House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias was called on regarding the minutes and then moved to approve the minutes of Wednesday, February 25th, 2026.
Chris Mathias — Chris Mathias raised concerns about the bill’s mask provisions, asking how public trust would be affected if law enforcement officers wear masks. The chief responded to Mathias’s question and continued addressing his concerns about mask use by law enforcement.
Lawrence Scoglund — Lawrence Scoglund, a captain with the Nampa Police Department, testified in support of the bill. He explained that masks or other facial obstructions make criminal investigations harder by limiting witness identification and other evidence, and said the bill is aimed at situations where perpetrators deliberately conceal their faces to aid criminal conduct. He noted it is difficult to estimate how often the enhancement would be used, but suggested it could be applied relatively frequently. While he was unsure how much of a deterrent it would be, he said it would give prosecutors a formalized way to address cases where offenders appear to have put more thought into avoiding identification.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon asked the captain how often the sentencing enhancement would likely be used in Nampa, seeking an estimate of its expected frequency of application.
John Gannon — John Gannon expressed support for the bill but repeatedly raised concerns that the fiscal note was inadequate and did not fully account for the incarceration and corrections costs that enhanced penalties would create. He corrected an earlier estimate, then explained that even a small number of enhancements could add substantial annual incarceration expenses, concluding that if the legislature passes bills that increase penalties or create new felonies, it will have to pay for the resulting costs.
John Gannon — The chair recognizes Representative Gannon, who then thanks the chair and Representative Scott, praises Scott’s work, and raises a concern about the fiscal note.
John Gannon — Scott tells Representative Gannon that the money issue was addressed while Gannon was away and that the information was emailed to him.
Clint Hostetler — Asked whether the enhanced penalty would deter more egregious crimes.
Clint Hostetler — Asked about deterrence.
Clint Hostetler — Asked whether a baggy hoodie would qualify as facial covering under the bill.
unidentified prior witness — Concluded testimony in support of the bill and said he saw no particular issue with how it was written.
Daniel Murphy — Daniel Murphy is called forward, identifies himself as being from Boise, Idaho, and testifies in support of the bill. He references concerns such as masked bank robbers, explains that the bill has been retooled since its earlier passage, and urges the committee to send House Bill 685 to the full House for consideration. Later, he is referenced again as one of the earlier witnesses whose testimony is not being repeated.
Steve England — Steve England, Chief of Police of Hailey and president of the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, testified in support of House Bill 685. He explained that the bill signals that serious crimes committed while concealing one’s face may result in additional penalties. In response to questions, he said law enforcement generally does not wear masks, though some officers may do so in certain situations for safety reasons such as doxing concerns, while criminals are more likely to wear masks to avoid detection. He concluded by affirming that law enforcement uses face coverings for legitimate reasons and ended his testimony.
Anthony Oxen — Anthony Oxen was called to testify and stated his support for the bill. He referenced prior committee discussion about mandatory sentencing and discretion, then concluded by urging the committee to pass the bill forward and noting support for enhancements related to masks during the commission of a crime.
Amy Dundon — Identified as written testimony rather than an in-person witness.
unidentified male witness — An audience member was invited to testify.
Don Berger — Testified in support of the bill and introduced himself as an entrepreneur from Ada County, Boise.
Heather Scott — Asked to make final comments and requested the bill be sent to the floor with a due-pass recommendation.
Heather Scott — Called on to proceed with the bill.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is referenced in a brief procedural exchange as the chair notes that her time has expired and asks for questions, followed shortly by praise for the extensive work she has done on the bill.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott delivers brief closing remarks after testimony ends, then remains available for questions about the bill before the chair concludes the exchange and tells her to take her seat.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Mike Pohanka spoke in strong support of the bill, describing masked offenders as disguising themselves, referencing a recent case involving Nancy Guthrie, and urging that the bill be sent to the floor.
Mr. Berger — Referenced as having mentioned SB 627 earlier in testimony.
Ted Hill — Representative Hill is recognized to speak and then questions the objections raised by law enforcement, asking who else would handle the situation and noting that he has read the same letters.
Courtney Chris — Courtney Chris, speaking for herself from Caldwell, Idaho, begins her public testimony and states that she is in support of House Bill 668.
Tate Dillow — Tate Dillow is announced as the next witness, with the transcript also indicating that the virtual connection may be experiencing technical issues as the committee prepares for the testimony.
Brianna Lamb — Brianna Lamb is announced as the next witness, but her virtual connection appears to be having issues as the committee prepares for her testimony.
