Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (47)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1972
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…NT DOMAIN; AND TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN. HB1972 Blake CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. SB658 Hester…”
|
CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. | Blake | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB617
Act 938
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB617 Irvin REPEALING THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS COALITION F…”
|
REPEALING THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE. | Irvin | Notification that SB617 is now Act 938 |
|
HB1748
Act 917
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1748 Richmond CONCERNING A VETERAN WHO VOLUNTARILY SOUGHT MENTAL…”
|
CONCERNING A VETERAN WHO VOLUNTARILY SOUGHT MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY SEEKS TO OBTAIN … | Richmond | Notification that HB1748 is now Act 917 |
|
SB319
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB319 B. Ballinger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMINENT DOMAIN; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMINENT DOMAIN; AND TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN. | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB503
Act 930
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ATTORNEYS, AND THE JUDICIARY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB503 Bledsoe CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICID…”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE. | Bledsoe | Notification that SB503 is now Act 930 |
|
SB568
Act 935
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…edsoe CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE. SB568 Caldwell CONCERNING THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CON…”
|
CONCERNING THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CONCERNING DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Caldwell | Notification that SB568 is now Act 935 |
|
SB647
Act 941
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…NTIAL AND PRIVILEGED RECORDS OF THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY. SB647 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE REIMBURSEMENTS ADMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE REIMBURSEMENTS ADMINISTERED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS. | Irvin | Notification that SB647 is now Act 941 |
|
HB1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FFICE OF THE COURTS. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1009 Dotson PROHIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING UPON…”
|
PROHIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING UPON A SCHOOL CAMPUS. | Dotson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1059
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. HB1059 Pilkington CONCERNING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN SELF-DEF…”
|
CONCERNING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE OR IN THE DEFENSE OF OTHERS. | Pilkington | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1114
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD BORN OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. HB1114 Lowery TO CREATE THE PARENT-CHILD INTRASTATE RELOCATION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE PARENT-CHILD INTRASTATE RELOCATION ACT; TO PROVIDE FACTORS FOR A COURT TO CONSIDER … | Lowery | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1294
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1294 Della Rosa RESTORING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN THE RESOLU…”
|
RESTORING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN THE RESOLUTION OF DRIVING OR BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED CASES. | Della Rosa | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1307
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1307 Dotson PERMITTING A BANK OR BANKING INSTITUTION TO UTILIZE…”
|
PERMITTING A BANK OR BANKING INSTITUTION TO UTILIZE THE SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION OF A DISTRICT … | Dotson | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1486
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1486 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD BORN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD BORN OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1494
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1494 V. Flowers CONCERNING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY O…”
|
CONCERNING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY ON A DEFENDANT WITH A SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. | V. Flowers | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1635
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Scott TO ALLOW THE DIVERSION OF CERTAIN JUVENILE OFFENSES. HB1635 Petty CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE SENTENCING RANGE FOR RE…”
|
CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE SENTENCING RANGE FOR REPEAT FELONY SEX OFFENDERS; CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER … | Petty | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1680
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1680 Gazaway CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF "TARGET GROUP" AS IT A…”
|
CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF "TARGET GROUP" AS IT APPLIES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1705
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D HANDGUN. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1705 Gazaway TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY O…”
|
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL … | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1834
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IT TO A CHEMICAL TEST, OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR. HB1834 Sullivan TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATME…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. | Sullivan | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1844
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1844 Gates CONCERNING WHAT CONSTITUTES CRIMINALLY INJURIOUS COND…”
|
CONCERNING WHAT CONSTITUTES CRIMINALLY INJURIOUS CONDUCT UNDER THE ARKANSAS CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS ACT. | Gates | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1898
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1898 L. Johnson CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT; TO…”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED DISORDERLY CONDUCT; AND … | L. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1919
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1919 Scott CONCERNING THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS OF RESTRAINT ON IND…”
|
CONCERNING THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS OF RESTRAINT ON INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS … | Scott | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1938
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D DISORDERLY CONDUCT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. HB1938 D. Garner GRANTING A PUBLIC COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THE ABILI…”
|
GRANTING A PUBLIC COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE IF POSSESSION OF A CONCEALED … | D. Garner | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1939
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ITTED; AND TO MAKE ORGANIZATIONAL AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. HB1939 D. Garner TO ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE…”
|
TO ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PURCHASING, RECEIVING, OR TRANSFERRING A FIREARM. | D. Garner | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1940
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1940 D. Garner REQUIRING THE USE OF A RESTRAINT HOLSTER FOR A PE…”
|
REQUIRING THE USE OF A RESTRAINT HOLSTER FOR A PERSON WHO CARRIES A HANDGUN. | D. Garner | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1962
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1962 M. Hodges TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CERTAI…”
|
TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES FROM A FELONY TO A MISDEMEANOR. | M. Hodges | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1971
