Transcript Highlights:

• Dillon. or the subpoenas necessary. Texas has never been afraid to set legal precedents.
• Let's dispense with caution and issue a subpoena if necessary.
• I suggested, rather than doing a subpoena, that we invite Ms.
• Issue one or more subpoenas to compel Mr.
• to reemphasize, issued. subpoenas to BlackRock in 2022, and a number of other subpoenas, of social media

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the subpoena or to limit the subpoena.
• <00:12:19.040> is<00:12:19.199> over subpoena who thinks the subpoena is over subpoena
• subpoena power to subpoena people to the grand jury.
• issue subpoenas.
• subpoena whereas they can get a subpoena subpoena whereas they can get a subpoena in<03:26:19.640

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met to hear House Bill 520, which would authorize the Department of Education to issue subpoenas in investigations and hearings involving the code of conduct for New Hampshire educators. Representative Lynn, the bill sponsor, said the measure was intended to give the department standard subpoena power during investigations and in later adjudicatory proceedings, with a process for challenging overbroad subpoenas. He argued that agencies with investigative and hearing authority should also have the power to compel witnesses and documents, and said the bill was narrowed from an earlier broader draft to focus on teacher credentialing and address concerns about scope. Members raised several concerns about whether the department already has enough authority, whether the Attorney General could handle subpoenas instead, and whether the bill creates an imbalance by giving subpoena power mainly to the investigating side. Representative Burroughs said she did not feel she had enough information and was uncomfortable with the bill, especially regarding who bears subpoena costs. Representative Biron questioned the trial analogy and whether both sides truly have equal subpoena rights. Lynn responded that the investigative stage is like a grand jury process, where only the investigating body subpoenas witnesses, while the adjudicatory stage allows both sides to seek subpoenas through the hearing officer. Other questions focused on the bill’s scope. Representative Andreos asked what investigative authority the Department of Education already has, and Representative Organ questioned why the bill is limited to educators rather than also covering vendors, charter school boards, or the EFA scholarship organization. Lynn said the limitation to educators was deliberate, because earlier broader versions drew objections for being too expansive. Representative Tur asked whether the Attorney General could already handle such matters, and Lynn said that while the AG might be able to pursue some investigations or court subpoenas, agencies should be able to conduct their own internal investigations. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• to comply with a PEER subpoena.
• to comply with a PEER subpoena.
• peer subpoena. peer subpoena.
• subpoena power. subpoena power.
• We stripped out all the the subpoena. We stripped out all the subpoena. subpoena. subpoena.

Keywords: Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency - Room 210, 3 March, 2026; 2:30 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1596, which Senator Johnson explained as a companion to another crypto-kiosk bill. He said the measure was being used to open the code and remove new kiosk language temporarily while lawmakers work on a regulatory framework for crypto kiosks, which are being used in scams involving callers posing as law enforcement and directing victims to deposit cash into kiosks. Members discussed the lack of reporting and registration data, the estimated number of kiosks in the state, and whether regulation might require identification and registration of the devices. The committee adopted the motion for title sufficient, do pass as amended, and reported the bill out. The committee then considered House Bill 859, which would eliminate the in-person absentee voting envelope while keeping the 45-day in-person absentee voting period and existing excuse requirements. Senator England said voters would still complete an affidavit and cast the ballot directly into an OMR machine, and he noted that circuit clerks preferred this version. The committee asked a few clarifying questions and then passed the bill, reporting it out. Next was House Bill 925, the CLEAR Act, which Senator McMahan described as a revised PEER-related bill that had been worked on with the governor’s office after a prior veto. He outlined provisions creating a PEER review program for agency rules, Medicaid transportation evaluations, a State Board of Health Professions, changes to the corporation work initiative program, and PEER subpoena and enforcement language. An amendment was adopted to delete the subpoena-related sections that had raised constitutional concerns and to retain the reverse repealer. After questions about the advisory role of the new board, the committee passed the bill as amended. The committee also heard House Bill 1171, a strike-all that Senator Sparks said would mirror a Senate bill on grant transparency. The measure would require clearer grant objectives, objective eligibility criteria, disclosure of conflicts and board relationships, reporting by grantees and subgrantees, and signed documentation under penalty of perjury with CPA review. Members asked about enforcement, and Senator Sparks said improper reporting could lead to loss of funds, audits, and possible criminal consequences. The committee adopted the strike-all and reported the bill out. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 1393, which would create an energy development fund at the Mississippi Development Authority for long-term infrastructure planning tied to large industrial energy users. Members asked whether the fund would cover water resources as well as electricity; the sponsor said it was intended for energy infrastructure, not water, and was aimed at large industrial projects such as steel mills. The committee adopted the strike-all and moved to report the bill out.

