I can't remember whether it was Ms. Lee or Ms. Leamon who was talking about the right to counsel and then talked about how if an ASD is given, you don't have a right to counsel. All of that, I guess, in the context is okay because in order to get to that stage, you need some suspicion. The question would be whether or not the lack of access to counsel before having to provide something without any suspicion would be a different approach and would be problematic.
You mentioned something about it actually being used as evidence. My understanding of the bill is that that information from the mandatory test or screening would not be permitted to be used as evidence in any further part of the proceeding. Is that accurate and, if not, have I misread that?