Heather Scott — Representative Scott questions the breadth of the bill and where the line is drawn for covered items such as ski masks or hats, then follows up by asking whether the same enhancement applies to both murder and trespassing, continuing his concern about how broadly the bill would be applied.
Heather Scott — Raised a question about the bill's application to face coverings used for obstructing identity versus lawful reasons.
Heather Scott — Asked whether Nampa uses facial recognition or traffic cameras to identify criminals or traffickers.
Heather Scott — Continued questioning about whether facial recognition or camera footage could be used after the fact.
Heather Scott — Referenced as having asked the prior question about facial recognition and surveillance.
Heather Scott — Referenced as having asked a valid question that was quoted in the press about religious head coverings and the bill.
Bruce Gogh — Introduces and explains the human trafficking legislation.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott asked clarifying questions about the proposed bill addition, specifically seeking clarification on whether a local agency would need to make any request under the new provision.
Jordan Redman — Asked whether the witness should be addressed as officer or lieutenant and followed up on forensic technology and mask use.
Mike Pohanka — Asked how many crimes in the past year involved a mask.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Mike Pohanka is called on and immediately questions Robert Brown about whether he has children and whether they were present during the incident.
Mike Pohanka — During the roll-call vote, Representative Mike Pohanka first voted no, then later voted yes on subsequent calls, reflecting his recorded responses in the vote sequence.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Pohanka is referenced in the context of a story about a pastor's wife intervening on the Prime Bridge and helping prevent a suicide, with the second mention reinforcing the same example of a family member stepping in during a crisis.
Mike Pohanka — Voted yes in the roll call.
Chris Mathias — Asked whether the bill should more clearly distinguish criminal masking from religious or health-related face coverings.
Chris Mathias — Representative Mathias questioned Representative Hall about why the bill does not explicitly require intent to conceal identity or avoid detection when covering one’s face. He argued that leaving statutes vague can disproportionately affect people with less power and noted that other states include explicit intent language, pressing why that language was omitted from this bill.
Chris Mathias — Representative Gannon is referenced and then called on during a discussion about whether an enhancement could apply to smaller crimes and related charging/jury questions. The exchange then moves into Gannon’s response, where he addresses the issue and argues that an extra year is appropriate for masked assaults on police officers.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias participated in the roll-call vote, first responding yes and later responding no on the same legislative proceedings.
Chris Mathias — Recorded as voting yes.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias supported the motion, noting that the bill protects 18- and 19-year-olds, and later voted yes in the roll call on the same measure.
Clint Hostetler — Asked whether changing times are creating a greater need for surveillance capabilities.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler questioned whether the bill contains any language about intent or intentional conduct, then said the bill is one of the difficult kinds of measures because of possible unintended consequences. He added that while he philosophically supports the bill, he is worried about how it could be used in the future if political conditions change, referencing concerns about groups like Antifa and J6.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler responded during a roll-call vote sequence, first voting yes twice and then voting no twice as the clerk continued calling the roll.
Clint Hostetler — Recorded as voting yes.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler raised concerns about the bill’s equal application, judicial discretion, mental health, entrapment, and why enforcement does not focus more aggressively on sellers. The discussion continued with follow-up questions and responses about supply and demand, whether the law would operate similarly in this situation, and how enforcement priorities should be understood. The exchange remained focused on the same policy and enforcement issues throughout.
Clint Hostetler — Voted yes in the roll call.
Daniel Murphy — Daniel Murphy, from Boise, testified that the bill is not intended to punish lawful mask-wearing but to increase penalties for criminals who use masks or other face coverings to conceal their identity during criminal activity. He argued that the law should apply evenly to all citizens, noted First Amendment concerns regarding religious coverings, and compared the bill to other sentencing enhancements aimed at lawbreakers rather than ordinary people.
Andy Creech — Andy Creech is introduced as the next witness and then testifies in support of the bill, explaining that masked criminals use face coverings to avoid identification and that the bill would add a sentencing enhancement to deter that behavior.
