The court must consider a sworn statement from an anti-human trafficking service provider or clinician
What the document says“in determining whether the movant is a victim of trafficking, the court-- ``(i) shall consider an affidavit or sworn testimony of an anti-human trafficking service provider or clinician; and”
In deciding whether the movant is a victim of trafficking, the court is required to consider an affidavit or sworn testimony from an anti-human trafficking service provider or a clinician. It may also consider any other supporting evidence it determines is of sufficient credibility and probative value, and the section names one example: sworn testimony from a law enforcement officer detailing the role of the movant in coercing other victims of trafficking into committing criminal offenses.
What the document actually says“in determining whether the movant is a victim of trafficking, the court-- ``(i) shall consider an affidavit or sworn testimony of an anti-human trafficking service provider or clinician; and”
The judge must look at a sworn paper from a helper who works with people who were forced. A doctor or nurse counts too.
The judge can also look at other proof. That includes sworn words from a police officer. The judge decides which proof is worth trusting.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.