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES FROM A FELONY TO A MISDEMEANOR. HB1971 Beck CONCERNING DISTRICT COURTS; AND CONCERNING THE DISTRIC…”
|
CONCERNING DISTRICT COURTS; AND CONCERNING THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. | Beck | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB14
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…son CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF BATTERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE. SB14 L. CONCERNING THE FEE TO ATTEND A VICTIM IMPACT PANEL THAT…”
|
CONCERNING THE FEE TO ATTEND A VICTIM IMPACT PANEL THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW OF … | L. Chesterfield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB267
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E RESOLUTION OF DRIVING OR BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED CASES. SB267 G. TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON WITH A LICENSE T…”
|
TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON WITH A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN … | G. Stubblefield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB543
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES. SB543 Irvin TO CLARIFY THE UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS ACT. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB569
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS ACT. Page 2 of 3 SB569 T. Garner CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF BATTERY IN THE THIRD DE…”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF BATTERY IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND CONCERNING BATTERY AGAINST A PREGNANT … | T. Garner | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
|
SB580
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB580 A. Clark REQUIRING THAT ALL CUSTODIAL INTERVIEWS AND INTERR…”
|
REQUIRING THAT ALL CUSTODIAL INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATIONS BE RECORDED BY AUDIO AND VISUAL MEDIA, IF … | A. Clark | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
|
SB646
Act 1001
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE. SB646 G. Leding CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED RECORDS OF…”
|
CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED RECORDS OF THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY. | G. Leding | Notification that SB646 is now Act 1001 |
|
SB658
Act 1003
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OMAIN. HB1972 Blake CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. SB658 Hester CONCERNING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, PROSECUTING ATTORNE…”
|
CONCERNING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, AND THE JUDICIARY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Hester | Notification that SB658 is now Act 1003 |
|
HB1029
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…COURT. HB1040 Rushing TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HOT CHECK LAW. HB1029 Rye AN ACT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT.…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT. | Rye | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1040
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…N TO UTILIZE THE SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION OF A DISTRICT COURT. HB1040 Rushing TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HOT CHECK LAW. HB1029 Rye AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HOT CHECK LAW. | Rushing | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1279
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O ELIMINATE GUN-FREE ZONES; AND TO REPEAL LAWS IN CONFLICT. HB1279 Gazaway TO AMEND THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD.…”
|
TO AMEND THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1325
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF A RESTRAINT HOLSTER FOR A PERSON WHO CARRIES A HANDGUN. HB1325 Lowery TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD. HB19…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD. | Lowery | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1450
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1450 Wooten CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY TO CARRY A CONCEALED HAND…”
|
CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN BY A RETIRED CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. | Wooten | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1520
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DEATH PENALTY ON A DEFENDANT WITH A SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. HB1520 Petty CONCERNING THE LAST MEAL OF AN INMATE SENTENCED TO DE…”
|
CONCERNING THE LAST MEAL OF AN INMATE SENTENCED TO DEATH. | Petty | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1613
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…y CONCERNING THE LAST MEAL OF AN INMATE SENTENCED TO DEATH. HB1613 L. Johnson CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF BATTERY IN THE SECOND…”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF BATTERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE. | L. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1694
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. HB1694 Womack TO ELIMINATE GUN-FREE ZONES; AND TO REPEAL LAWS IN C…”
|
TO ELIMINATE GUN-FREE ZONES; AND TO REPEAL LAWS IN CONFLICT. | Womack | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1756
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RD DEGREE; AND CONCERNING BATTERY AGAINST A PREGNANT WOMAN. HB1756 Clowney CONCERNING THE WAIVER OF COUNSEL BY MINORS IN CRIMI…”
|
CONCERNING THE WAIVER OF COUNSEL BY MINORS IN CRIMINAL COURT. | Clowney | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1788
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NCERNING THE WAIVER OF COUNSEL BY MINORS IN CRIMINAL COURT. HB1788 A. Collins THE BAIL DATA AND TRANSPARENCY ACT. HB1843 Gates…”
|
THE BAIL DATA AND TRANSPARENCY ACT. | A. Collins | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1828
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1828 Lowery TO CREATE THE PARENT-CHILD INTRASTATE RELOCATION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE PARENT-CHILD INTRASTATE RELOCATION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHETHER OR … | Lowery | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1843
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1843 Gates CONCERNING A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE S…”
|
CONCERNING A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SCOPE OF WHERE A MEMBER OF … | Gates | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1891
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON OF "TARGET GROUP" AS IT APPLIES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION. HB1891 Scott TO ALLOW THE DIVERSION OF CERTAIN JUVENILE OFFENSES.…”
|
TO ALLOW THE DIVERSION OF CERTAIN JUVENILE OFFENSES. | Scott | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB311
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE DURING A COURT APPEARANCE. SB311 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DISQUALIFICATION O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES. | A. Clark | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Our Senate bills, we're going to get through those Senate bills this morning. If we work efficiently, we need to get through the Senate bills, and then I anticipate it will be our last opportunity to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. So with that, Representative Richmond, we will recognize you to present your concurrence in House Bill 1748. So members, if you will turn to House Bill 1748. thank you thank you madam chair
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
0:35
if you recall back on the house floor was when i caught that
a little portion of this bill that was supposed to be in it was admitted accidentally when they reprinted it and if you look on page two line 2023 what the amendment we did it down on the senate end what it does it adds a two-year waiting period before the veteran can go ahead and start the process trying to restore his rights. And with that, I'd appreciate a
good vote. Members, are there any questions in regard to the concurrence? Do we have a motion? Representative Fite, you're recognized.