Transcript Highlights:

• But before a committee can exercise the power of subpoena can exercise the power of subpoena and compel
• But before a committee can exercise the power of subpoena can exercise the power of subpoena and compel
• But before a committee can exercise the power of subpoena can exercise the power of subpoena and compel
• subpoena authorization. subpoena authorization.
• can exercise the power of subpoena can exercise the power of subpoena and<01:24:12.560> compel

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's dispense with caution and issue a subpoena if needed.
• We have no hearings scheduled at this time and so the subpoena.
• Issue one or more subpoenas to compel Mr.
• issuing a subpoena from out of state.
• You can issue a subpoena.

Transcript Highlights:

• expand that to administrative subpoena expand that to administrative subpoena powers<00:40:53.920
• Have the administrative subpoenas.
• You've obvious obviously subpoena.
• <01:09:58.320> I'll for an administrative subpoena. I'll for an administrative subpoena.
• We administrative subpoena, but think of it much like a subpoena to produce records in a lawsuit, for

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee took testimony on Senate File 3051, which would allow law enforcement to release unredacted collision crash investigation video and related data to certain requesters, rather than requiring redaction first. Joel Carlson, speaking for the Minnesota Association for Justice, said the bill is intended to save local governments time and money because redacted video is often later released unredacted through court motions anyway. He emphasized that the proposal is limited to people already entitled to crash reports, requires a written request and accident report, does not create an affirmative duty to release data, and preserves law enforcement’s ability to withhold data for active investigations or other protected information. He also cited the Burks decision as support for the view that a subject of data is entitled to the full data even if it includes other subjects. Colonel Christina Bogavich of the Minnesota State Patrol raised concerns that the bill would still require staff to review videos for exceptions, including private data involving bystanders, juveniles, undercover officers, CAD information, and other protected material, so it would not create the claimed time savings. She also said the bill expands the number of potential requesters and lacks a liability provision if released data is improperly disseminated. Committee members and staff discussed the current Data Practices Act, including that private data can still be discoverable in litigation through a court balancing test and that protective orders may apply. A preliminary fiscal note estimated a Department of Public Safety cost of $4,026,334 annually, and members requested copies of the note. Members questioned whether the bill would actually reduce work or simply shift when the work occurs, and whether a litigation-specific exception to redaction should be added. Carlson said he was open to changes, including making release permissive rather than mandatory and strengthening the use restrictions, while members noted the proposal had not yet been heard in the House and would need more vetting. No vote or final action was taken on the provision during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Companies also assess subpoenas issued pursuant to the Tariff Act.
• These subpoenas are intimidation dressed up as law.
• And these ICE subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knows it.
• I think it's important to note that criminal subpoenas are different from administrative subpoenas, and
• subpoena.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard a long agenda focused largely on AI-related consumer protection, child safety, and privacy bills. Members first adopted the consent calendar, then took up SB 1050, which would require disclosures when advertisements use AI-generated or synthetic performers. Supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, Common Sense Media, and labor groups, said consumers should know when an ad depicts a non-human performer and that the bill protects both consumers and workers. Opponents from TechNet, the Motion Picture Association, broadcasters, and business groups argued the bill was too broad, lacked a deception standard, could burden accessibility uses and short audio ads, and created litigation risk. The committee voted the bill out on a party-line-leaning roll, with several members noting concerns but supporting continued work on the measure. The committee also approved SB 1111, which creates liability and remedies for non-consensual digital replicas using a person’s voice or likeness, and SB 1146, which targets deceptive AI-generated health advertisements that depict synthetic health care providers. Both measures drew support from consumer, labor, medical, and child-safety advocates and faced no formal opposition. Members emphasized the need to prevent deepfake abuse, especially in health-related ads where consumers could be misled into trusting fake doctors or medical endorsements. Several child- and privacy-focused bills were also heard and advanced. SB 867 would place a four-year moratorium on AI chatbot-powered toys for children, with supporters warning about harmful content, addictive design, and privacy risks; some opposition raised definitional concerns and asked for clearer standards. SB 1247 would give child influencers the right to delete monetized content posted during their minority, and it moved forward without opposition. SB 1000 updated California’s AI Transparency Act to align content provenance rules with newer technology and international standards, with support from Google and Adobe and no opposition. Finally, SB 957 would require social media companies to notify users when the federal government seeks their data through administrative subpoenas, give users time to challenge the request, and report disclosures; supporters framed it as a First Amendment and due process protection, while one member opposed it as an overreach against federal law enforcement. All of the measures discussed were reported out of committee, with several rolls left open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• These subpoenas are intimidation dressed up as law.
• And these ICE subpoenas are unlawful and the government knows it.
• I think it's important to note that criminal subpoenas are different than administrative subpoenas, and
• subpoena.
• that those subpoenas are on their face unlawful.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• documents, is to issue a subpoena. documents, is to issue a subpoena.
• I work quite a bit with administrative subpoenas, in particular administrative subpoenas that are really
• investigative subpoenas.
• , in the subpoena, in the subpoena, it<00:15:25.360> talks<00:15:25.600> about<00:15
• right here in the subpoena request. right here in the subpoena request.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee debated whether to issue a subpoena to Representative Ilhan Omar for documents and communications related to the Feeding Our Future investigation and the federal U.S. v. Aimee Bock trial exhibits. The chair argued that Omar’s office had been named in trial exhibits, that prior requests for testimony and documents had gone unanswered, and that the committee needed the materials to understand the role of the Meals Act and related communications in creating conditions for fraud. Supporters said the request was part of a broader effort to examine Minnesota’s larger fraud problems and to obtain records they believed were relevant and public despite a court protective order; opponents questioned the timing, the committee’s need for the information, and the precedent of subpoenaing a sitting member of Congress, while also arguing federal authorities could pursue any wrongdoing themselves. Members discussed whether the committee had first requested the materials in April 2026 or earlier, whether the documents could be obtained directly from the court or the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and how the information would be used given that the committee was nearing the end of its work. The chair said staff had tried PACER and the federal court, but that the exhibits themselves were under a protective order binding the parties, not the legislature or Omar. Critics said the subpoena was unnecessary and politically motivated; supporters said it was needed for transparency and accountability in the Feeding Our Future probe and related fraud patterns. A roll call was taken on the motion to issue the subpoena. The committee voted 5-3 in favor, but the chair noted that Minnesota law required a two-thirds vote, so the motion failed and the subpoena was not issued. The chair said she would continue trying to contact Representative Omar’s office and hoped for a response.

