Require a mental health assessment for certain individuals being considered for employment by the Division of Highway Patrol.
Summary
House Bill 1113 requires a mental health assessment for certain applicants who receive final consideration for employment with the South Dakota Division of Highway Patrol. The requirement applies to individuals being considered to serve as an agent, patrolman, or other employee who will perform duties described in § 32-2-9, and the assessment must be conducted by a qualified mental health professional as defined in existing law.
The bill does not create a broad new licensing or public health program; instead, it adds a pre-employment screening step for a specific law enforcement agency. Its practical effect is to make mental health evaluation part of the hiring process for covered Highway Patrol positions, likely intended to assess fitness for duty and public safety readiness before an offer is finalized.
Impact
HB1113 would add a new requirement to chapter 32-2 of the South Dakota Codified Laws by mandating mental health assessments for certain Highway Patrol applicants. It affects the Division of Highway Patrol and applicants for agent, patrolman, or other positions involving duties under § 32-2-9, while relying on the existing statutory definition of a qualified mental health professional in § 27A-1-3. The bill would change hiring procedures for the agency by inserting a mandatory evaluation step before employment decisions are completed.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests a straightforward, administrative measure with no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. The bill’s purpose appears to be framed around screening and public safety, which typically lends itself to a neutral or favorable reception in a law-enforcement hiring context. However, because no discussion transcript or vote history is included, there is no evidence here of broader legislative debate.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, if raised in debate, could include applicant privacy, the scope and cost of required assessments, how results would be used in hiring decisions, and whether the requirement could affect recruitment or create subjective barriers to employment. The bill text itself does not address those issues, and no committee comments are available to show which, if any, were disputed.