We have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. We have concurred. Thank you for being here. Members, let's go to Senate Bill 319. I believe Representative Gonzales has indicated he is running just a tad late, but we will
be taking that bill up here in just a moment when he gets here. Let's move to House Bill 1972, Representative Blake. First turn to House Bill 1972. You're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
2:15
Let me pull, call me off guard. Our House Bill 1972 is concerning the possession
of marijuana and simple possession. So what our statute currently says is that if you have less than four ounces, that you are, it is a crime, a misdemeanor. What we're trying to do is to make anything less than an ounce of possession to be an infraction, a violation, with a $200 penalty.
So the way the schedule is laid out is that anything, like I said, anything less than four ounces would be a class A misdemeanor. Anything greater than four ounces will be a felony. The second part here states that if you do have one of these violations or infractions, that it will not go towards the previous convictions order. So what we're essentially doing is making less than one ounce of simple possession of marijuana and a civil infraction and a violation.
Twenty-two states and the district and D.C. have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. This generally means certain small personal consumption amounts are a civil or local infraction, not a state crime. As a result of the new laws, there has been a sharp decline in incarceration of offenders and an increase in revenues for fines, In part, due to the redirection of priorities toward the hard drugs, heroin, crack, meth, and probably due to the increasing of those fines, what you're going to see is you're going to see more of a focus on the hard drugs, simple possession of those drugs,
as well as continually to enforce selling and manufacturing of marijuana as well. So marijuana prohibition has been costly, and it's been a costly failure. In 2016, there was 587,000 marijuana arrests in the U.S., roughly 40% of all drug arrests. So 587,000 of the marijuana arrests in 2016 were made up 40% of all drug arrests.
The vast majority of those 587,000 arrests, 90%, were for simple possession. So there are more arrests of marijuana possession every year than of violent crimes. I'm going to repeat that one more time. There are more arrests of simple marijuana possession every year than of violent crimes. The huge number of arrests drains resources at enormous cost to taxpayers. More than half of those admitted to treatment for marijuana each year are referred to by the criminal justice system.
There is evidence that in those 22 states and D.C. that those who have reduced penalties show no increase in marijuana usage. So, I'm going to say it one more time. There's evidence from jurisdictions that have reduced penalties show no increase in marijuana usage. The Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana necessarily leads to substantial increase in marijuana use.
where decriminalization has been tuned in effectively, has been used, that reduces misdemeanors to infractions. So, for instance, in 2011, California reclassified marijuana possession as an infraction, administrative violation instead of a misdemeanor. From 2010, there was 55,000 marijuana arrests. In 2011, there was 7,500.
So that's an 85% decrease. So decriminalizing marijuana possession saves law enforcement resources. The police superintendent of Chicago estimated that imposing a civil fine of simple marijuana possession in the city saved 20,000 hours, real hours of police work, man hours. That's about a million dollars. So what we have seen is that criminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana forces
law enforcement to spend valuable time on arresting, processing, and prosecuting nonviolent offenders. That time could be better spent going after violent criminals. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, an estimate 700,933 Americans were arrested for marijuana-related offenses in 2014. That's over 88% were for possession alone. That was in 2014.
For that same data, there was 65% national clearance rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter. For rape it was 38% and for robbery it was 29%. So what we've seen is that our police departments across this nation, across this state, and across our cities have spent more time, more energy, more money enforcing and arresting those for simple possession than for those who
are manufacturing, distributing, and committing
violent crimes. And I'll take the questions. Representative
Fott, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
8:12
Madam Chair. I got lost in the numbers somewhere. Do you have a fiscal impact statement for this bill? I do. You know what? Let
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
8:18
me check real quick. As of last night, I didn't. I can check, though. Good question. Have
you requested one? I did, but I just haven't received one yet. This bill was filed on Monday. So it's been kind of lost in the shuffle, lost in the weeds.