Brianna Lamb — Brianna Lamb testifies in support of House Bill 668, introducing herself and her Boise County/Boise City connection before describing how she was separated from her daughters for six weeks. She explains that the situation escalated into a custody modification involving false allegations, a domestic violence police report that was later dropped, and an unsubstantiated CPS investigation. She says the dispute caused serious emotional and financial harm, not just lost time but harm to her daughter’s future, and closes by sharing a recent loving text from her daughter as a sign of healing and a reason to pass the bill.
Terry McLaughlin — Terry McLaughlin testified about his post-divorce custody dispute, describing repeated violations of court orders, legal expenses, and difficulty maintaining parenting time. He said a judge found that the other parent was excluding him from major decisions and acting as a gatekeeper, and that the children were relocated to California in violation of the order. McLaughlin argued that both the evaluator and the court recognized the conduct as interference, but enforcement never occurred. He concluded that when violations carry no real consequences, court orders effectively become optional.
David Maidall — David Maidall testified about a prolonged custody battle involving his daughter, major legal expenses, alleged repeated abuse and sexual assault while she was in her mother’s care, reports to CPS, the court, and local police, a CARES interview, repeated failures to complete custody exchanges, and his arrest for custodial interference after trying to address his daughter’s safety. He concluded by saying he supports the bill but believes it should be approached thoughtfully with children’s well-being in mind.
Robert Youngberg — Robert Youngberg was introduced as the next witness and then testified in support of the bill. He identified himself as being from Boise and described the impact of custody interference on his family, saying he had lost years with his children and has faced ongoing legal and police issues in Nampa.
Veronica Bays? — The chair appears to be calling the next witness, but the name is uncertain due to transcription.
Veronica Baez — She introduced herself and said she wanted to address the fiscal concern.
Christopher Lewis — Christopher Lewis, a former U.S. Air Force veteran, Nampa resident, and single father of four, testified about his custody case, saying he was granted 100% custody after a three-day civil trial before Judge Shelley Zamblin. He then explained that the bill would have helped him personally, noting that if it had been in place he would not be a dual felon and would be spending time with his children instead.
Shane Bithway — The chair introduces Shane Bithway, who then testifies that he has been in family court for eight years and has spent over $150,000 trying to maintain a relationship with his children. He says that despite having court-ordered visitation and following the schedule, his parenting time was denied, leaving him unable to see his young daughter.
Robert Mast — Robert Mast testifies about his custody and visitation situation, stating that he has visitation orders, complies with them, and is still left without adequate documentation or recourse. He identifies himself as a resident of Emmett, Idaho, says he supports the bill as an extreme case of time lost, and asks lawmakers to support it so parents like him are not left without their children. The chair briefly thanks him and asks about his travel to the hearing, but the discussion remains centered on his testimony and support for the bill.
John Mask / John Mast? — The witness says his son 'John Mask' lost his life through the events described; spelling is uncertain.
John — The witness describes his son's wife overdosing, being taken to the hospital, and later not following up with care.
Steven Hauser — The chair attempts to connect the next virtual witness.
Stephen Houser — Stephen Houser, a self-represented witness from Meridian, Idaho, testifies about losing parenting time with his son due to custody-enforcement problems and the high cost of hiring a lawyer. He explains that for four years he has been unable to afford the legal expenses needed to pursue custody enforcement, leaving him effectively shut out of his child’s life. He says he has not seen his son since the child was six and is now supportive of the bill because he believes it could create a pathway for custody issues to be enforced.
Robert Garza — Robert Garza is introduced as the next virtual testifier, then identifies himself as being from Dallas, Texas and states that he is testifying in strong support of House Bill 668. He also lists his leadership roles with Americans for Judicial Accountability, Robert Garza U.S., and National Family Justice. The committee then thanks him after his testimony.
Herb Lewis — Herb Lewis is introduced as the next testifier, then he begins his testimony by identifying himself as Herb Lewis from Napa, Idaho and saying he is speaking as a grandfather in the scenario being discussed.
Mr. Lewis — Mr. Lewis’s testimony continues on the issue of parental interference in custody-related matters, emphasizing that accusations are being made without accountability and that the interference persists. The exchange then closes with thanks to Mr. Lewis and a statement that the testimony has concluded.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Scherz raises a concern that the bill may reduce a felony to an infraction in some cross-state-line cases.
Barbara Ehardt — The response addresses Scherz's concern about whether the conduct would become only an infraction.
Barbara Ehardt — The speaker responds to Scherz's question about whether the conduct would be treated as an infraction.
Barbara Ehardt — The speaker addresses Scherz while discussing kidnapping laws and committee procedure.
Barbara Ehardt — The speaker appears to address or refer to Representative Ehardt at the end of the comment.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Ehardt says she helped form the task force and emphasizes the extensive work behind the bill.
Barbara Ehardt — Moved to send House Bill 696 to the floor with a due pass recommendation and addressed Representative Erickson.