Transcript Highlights:

• these offenses and grant us subpoena these offenses and grant us subpoena power<00:10:46.480>
• subpoena power beyond Medicaid fraud? subpoena power beyond Medicaid fraud?
• the account we cannot under subpoena the account we cannot under subpoena power.<00:20:17.760>
• But this would expand the subpoena But this would expand the subpoena powers<00:25:25.080> to
• county attorney's office to subpoena county attorney's office to subpoena records<00:29:59.800><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of order this morning and take Senate Bill 169 first, which is an act relating to administrative subpoenas
• We didn't feel like it was a good idea to expand the administrative subpoena to the local agencies.
• We didn't feel like it was a good idea to expand the administrative subpoena to the local agencies.
• We didn't feel like it was a good idea to expand the administrative subpoena to the local agencies.
• the ability to uh to get those subpoenas the ability to uh to get those subpoenas from<00:04:21.160

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:08 SB 169: 00:01:07 SB 02: 00:05:56 Discussion in Opposition to SB 02: 00:19:22, 958, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee first took up Senate Bill 169, which would expand the Attorney General’s and Kentucky State Police’s authority to use administrative subpoenas in child exploitation investigations. Senator Danny Carroll and Attorney General’s office staff said the bill updates existing law to reflect modern online platforms, adding social networking companies, mobile payment services, and cloud storage services so investigators can obtain limited account-holder information tied to online child exploitation cases. Members raised no opposition, and the committee approved SB 169 17-0 with favorable expression. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2, which would prohibit the use of public funds for certain cosmetic or elective procedures in correctional facilities, including gender-affirming surgeries, and would also affect some hormone-related treatment. Senator Mike Wilson and supporters said the bill was intended to stop such procedures from being authorized by memo rather than regulation and to ensure taxpayer money is not used for elective care. Several members asked whether any such surgeries had occurred in Kentucky; Wilson said none had been approved, and he emphasized the bill was about public funding, not general medical care. Supporters argued the state should not pay for elective procedures, while opponents said the bill targeted a tiny population and could create constitutional problems. Opponents included incarcerated and advocacy voices, a psychologist, and legal advocates, who said gender-affirming care is medically necessary for some patients, that withholding it can cause serious mental health harm, and that similar restrictions have faced court challenges. One speaker described personal harm from being denied hormone therapy while incarcerated. Another warned the bill could violate the Eighth Amendment and lead to costly litigation. After debate, the committee moved to vote on SB 2, with members giving explanations both for and against, but the transcript cuts off before the final roll call result is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 20: subpoena authority. Section 20: subpoena authority.
• in the bill to be able to issue subpoenas for these types of issues.
• My concern is more about the policy of giving the board that subpoena power.
• in the bill to be able to issue subpoenas for these type of issues.
• We're allowed to go in, issue subpoenas, bring them in.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• inherent authority to issue subpoenas inherent authority to issue subpoenas the<00:34:19.000>
• <00:34:56.879> are sure that in fact when subpoenas are sure that in fact when subpoenas are issued
• shall prepare the subpoena and issue it.
• So please vote against the amendment. issue subpoenas the committee chair issue subpoenas the committee
• prepare the subpoena and issue it shall prepare the subpoena and issue it so<01:25:30.520> I<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Blood draws and records require warrants, subpoenas, or consent.
• So basically, law enforcement access is barred without a subpoena, and a subpoena is the preferred process
• has subpoenaed those records.
• has subpoenaed those records.
• Will be noticed that law enforcement has subpoenaed those records.