I like your style, though. I request fiscal impact statements all the time. So I respect that. Let me see if one
has been filed. I haven't checked this morning. Representative Fyke, we
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
9:00
do not have one up here either. Okay, thank you. No, there is not one yet. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Blake, I think this is an important topic for consideration. But are you aware that Representative Monty Hodges is also looking deeply into conducting a study on criminal, I guess, penalties and that this bill might better fit in his study?
And so my question is, would you consider pulling it down and adding it to your colleague's study for a much more broad overview of all criminal
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
9:36
penalties? Now, for your first question, I am aware of Representative Hodge's study that's going into the Ford. I think that that is a broad study that looks at a lot of penalties that could go from felonies to misdemeanors, misdemeanors to civil infractions.
I do think that this is that a focus on this matter should should be done. This is a huge, as you can tell by just the pure numbers, this is a lot of time and resources and a lot of energy go into these simple possession arrests. And I think that if there is a study, that we should make sure that this one is done separately. Now, if that's the will of the committee to send this to a study,
then if there's people that are concerned about the fiscal impact, I do understand that. The last thing I want to be is someone who cries about fiscal impact reports and then not have one for you. So if that is the will of the committee, that's fine. I would like to go ahead and present this bill, have conversation. If there are more questions, this is a big matter.
Representative Hawks, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
11:04
you, Madam Chair. You're going to have to forgive my ignorance on this subject matter here. So right now, four ounces is a misdemeanor? Yes. And we're trying to make. Up to four ounces. Okay. And then we're trying to make one just a simple penalty. Up to one ounces would be a simple penalty, yes. What is it? I have no idea. I mean, I know you can smoke marijuana, but I mean, one ounce, do you smoke one ounce or is that two joints or is that,
I have no idea how to put this. We have any experts in
Speaker 37
11:35
the room now. I don't want you to say anything here, but I have no idea. Let me caution y'all before you get yourself in
some kind of criminal penalty. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
11:53
We do have law enforcement in the room. I thought you'd been told. Yeah. One ounce is, I want to say is, I think, around 28 grams, 29 grams.
That may be wrong. But there's a vast difference between one ounce and four ounce. And I think that's the biggest concern, that we are penalizing someone who has possession of four ounce. If you have possession of four ounces, that's why it's a classic misdemeanor. You're probably going to distribute or you're manufacturing. You're recognized for a follow-up.
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
12:26
So you're saying four ounces is a distributable amount, whereas one ounce is not going to be?
It could be personal consumption. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Gassaway, you're recognized for a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
12:42
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Blake, so what it sounds like to me is what you're talking about is under Under four ounces typically would be a quantity used for personal use, personal consumption. Under one ounce. Under one ounce. Yes. And that would, under this bill, be a violation, which would be the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Yes. Are you familiar with the research and the studies that have been published recently
that talk about the effects of marijuana usage on the developing brain, specifically for those for adolescents and then also the link between marijuana use and psychosis even later in life?
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
13:24
Yes, I am. That is a debate that we have continued to have, especially with medical marijuana here in our state. What we're talking about is, I would say, penalties now.
We're talking about personal consumption. We're talking about resources. We're talking about the law enforcement spending their time on that larger amounts of marijuana and the harder drugs. I mean, this is not going to stop them from going out and finding those who are under an ounce of cocaine or meth or heroin. You know, that's those I believe where our
law enforcement resources should be headed and to those who are having violent crimes.
Representative Crawford, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
14:19
Madam Chair. My question goes along with Representative Gazeways. I've heard some studies, too, and I've actually seen it happen, where someone who smokes marijuana frequently, that possible side effects is schizophrenia. So my concern is are we not trading some of our money in the state
from the criminal justice system now to we're going to have to deal with mental
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
14:54
health? I would say that this bill is not giving free reign to those who are going out to smoke marijuana. It's still an infraction. What we're saying is we don't need to be sucking up our resources on simple possession. There is, it's still illegal. It's still going to be a crime, but it's going to be a violation instead of a misdemeanor.
Members, any more questions? We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Blake, you had indicated earlier that you might be willing to pull the bill down for further study is that the
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
15:37
route you wish to pursue this if that's the will of the of my colleagues not having a physical impact report I understand that and if if if that's what people want
then yes members if there are no objections we will allow a representative blank to pull his bill
down and possibly put it into interim study with representative Hodges are there any objections with that thank you representative blank for presenting your bill and we will do
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
16:16
that. Thank you. Representative Bentley. Let's move to Senate Bill 503. Senate Bill 503.
