Bill Description: House Bill 97 would allow individuals to choose not to comply with evacuation orders but would make them responsible for risks and reimbursement costs for any subsequent rescue.

Rating: +1

Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?

House Bill 97 would create Section 46-1008A, Idaho Code, to protect the right of an individual to "choose not to evacuate his home despite being ordered or compelled to do so pursuant to the provisions of this chapter."

It would further state that a person who makes such a choice shall "accept all of the risks and liabilities of his decision not to evacuate" and "reimburse a governmental entity, or a nonprofit agency cooperating with a governmental entity, if such entity conducts a rescue on behalf of a person who previously chose not to evacuate despite being ordered or compelled to do so pursuant to the provisions of this chapter."

Protecting individual rights is the primary duty of government, and it is government overreach to force a person to evacuate against his will.

Requiring reimbursement is generally appropriate, although it would be better if this language specified that reimbursement applied only in cases where the individual consented to be rescued. 

(+1)