Skip to content

Bills · 2023-2024 Regular Session

SB 524

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: the use of videoconferencing technology in certain civil actions. (FE)

Court — Procedure Credit Telecommunications

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Senate, not reached
  3. Passes Assembly, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Under current law, a circuit court generally may allow the use of

videoconferencing technology during pretrial, trial or fact-finding, or post-trial

proceedings, subject to certain technical standards and criteria. However, current

law provides that a defendant in a criminal case (defendant) or a respondent in

certain civil actions that could result in loss of liberty or fundamental rights with

respect to the respondent's children (respondent) is entitled to be physically present

in the courtroom during his or her trial and at his or her sentencing or other

dispositional hearing. Currently, if a defendant or respondent objects to the use of

videoconferencing technology regarding a proceeding that the defendant or

respondent has a right to attend in person, the court must sustain the objection. If

a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology

regarding any other proceeding, current law allows the court to exercise its

discretion in determining the objection.

This bill provides that the court is only required to sustain an objection to the

use of videoconferencing technology that is made by a defendant, but not by a

respondent, regarding a proceeding the defendant is entitled to attend in person.

Under the bill, the court may exercise its discretion in determining any objection by

a respondent to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding any proceeding,

even if the respondent is entitled to attend the proceeding in person.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Ballweg (R) , James (R) , Marklein (R)

10 cosponsors

Brandtjen (R) , Donovan (R) , Kitchens (R) , Michalski (R) , Murphy (R) , Novak (R) , O'Connor (R) , Schmidt (R) , Subeck (D) , Zimmerman (R)

Full history

  1. Oct 16, 2023 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators James, Ballweg and Marklein; cosponsored by Representatives Novak, Brandtjen, Donovan, Kitchens, Michalski, Murphy and Schmidt

  2. Oct 16, 2023 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety

  3. Oct 19, 2023 · Senate

    Representative Zimmerman added as a cosponsor

  4. Oct 30, 2023 · Senate

    Representative Subeck added as a cosponsor

  5. Nov 2, 2023 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  6. Nov 7, 2023 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Nov 14, 2023 · Senate

    Representative O'Connor added as a cosponsor

  8. Apr 15, 2024 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1