Chairman colleagues, thank you so much. This is a bill that for physician assisted suicide, it strengthens the crime for that and it does a little bit of clean up. There was a couple of spots in the bill where it said health care and health care was separated so they put them together. So it's just a little bit of spelling changes on that and we're just enhancing the crime for physician-assisted suicide making it a Class C to a Class B felony.
Are there any questions by the members? Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
17:03
you, Madam Chair. Representative Bentley, do you have any evidence or reason to believe that the current punishments are not adequately doing the job with respect to physician-assisted suicide in Arkansas? I don't have any evidence or studies
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
17:18
to show it, but I just have heard from constituents throughout my district that are really concerned about the increase across the nation that we've seen of states passing physician-assisted suicide
and seeing a huge increase of suicide in our state. So I think with their thoughts and thoughts with some other physicians that we thought it would be an appropriate increase of penalty on that. And that was Senator Bledsoe's thoughts on the bill.
Members, any other questions? We have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Bentley, you're recognized to close for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you, Chairman. Members, Representative Bentley is closed for bill. What's the wishes of the committee?
Representative Gassaway? We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion to do pass? All in favor of the motion? Please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. Roll. Motion carries.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
18:26
Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Representative Hollowell, Ms. Clerk, members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 568.
bill 568 represent Hallowell you're recognized to present your bill and the chair will
Representative Steve Hollowell
Unverified
18:45
recognize Christian Clark thank you madam chair and committee this is a bill that just creates a new district judge in the 25th judicial district so I'm gonna let her explain a little bit
Kristen Clark
Unverified
18:58
about this bill the thank you chairman Dalby and committee. My name is Kristen Clark, and I am the district court staff attorney
at the administrative office of the courts. The 25th judicial district is currently St. Francis and cross counties. They are a full-time state district court currently with one district judge. Based on the caseload, they brought a request to decrab that you all have heard quite a bit this week. And a request for the second judge was approved. This is the bill that Senator Caldwell prepared that he's presenting now to you for permission. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer those. Members,
are there any questions in regard to this? Representative Tosh,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
19:43
you're recognized for a question. I'm just curious.
Currently, and I don't think I heard this, And if you stated, I apologize. But currently, what's the caseload
Kristen Clark
Unverified
19:58
now for the current judge in that county? In Cross County, it's around 12,000 cases. For the one judge that's there who's currently a part-time judge in St. Francis County, it's about 25,000 cases. When we add two, I think the totals were around 41,000, so it'll lower the case total and help overall.
this particular judgeship is also expected to help with some of the circuit court matters that can be referred
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
20:25
to a state district court. Okay, and
that follow-up, Madam Chair. You're recognized for a follow-up. Thank you. It seemed like I heard some testimony before that the current, the average workload now in the state is approximately $17,000. And so with this additional judge, that would put that area more in line with the state averages.
Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. No further questions. Members, any other questions from the committee? We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Hollowell, are you closed for your bill? Representative Hollowell is closed for the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Tosh? Motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members, I see Senator Irvin has come into the room, so if you'll turn to Senate Bill 617. I believe Representative Fite, Senator Irvin, you're recognized to
come to the end of the table and present Senate Bill 617. Thank you so much,
Representative Lanny Fite
Unverified
21:48
Madam Chair. Good to see you all, members of the committee.
I'm going to let Representative Fite
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
21:56
go for it. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I invite Jennifer Cron with AOC to come to the table? Yes, Ms. Cron. While she's coming, I'll just briefly introduce this. The governor has designated the Division of Youth Services as a single-state organization responsible for administering OJJDP funds.
Let me tell you what that is. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Funds. So what this bill does is repeals Act 1513 of 2013, which established the Arkansas Coalition for Juvenile Justice as supervisory board over administration of Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Funds because that is no longer needed. The Federal Office of Juvenile Justice Programs and the U.S. Department of Justice directs each governor to designate the single-state organization
responsible for receiving and administering these funds and requires a state plan for establishing program priorities and requirements for receiving the funds and requires a state advisory group to participate in development and implementation of the state plan. So this will now be administered in a different way, and I will ask Ms. Cron to speak to that. Oh, I'm sorry. I need Betty Gooman here rather than Ms. Cron. Sorry. I saw her standing in the wings, but I thought, well.
We're just going to be doing this a
different way, basically. Not a problem. If you'll please
Speaker 84
23:35
state your name, and then you may begin to make your statement. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Betty Guman. I'm with the Department of Human Services. And as Representative Feit said, this is really a cleanup bill to make sure we're in compliance with the federal juvenile justice prevention, delinquency prevention program, Department of Justice, and the funding that comes to the state of Arkansas.