Sarah LaWall — Introduced as the next witness and welcomed back to the committee.
Reverend Sarah LaWall — Testifies against the bill on behalf of her faith community and the Boise Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.
David Pettinger — David Pettinger is introduced as the next witness, with the chair initially saying 'Daryl' before correcting to David Pettinger of District 14. Pettinger then confirms his name and district and begins his remarks.
Christy Zito — Senator Zito is referenced as having worked with Representative Boyle to pass trespassing laws, which the speaker describes as good laws at the time.
Judy Boyle — Representative Boyle is mentioned as having passed trespassing laws, which the speaker describes as good laws at the time.
Anthony Oxen — Anthony Oxen is introduced and then begins his testimony, stating that he lives in Nampa, District 10, and supporting the bill by arguing that crimes should have consequences and that enhancements are appropriate.
Moshe Herman — Moshe Herman is introduced as the next witness and then begins his testimony by identifying himself as a lifelong Idahoan who was raised in Idaho.
Ilana Rubel — Responds to the witness, apologizing for the anti-Semitic turn in the discussion and saying the issue is distinct.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel is referenced as possibly having cast the key vote, and shortly afterward she is directly called on as the vote sequence continues.
Ilana Rubel — Called during roll call; vote not captured in the transcript excerpt.
Ilana Rubel — Acknowledged in the roll call; the transcript does not capture a vote response here.
Dan Berger — Dan Berger is introduced as the next witness, then identifies himself as an Ada County resident and entrepreneur. He concludes his testimony by urging support for House Bill 489 and offering to answer questions from the committee.
Robert Brown — Robert Brown introduces himself as a Boise, Idaho resident and explains that he and his wife are Jewish/Catholic respectively. He describes witnessing several anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protests in Boise, including an incident in front of the Capitol where pro-Hamas demonstrators confronted him and another person displaying Israeli-American flags. He emphasizes that the most aggressive participants were masked individuals and says he supports the bill’s enhancement because he believes it could help address this kind of conduct. He then concludes his testimony.
Miguel DeLuna — Miguel DeLuna is called to testify and presents support for House Bill 489. He identifies himself and explains, based on his law-enforcement experience, that masked offenders are harder to identify and can require more resources to apprehend, especially in cases like sex crimes. During questioning, he clarifies his view that committing a crime means actually performing the act, distinguishes that from merely attempting an offense, and gives examples involving a masked person demanding property or a car break-in to illustrate the bill’s implications. He ultimately says the bill’s authors would be best suited to answer the attempted-crime question in detail.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts argued that attempted burglary and attempted murder are already crimes, but emphasized that those underlying offenses still must be proven before any enhancement can be applied.
John Shirts — Addressed directly in the question, asking whether the bill should be narrowed to serious crimes.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts was recorded in the roll-call vote, first voting no and then later voting yes on the same proceeding.
John Shirts — His motion is referenced as pending until after public testimony.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts first made the motion to send the bill forward, and later was recorded as voting yes on the measure.
John Shirts — The speaker recalls having discussed similar legislation with Representative John Shirts last year, specifically in the context of adding warning language for repeat offenses and related warning provisions.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts spoke in support of the bill, emphasizing the victim perspective and trafficking data. He drew on his experience prosecuting human trafficking cases, including a story about a 15-year-old victim taken from Holmdale to Tennessee, and argued that stronger penalties are needed on the demand side to address trafficking and prostitution. He said the bill’s maximum sentence is appropriate given trafficking realities, cited a 25% increase in victims from 2019 to 2022, and concluded that the bill strikes a balance. The sequence ends with the roll-call vote, in which Shirts voted yes.
Mark Rich — Mark Rich, a pastor from Boise, testified in support of House Bill 489. He argued that crimes committed while concealing identity increase fear and intimidation, especially in places of worship, and cited historical and modern examples showing that masking during criminal acts has long been treated as an aggravating factor. He also said the bill targets criminal concealment only, not peaceful protest, speech, or lawful mask-wearing for weather, health, or religious reasons, and then concluded by spelling his name for the record.