic abuse situation is able to keep the home that they have been paying for and live in. And so for those who have experienced the trauma of abuse, stable housing is critical to recovery. With this law changed, victims have been stuck in an unfair and unjust position with no legal remedy. And I'm grateful for the overwhelming bipartisan support we received in both chambers. Um I'm glad to see that it is now active state law and it'll go a long way to helping survivors recover and move on from the trauma that they experienced. Thank you. I'm going to hand it back to Representative Müller. And just to wrap things up, I do want to uh give my gratitude to Representative Scott for her work on the firearms bill that Representative Raric spoke to. Um she could not be here today. I also want to give a shout out to my other two colleagues who are here, Representative Dave Pinto and Representative Athena Hollands. Representative Pinto has also worked on these issues for years and he a couple of years ago created a task force to look at the removal of firearms from domestic abusers and that is what led to the bill that we were able to pass this year. Um in addition, Representative Hollands has been a strong advocate for the victim services funding and also for making sure that victims aren't punished by the judicial system. And while much AC was accomplished this year, more work remains. We did create a task force on improving responses to domestic violence. Um the the the task force has a number of things, but there are 16 specific objectives that they must complete, including developing a model policy on the use of lethality assessments by law enforcement, reviewing current training by system partners on domestic violence cases, identifying barriers that victims encounter when reporting incidents, evaluating public health policies to make sure we're doing more to prevent domestic violence, and making recommendations for improved respons. responses to domestic violence at every level. And finally, I can't emphasize enough how important it is for motans to share the reforms that my colleagues and I described today. The more people that know about them, the more effective they will be. And finally, if you or a loved one are experiencing domestic violence, you can call the statewide 24hour day one crisis line at 866223111. And with that, if you have any questions, we're here to answer them. >> Representative, could you talk a little bit about the bill that you were talking about? Specifically, you mentioned I'm I'm curious what the law looked like beforehand. Um, the note about uh within 10 days of the affidavit being filed, courts now have to uh respond to that with a follow-up hearing. What was it beforehand? and and how different is that metric now? >> Yeah, thank you for the question. So the law before was that they had to file the affidavit. They didn't. So when we did the look back, so they had to surrender their firearms. They had to file an affidavit saying they'd surrendered their firearms. And this goes all the way back to 2018 when Carol Leven actually looked did a look back for 2016 and found for orders of protection that only 4% of the time those affidavits were filed. That's abysmal. Today, so we just got a in our fiscal note, you can see that the three-year look back what the courts did that the average now is um 87% don't file. So 97% or 96% didn't file and now 87% don't file the affidavit. So while it it came up a little bit, it's still abysmal. >> Wasn't that requirement to have the following? >> This is a new requirement once that affidavit is filed. >> So the new requirement is that there's another hearing. So what what the miss was was nobody was looking. So you literally have victim survivors saying nobody's paying attention. Nobody's even looking. And so now they have to have a court hearing to prove that they actually have the affidavit. Now if they don't have firearms, they can have an affidavit that says I don't have any firearms. But they have the affidavit has to say this is what I had. This is where I g, you know, either I gave it to law enforcement or an FFL or a third party. And that third party, you have to do that in the presence of law enforcement. So that's what the affidavit is supposed to say. But nobody looked at it. And so even if you look back today, you're g you're not going to find a whole lot. Now the OFP, so the orders for protection is by far the worst. Um there are other categories that were better, but that's the difference is that nobody was looking and now the courts have to do a follow-up hearing. So I'm really hoping for 100%. 100% affidavit. >> Um could I hear a little bit more about the um uh victim services program? Um, you mentioned that gap is $12 million. How, I guess, how recently was that gap formed? Has it been over a number of years that number slowly declined and have those services then therefore been missing for a couple of years and are now going to be back all of a sudden? >> So, we've seen this decline for several years. Um, it's spanned um multiple administrations at the federal level. um there's really just been a decline in the um funding um sort of source at the federal level for uh crime victim services. And I remember in my uh first year here at the legislature in 2023, we put money towards um crime victim services. Um then the next budget cycle came along in 2025 and uh we put money towards crime victim services. And then um this last session we you know were knew that we were continuing to face this crisis and so asked specifically uh from the office of justice programs. What is the gap this year to get um these services funded just to make sure right that there isn't a county that goes without an advocate to make sure um that our shelters aren't you know forced uh to close. And that was the number that was identified. But um we're we're going to con we're going to continue to um see I think a drop in in federal funding. That's kind of what the trend has been. Um so when we look at putting a budget together next year, uh it'll be really important for me to make sure we find a source so that we can fund these services um at the level that they need to be funded ongoing and we're not sort of coming back peacemeal every single year to fund u whatever the gap is. So, it sounds like this has been something for a number of years that you guys have been filling with, I guess, sort of a band-aid. >> Yeah, it's it's really I'm this has been an issue I think across the country and it's really falling to states at this point to fund crime victim services because that money is just not coming from the federal government. >> All right, good job, guys. I might just be able to speak with 20