And this is, there's no fiscal impact, and this actually is the way things are operating now, so it cleans it up. I can answer questions if you'd like. Members, are there any questions? We have no one who's signed
up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Fiedt, are you closed for your bill? Representative Fiedt is closed for bill. And I make a motion to do pass. And we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you so much. And while we have you down at that end of the table and we have got a captured senator in our midst, let's move to Senate Bill 647. And this is the bill on which I need
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
24:54
Ms. Cron. And I'll talk a little bit about this. this is a companion bill with our juvenile justice reform bill that we ran earlier and passed into
law. So this is a companion bill for that bill. And I'm really thankful to the creativity behind this because it allows for some flexibility with some of the funding. And I'll let them go ahead and talk about exactly how that happens because we need to have some flexibility with our juvenile officers and probation officers, there's a problem there. We need more funding for them so we can keep and retain good juvenile officers and probation officers because they're the ones that are going to be utilizing the validated risk assessment
tool that we put in place with the previous juvenile justice reform bill, the SAVRI tool. So we're going to talk about how this funding mechanism
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
25:45
works. Right. This bill requires no new funding. It simply reallocates unexpended juvenile justice system funding. It allows AOC, the Administrative Office of the Court, to award remaining unexpended funds to counties for continued juvenile justice reform. And I will ask Ms. Cron to speak on this one. Ms. Cron, if
you'll identify yourself, then you may proceed.
Speaker 90
26:07
Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Committee. I'm Jennifer Cron. I'm the Juvenile Division Director with the Administrative Office of the Courts. And I'd like to thank Senator Irvin and Representative Fyte for bringing this bill. As they both stated, this would allow the AOC to distribute remaining funds that are left over after juvenile officer salaries have been reimbursed in order to assist counties in other ways to fund the juvenile services that are needed.
And I'll take any questions if there are any. Members, are there any questions? We have no one who
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
26:53
is... Representative Berry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And
Speaker 90
26:59
you may have said, how many dollars are we talking about left over? The appropriation to reimburse counties for juvenile officer salaries is $3.5 million, and most of that is reimbursed every year. But in the past few years, we've had left over around 200,000.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Kapp, you're
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
27:22
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure that the counties are okay with this
since it's distributed based on a number of factors and make sure that there's no issues
Speaker 90
27:34
as far as they're concerned. I'm not aware of any concerns. I've not heard from any counties expressing concerns or with any
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
27:42
questions. And I'll speak to that as well. They want this flexibility.
There are some counties that don't take advantage of the reimbursement match, and then that would allow them to use those funds in various other ways to support local services that they want to be able to provide for those juveniles or the tools that they need. So they're happy. And this AOC is actually a pass-through, and all this money goes to the counties anyway. We're just allowing them some flexibility on what they can choose to spend that money on. And there are some areas where there are a lot more challenging issues that are going on that need to be addressed.
We really are going to have to address probation officers and how we're paying them and that structure because you have some counties that are able to do it, other counties that are not. And those are the folks that are on the front lines that are actually utilizing that tool with our juvenile offenders and their families. So, you know, this is a step in the right direction. I think there's probably more work to be done on that
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
28:45
to help our counties with those issues. Thank you. One thing I forgot to mention is this also cleans up old language to refer to juvenile officers rather than either probation or intake officers.
The term juvenile officer is more accurate and encompasses all the work that they do without appearing punitive in nature, so it's a more accurate term. Members, any other questions? We
have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Fite, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for the bill. Members, Representative Fite is closed for the bill. And I make a motion due pass.
We now have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion do pass. Please say aye. Any opposed say no. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Members, now if you'll go back up to your agenda. Senate Bill 658. If you'll turn to Senate Bill 658, and I would ask Vice Chair Petty to chair this part.
Chairman Petty, with your permission, may I have Judge John Fogelman here with me? Yes, you may.
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
30:26
Just identify yourself for the record. And you are recognized to present Senate Bill 658.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, Senate Bill 658 is in regard to the circuit judges in the state of Arkansas. As you know, over the years, judicial filings will change depending, obviously, on population. Things begin to shift. and it has become apparent that there is some need for some additional judges in some of our more populated area to take over the caseload. And that is what this bill does.
