Court Supervised Treatment Programs Act.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0107 Drafter: JHR LSO No.: 09LSO-0384 Effective Date: 7/1/2009 Secs 1 & 5: 3/5/2009 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0077 Chapter No.: 145 Prime Sponsor: Senator Ross Catch Title: Court Supervised Treatment Programs Act. Subject: Creates a Court Supervised Treatment Programs Act. Summary/Major Elements: Under current law, there is a drug court program operating in most counties of the state to address the needs of persons with alcohol or substance abuse problems who enter the criminal justice system. This Bill: o Replaces the drug court program with a court supervised treatment program; o Authorizes district, circuit, and municipal judges to participate in the program; o Provides for judicial immunity; o Establishes a court supervised treatment program account within the Department of Health to fund these alternative courts; o Creates a panel to oversee the program and establish a process for funding local treatment courts; o Specifies that applicants for funding to establish and operate such court may be a governmental entity (i.e. municipality, county, joint powers board or nonprofit agency) and all program employees of the court shall be employees of the program, except for judicial employees or employees of the Department of Corrections; o Requires that participants be persons who have been charged with an offense in which alcohol or substance abuse may have been a factor and the person has entered an admission, a guilty or nolo contendere plea, has entered a consent decree under Title 14 or is on parole; o Requires consent of the referring judge, the participant and prosecuting attorney, pursuant to a written agreement; o Authorizes incentives for participants who are performing well in the program; o Specifies requirements for the local program and courts, including establishing an adequate continuum of care for the needs of participants; o Requires frequent and random drug testing of participants; o Authorizes the Board of Parole to require as a condition of parole, that the parolee participate in a program under the act; o Authorizes judges to place a person on probation for a period longer than the maximum possible term of imprisonment if the person participates in a court supervised treatment program; o Authorizes a court to require a child's parents or guardian to participate in a court supervised treatment program under specified provisions of Title 14 under certain conditions; o Repeals current drug court provisions, but continues existing funding for such courts until June 30, 2009, or until the funding for the program is exhausted if funding for the drug court program was authorized prior to July 1, 2009; o Provides for transfer of funding on July 1, 2009, from the drug court account created by W.S. 5-10-103 (repealed by this act) to the court supervised treatment program account created by this act. Comments: Creates a major program: Court Supervised Treatment Program
Public statements
Last checked Aug 8, 6:57 AM
S23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges support for the bill because it is a two-year compromise that provides necessary structure to address current management issues in drug court programs.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker states they will vote no because an explicit deletion of important data requirements appears to be a significant error that cannot simply be corrected as a typo.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the first division of the amendment because she believes Title 14 already covers the necessary parties and changing it risks omitting judges who should be included.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes changing 'shall' to 'strive for' because he believes using 'strive' removes the mandatory nature of a goal, making it impossible to hold programs accountable since anything satisfies that requirement.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes 'shall' is too mandatory for goal setting, whereas 'strive to' appropriately encourages action without prescribing an unattainable bottom line.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports using 'strive for' because the professionals who run drug courts determined that strong mandatory words are inappropriate when dealing with substance abuse treatment programming.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the division to ensure consistency with previous changes made in the bill regarding substance offenders.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
5 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
3 stored
Adopted, Corrected 3rd reading by GINGERY
Adopted Standing Committee by H01
Adopted Standing Committee by ROSS