Monica Church — Representative Church was called on and then asked whether collecting local data reduces crime or makes cities safer, followed by a clarification question about what specific data was being discussed and whether gathering immigration-status-related information is valuable. The surrounding references simply continued the same exchange.
Monica Church — During the roll call on the motion to hold HB 660 in committee, Monica Church is mentioned multiple times as the vote is being recorded; the sequence reflects the ongoing tally, including a yes vote and then a no vote entry as the roll call continues.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins of Legislative District 2 introduces himself and his district, is then questioned by another member, responds that he did not consult local law enforcement and supports a uniform statewide reporting program, and is finally asked to yield as testimony begins.
Dale Hawkins — Asked whether all arrests go through county sheriff jails.
Dale Hawkins — Addressed in the answer and follow-up prompt.
Monica Church — Moved to approve the minutes from February 24th, 2026.
Dale Hawkins — Suggested tying the requirement to the county sheriff's office and jail instead of all law enforcement agencies.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins is identified as the bill sponsor and is invited to answer questions before closing.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins says he is not opposed to a proper fix and reads the bill language aloud.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins explains that the bill is intentionally vague about operational details so it does not dictate law-enforcement methods.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins says the bill is about collecting data from arrested individuals and not asking roadside officers to determine nationality or immigration status.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins says committee cleanup could risk sending the bill to general orders and suggests waiting to address language on the Senate side if needed.
Dale Hawkins — Was addressed in the discussion of the bill's definition and responsibility for municipal police departments.
Dale Hawkins — Responded that the language is in the definitions of law enforcement, not a dictate of the law.
Dale Hawkins — Was invited to close and began summarizing his points in support of the bill.
Dale Hawkins — Argued that taxpayers should know what jails are full of and that detention capacity is being used by people who do not belong here.
Dale Hawkins — Described a visit to a border facility and said it was processing far more people than designed.
Dale Hawkins — Continued his closing argument, saying the public wants to know who is in the country and state.
Dale Hawkins — Said he served as a reserve deputy and emphasized he represents Idaho residents who want more information.
Dale Hawkins — Voted no on the motion to hold HB 660 in committee.
Dale Hawkins — Voted yes on the motion.
Dale Hawkins — The chair assumes he will carry the bill after passage.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler questioned witnesses about the bill, first asking Representative Hawkins what collaboration occurred with local law enforcement or law enforcement organizations, and then asking Mr. Angeletta to briefly address the fiscal note and his concern that the bill might still create local costs.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler asked a series of follow-up questions to the chief about how quickly different databases return information, whether delays could require holding someone longer, and whether the process would need to repeat once the person is in county jail custody. The chief’s responses explained the timing issue and clarified that the person could not simply be held for 48 hours while waiting on the process.
Josh Wheeler — Was identified as the member who could make a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee.
Josh Wheeler — Moved to hold House Bill 660 in committee and argued the bill had not been sufficiently researched or vetted.
Josh Wheeler — Argued the bill was not sufficiently vetted and noted opposition from key law enforcement organizations.
Josh Wheeler — Spoke in favor of the substitute motion, saying the testimony showed unintended consequences.
Josh Wheeler — Said testimony showed unintended consequences and supported continuing work on the bill.
Josh Wheeler — Announced support for the substitute motion to hold the bill in committee.
Josh Wheeler — Voted yes on the motion to hold HB 660 in committee.
Josh Wheeler — Voted no on the motion.
Clint Hostetler — Moves to send House Bill 660 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is referenced throughout a continuous exchange during the chief's response and follow-up questions, with the discussion remaining focused on the same topic and Hostetler being addressed as part of the ongoing dialogue.
Clint Hostetler — Clint Hostetler was recorded twice during the vote on the motion to hold HB 660 in committee, with one mention showing a no vote and the later mention showing a yes vote under a misspelled name, indicating the transcript contains conflicting vote entries for the same motion.
Michael Angela — Testifies on behalf of Secure Idaho in support of the bill.
Secure Idaho / Michael Angelita (questioned as Angelita/Angeletta) — Urged a do-pass recommendation and was asked about law enforcement partners.
Steve Berch — Rep. Steve Berch asked which law enforcement partners had been consulted regarding the bill. In the ensuing response, the witness addressed him directly and continued the same discussion, indicating the exchange was part of one continuous question-and-answer about law enforcement support for the legislation.
Steve Berch — Asked the witness what organization he represents.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch first made a substitute motion to return the bill to the sponsor and briefly spoke in support of it, but the motion was ruled out of order. He then urged the committee to hold the bill in committee for further work and research. During the subsequent roll call, he was called and voted yes on the motion to hold HB 660 in committee.
Secure Idaho witness (name transcribed as Mr. Angelito/Angelito) — Said he spoke with his local sheriff in Kootenai County and that Secure Idaho reached out to the Sheriff's Association.
Secure Idaho witness (name transcribed as Angeletta/Angelita) — Explained that sheriffs viewed the issue as a philosophical jurisdictional matter.
Secure Idaho witness (name transcribed as Angeletta/Angela/Angelida) — Responded to a question about the fiscal note and local costs.
Secure Idaho witness — The witness explained that during booking, existing state and related systems already return immigration and citizenship status information. They added that the bill would not require a new system, but would simply add a field in the existing records management system used by sheriffs to record that returned information.
Secure Idaho witness (name transcribed as Angelito/Angelita) — The chair again referred to the prior witness by an uncertain name while closing questions.
Daniel Murphy — Daniel Murphy of Boise, Idaho testified in support of House Bill 660. He argued against sanctuary policies, contrasting Idaho with states and cities that have adopted sanctuary protections for illegal aliens, cited FAIR statistics about the growth of sanctuary jurisdictions, and said law enforcement should investigate the backgrounds of arrestees and act when illegal status is identified. He concluded by asking the committee to send the bill to the third floor.
Tracy Bastercia — Tracy Bastercia, representing the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, stated that the association supports enforcement of federal immigration laws but opposes HB 660 as unnecessary. She explained that the bill would create operational burdens for city police agencies by taking officers off the street, could lead to duplicate reporting if both police and sheriff’s offices report the same arrestee information, and raised questions about where the information would be sent. She also warned that asking citizens their nationality and keeping records on private citizens could create adversarial interactions and raise privacy concerns.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum asked whether the process described earlier was accurate in the witness's agency, and the discussion continued with concerns that the process would require extra officer training and computer interfaces, ultimately taking officers away from their primary duties.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Chadwick argues that the bill should be amended so the reporting responsibility is placed clearly at the county or Sheriff's Office level rather than broadly on all law enforcement agencies. He says this would make the bill cleaner and avoid imposing the duty on every chief of police in Idaho's cities.
Richard Cheatum — During the roll call vote, Representative Richard Cheatum was called and responded 'No' on the motion.