This is a bill that is coming from AOC and from the circuit judges. They meet, they look, the Supreme Court gets together. They all look to see what is the caseload. They try to get these caseloads fairly evened out throughout the state. so that the administration of justice can flow smoothly. And if you'll take a look at the bill, you will see, and Judge Fogelman can answer any
detailed questions in this regard, but in this bill, in the second judicial circuit,
there will be an additional judge added. In the fourth judicial circuit, there will be one, the 12th, the 21st, and the 19th. And as
I got to going on the bill, I realized I have an amendment. on this bill yes ma'am i was going to let you finish yeah you should stop me well we do have an amendment i signed the amendment this morning that's taking out section nine that's all it does is take out section nine and i apologize to the committee for getting ahead of myself um there is uh maybe we get an adoption yeah that's i'm going to move to adopt the amendment removing
section nine and i apologize the committee for getting ahead of myself and with that i'll make a motion. Yep. 658. The amendment is wrong on the pad. We can just pass that out as
they're passing it out. Once again, I apologize for getting ahead of myself. It takes out Section 9 completely, and then it renumbers Section 10 to Section 9. That's all it's doing.
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
33:47
We do have a motion on the table to adopt the amendment. All those in favor to adopt the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any no's?
Thank you. You may continue. Thank you. Once again, I do apologize, but it doesn't change the essence of the bill. And what the bill is doing is the bill is adding these judgeships in areas that are needed. The governor supports this bill.
This bill has been worked out among various people. That's why we're at the last possible moment to get this bill done. They wanted to make sure they had it right. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions of which I will turn
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
34:35
to Judge Fogelman for all the interesting questions. Do we have any
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
34:43
questions by the committee? Representative Barry, you're recognized. Madam Chair, Ms. Dalby, this whole session, we have added judges and added judges.
I don't know how many we have. Obviously, they're needed. Is it just because of the increase
of crime, or is it? Well, the judges that you've been seeing added through this committee has been those district
judges, and it's a different level. and district judges through some of the acts and the amendments have now taken on
additional responsibilities. They may help out in arraignments and a lot of things like that.
A lot of, sorry, you've got to delineate between the different kinds of judges. So you have that. This is the first time we've had on circuit judges. It's not so much an increase in crime as it may be an increase in domestic relations or possibly DHS or juvenile law, things like that. I don't think that we have a great spike in crime as far as felony crimes.
But when you have an increase in population, as we have had in a number of these jurisdictions, with that increase comes an increase in family matters or an increase in wills and probate issues. And so I don't think it's really a response, and Judge Fogelman may add something to this or
correct me on that, but I don't know that it's necessarily a great increase in crime. It's just a great increase of what comes when there
are an increase of people in a jurisdiction.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
36:23
and I think you recognize your follow-up and that was my question it's not I would I would really hope that it wouldn't be just crime it's other responsibilities that the judges take on but that would be that'd be very disappointing to know that if we
had put all these judges on just because of the increase of crime. All
Speaker 123
36:52
right, John Fogelman, president of the Judicial Council.
It's an increase in basically every category of cases, and with these judicial districts, most of the judicial districts, four of the five judicial districts are in west and northwest Arkansas where you've had the biggest population increase. One is in the northeast corner where Jonesboro and Paragold area are growing tremendously fast also. There are some areas where there's a little bit of a spike in criminal issues,
but overall it's an increase across the board. We do have here, I wanted to add that we do have here judges from the 4th District, the 21st District. We've got the prosecuting attorney from the 4th district, prosecuting attorney from the 12th district, and I'm from the 2nd district. And these are just needed. So we have
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
37:59
a number of people to speak for this.
If there are no more questions from the committee. Daniel Hsu. I don't know if you all wanted to go down there together. Maybe not. Please recognize, please identify yourself for the record.
Daniel Shue
Unverified
38:24
My name is Daniel Hsu. I'm the prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County, and that's the capacity in which I'm speaking to you today. I spoke with Judge Fitchew, who's our administrative judge,
And he has a meeting of administrative judges that was scheduled long before today. He wanted to be here. I know my other judges are either on the bench or otherwise occupied. As many of you know, judges' schedules are way in advance, and they could not anticipate. But I spoke at the JRAC meeting, and with Sebastian County, A lot of it is driven by my caseload from 2014 to 2017, almost a 41% increase, which is, you know, tragic.
It's gone down a little bit in 2018. But I also know from the judges that their civil dockets are all increasing and they have a lot of work to do. Obviously, Sebastian County at Fort Smith is, if you look up and down the line, is the biggest border city all the way from Missouri down through Texas. So that's kind of the thing that has driven this, and obviously that was a concern for all my judges that we have to, if you don't,
justice delayed is justice denied, and that's kind of the essence of this and why I need to speak in favor of it for my judges, for my district, for my jurisdiction. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to respond.
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
39:59
Any questions by the committee? Thank you, Mr. Hsu. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Stacey Zimmerman to speak for the bill.
identify yourself for the record and you're recognized.