Summary: The committee met with Senators Garcia and Simon excused and heard a presentation from FDLE Deputy Commissioner Vaden Pollard on homicide and violent-crime investigations, focusing on access to blood evidence, toxicology, medical records, mental health records, and the legal limits imposed by Florida law, HIPAA, and 42 CFR Part 2. He explained that autopsy evidence collected by medical examiners is generally available to law enforcement, while hospital records and mental health/substance abuse records usually require subpoenas, court orders, or consent, which can delay investigations. He also discussed the difference between DNA testing and toxicology testing, the role of warrants and probable cause for living suspects, and the special rules that apply when a suspect is deceased. Members asked detailed questions about what toxicology panels include, whether medications can be tested for, how medical examiners review prior medical history, and whether FDLE tracks data linking violent crime to mental health issues or follow up with regulators after incidents. Pollard said the agency follows investigative leads where relevant, but regulatory follow-up depends on the circumstances. He also discussed behavioral threat assessment and management, and said risk protection orders have been used effectively to prevent violence and can lead to court-ordered evaluations and services. The committee then shifted to crime lab capacity and turnaround times. Pollard said the average DNA turnaround time was 208 days for some evidence, with anything over 30 days considered backlog, but that sexual assault kits are prioritized and generally handled much faster, with rush cases sometimes completed within 24 hours. Members expressed concern about delays in unsolved violent and sexual assault cases and asked what resources would help reduce backlog; Pollard said additional analysts would improve turnaround times. The meeting concluded with thanks to the presenter and adjournment after Senator Bernard moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Blood draws and records require warrants, subpoenas, or consent.
• So basically, law enforcement access is barred without a subpoena, and a subpoena is the preferred process
• has subpoenaed those records.
• has subpoenaed those records.
• Will be noticed that law enforcement has subpoenaed those records.

Summary: The committee convened with a quorum present and heard a presentation from FDLE Deputy Commissioner Vaden Pollard on homicide investigations, blood evidence, toxicology, medical records, and mental health records. Pollard explained that autopsy toxicology and medical examiner records are often critical in death investigations, but access to hospital blood tests, medical records, Baker Act records, and substance abuse treatment records is restricted by Florida law, HIPAA, and 42 CFR Part 2, usually requiring subpoenas, court orders, or consent. He also noted that autopsy reports are generally public, while photographs are confidential, and that medical examiners can access relevant prior medical history of decedents. Members questioned Pollard about what toxicology panels include, whether medications can be tested for, and whether medical examiner reviews can help determine if a deceased person had stopped taking prescribed psychiatric medication. Pollard said toxicology can include alcohol, drugs, and specific medications when relevant, but routine access to living suspects’ medical information is limited. He also discussed FDLE’s behavioral threat assessment work and said investigators may follow leads involving mental health treatment or facility releases when relevant to a case, though he could not speak to regulatory follow-up. The committee also discussed risk protection orders, with Pollard saying FDLE has used them effectively and that they can help prevent violence and connect individuals to services. The discussion then shifted to FDLE laboratory turnaround times and public safety impacts. Pollard said the average DNA turnaround time was 208 days for some cases, while sex assault kits are prioritized and generally remain under 90 days, with rush cases sometimes completed within 24 hours. He said backlog is tied to staffing and analyst capacity, and that faster processing is especially important in unsolved violent and sexual assault cases because delays can leave offenders on the street. The committee also noted that increased toxicology demands would affect toxicology staffing and workload, though not DNA processing. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:50:16.559> authority um giving the subpoena authority um giving the subpoena authority
• <00:52:17.599> in<00:52:17.760> the issuance of subpoenas in the issuance of subpoenas
• find everybody else could be subpoenaed. find everybody else could be subpoenaed.
• ,<01:03:42.799> you person asking for the subpoena, you person asking for the subpoena, you
• sure you understand that with subpoena sure you understand that with subpoena power,<01:04:51.760

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, in this scenario, no subpoena.
• And so, in this scenario, no subpoena.
• So, this would be prior to subpoena.
• <01:29:25.600> Um, order, warrant, or subpoena. Um, order, warrant, or subpoena.
• reach of a prosecutor subpoena. reach of a prosecutor subpoena.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have the subpoena power.
• We have the C subpoena power. the state. We have the C subpoena power.
• They go to submitting the subpoena?
• I think at that to enforce the subpoena.
• move to quash the subpoena. move to quash the subpoena.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met for its sixth regular-session meeting and first took up House Bill 5, as substituted by committee amendment, which would authorize KCTCS to partner with the Department of Corrections to create a vocational training campus at North Point Training Center. The sponsor and witnesses described the bill as a prison education and re-entry initiative aimed at reducing recidivism, saving taxpayer money, and meeting workforce needs, citing Michigan’s vocational village model as evidence that prison-based training can lower reoffending. Testimony emphasized that the program would include high-demand vocational fields, credentials, eligibility and security safeguards, data collection, annual reporting, and re-entry documentation such as certificates of employability and employment protections. Several members voiced support, including comments that the bill builds on existing second-chance and employability efforts. One member asked whether post-release employment outcomes could also be tracked, and the sponsor said that would be encouraged and discussed as a possible friendly amendment. After discussion, the committee voted 19-1 to adopt the committee substitute and pass House Bill 5. The committee then began consideration of House Bill 468, which would update the Kentucky Civil Rights Act to conform the state definition of disability to the 2008 federal ADA amendments and clarify the meaning of “qualified individual with a disability.” The bill sponsor said it would remove the Kentucky Human Rights Commission’s adjudicative authority over employment and public accommodations cases, while leaving investigative powers intact and preserving housing-related adjudication, with the goal of placing those disputes in court and preserving jury-trial rights. In response to questions, the sponsor said a local mandate analysis found the court impact would be minimal to moderate, and cited commission data showing relatively few hearings. The transcript cuts off during continued discussion of HB 468.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we think that the subpoena provisions ought to allow a state that believes that issuing a subpoena
• If I issue a subpoena in New Mexico, I can have it enforced in Texas.
• A New Mexico subpoena won't be effective alone in Texas.
• I can't take a New Mexico subpoena and go serve in El Paso.
• too, but Texas could just say no, your subpoena is ineffective because it says a subpoena issued by

Transcript Highlights:

• That could have been subpoenaed.
• a subpoena to... >> I will request a subpoena and we'll see.
• a subpoena to... >> I will request a subpoena and we'll see.
• a subpoena to... >> I will request a subpoena and we'll see.
• or issued a subpoena to... >> I will request a subpoena and we'll see.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on November 18, 2025, approved the October 14 minutes, and then took up five motions in ethics matters 24LEC3 and 24LEC6. Those motions included a renewed motion to dismiss and motion to quash by Representative Daniel Gberg, a renewed motion to compel/sanctions and continuance request by Mr. Jenkins, and competing motions in limine concerning evidence and redaction of deposition transcripts. Vice Chair Mike Schaw was appointed hearing officer for the motion practice, and the commission agreed to hear the motions one at a time in open session. Representative Chris Lily joined later by Zoom. Counsel for Representative Gberg argued the remaining allegations were minor, that the commission lacked key exculpatory materials such as an alleged LRC report, policies, procedures, and training materials, and that the record did not support the ethics charges. She also argued the case had been broadened by extraneous allegations and that the respondent had been unfairly prejudiced. Enforcement counsel responded that he had produced all materials in his possession, that any LRC materials were not in the commission’s custody, and that the commission’s probable-cause findings were based on sworn testimony and affidavits already in the record. He argued the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment should be denied because genuine issues of material fact remained and the commission had already found probable cause on three ethics violations. Commission members questioned both sides about the alleged LRC report and whether it was part of the commission’s record. The chair stated the commission had not relied on any LRC report and had not withheld anything, while another member emphasized that the proceeding concerned alleged violations of the ethics code, not LRC sexual-harassment policy. A commissioner also noted the unusual structure of the proceeding and questioned whether the complaints, taken as true, stated a basis for dismissal. The transcript ends during continued discussion of the standard for dismissal and summary judgment, with no final ruling on the motions captured in the excerpt.