Speaker 130
40:28
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Judge Stacey Zimmerman. I'm the administrative judge for the fourth judicial district, which is Washington and Madison counties. And I'm the administrative judge and I'm also a circuit judge. And I'm here to support the bill as amended with the new amendment this morning. So I appreciate all the hard work that you all have done on this. And then I'm going to zip out of here to go to the administrative judges meeting in Hebrew Springs. So thank you for all of your
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
40:55
work. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I think that's, that's it. Um, um, any further questions from the committee? Would you like to close for your
bill? Yes. I'd like to close. I'd also like to point out, um, To the committee in section 8 that the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee
will be tasked with a joint study on the composition of the judicial circuits and allocation of circuit court judgeship statewide and issue recommendations. We will be meeting to do that before the 2021 session. So I just wanted to draw your attention to that. But with that, I am closed and I would make a motion to do pass as amended. We have a motion
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
41:52
for do pass as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Anyone opposed?
Congratulations. You've passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank
you, members of the committee. Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 319, I see Representative Gonzalez.
Senate Bill 319, we do have an amendment.
Please check and make sure that's on your tablet. Yes, if you'll, if you'll check your tablets, Senate bill 319, the amendment just popped up.
All right. Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you,
Speaker 139
43:17
Madam Chair. The amendment just deletes section four of the bill in its entirety.
Members, if you have a moment to look at that amendment or if there are any questions.
Do we have a motion in regard to the amendment? Representative Maddox, you're recognized. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. You're now recognized to
Speaker 139
44:00
present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee, I get to bring you a bill in here that's not a gun bill. That's something I think we can all agree on if we get this one out of here. This is really a property owner's protection bill. Um, it defines a few things in law that have, uh, it's, it's, uh, kind of codifies some
case law that's out there defining public use, um, defining abandoned property and defining blighted property. That's really all this does. Members, do we have any questions? Any
questions in regard to this bill?
Representative Gassaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
44:47
I apologize if I've missed a previous presentation on this.
Is this just the amendment that you're talking about at
Speaker 147
44:56
this point? No, we adopted the amendment. Now we're on the bill. The amendment just deleted section four of the bill dealing with railroads. Oh,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
45:02
gotcha. Okay. Well, as I look through the bill, I see what appears to be new law and administrative warrants, causes of action, and a few other things. And I just wondered if you might could explain those a little bit more just so I know what's going on.
Speaker 147
45:24
So it's just giving property owners rights to be able to defend themselves if something
Speaker 139
45:30
has been brought against them, if their property has been condemned as blighted or abandoned property. And if you need more explanation, maybe Representative Maddox can help me out. This is something that
Speaker 151
45:48
Senator Ballinger asked me to help him with. Representative Tosh
has a question first, so let's get to Representative Tosh's question.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
45:58
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gonzalez, I'm just curious. A lot of the issues that I've heard from my constituents concerns property alone that is adjoins the railroad property, but are you saying that that part of the bill has been deleted in the amendment? It
Speaker 139
46:22
has been. Anything concerning the railroad condemnation proceedings has been taken out.
Speaker 152
46:28
Follow-up. You're recognized for a follow-up? I'm just curious.
Speaker 139
46:34
Can you tell me why? I really don't know. I was just, like I said, this was not my bill, and they said, you know, they wanted that part out. Apparently there was some controversy over that and struck that part of it. Representative Maddox,
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
46:51
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just have a question for Representative Gonzalez. It's my understanding that this bill is really just codifying existing case law
that's been in effect in Arkansas for decades and decades, and just making sure that the only way that a public entity can take someone's property is for public use only and not for any strictly monetary gain or anything of that nature. Is that kind of your understanding of what this bill does? That's
Speaker 151
47:14
exactly the way it was explained to me, yes. That's what I understand
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
47:23
it does. Representative Tosh, you're recognized. And I agree with that Representative Gonzalez, what Representative Maddox said, But I'm really concerned about why was the railroad exempt from this?
Why should those owners along the railroad not have been given the same protection in this law as
Speaker 139
47:46
everyone else? I'm sorry, Representative Tosh. I just don't have an answer for that. What was struck, I mean, it only added for public use into that section. So there wasn't a whole lot of change there to start with in that section.
Members any other questions? We do have someone who's signed up to speak against this bill, Laney Richman, Mr. Richman. If you'll come to the end of the table and identify yourself, and then you may begin. Thank you, committee. My
Lanny Richmond
Unverified
48:32
name is Lanny Richmond. I'm a staff attorney with the Arkansas Municipal League, and we're here to speak against the bill.
Speaker 158
48:39
By and large, the questions by the committee are hitting on the main issues.
We're not really sure what this
Speaker 159
48:45
bill will do. It says it's attempting to codify case law. I do not know of any case law that looks like this bill. I'd like
Speaker 158
48:55
to start out. I think there's going to be a lot of unintended consequences of this bill, despite its lofty goals, certainly. Some of the entities that will be impacted are levy districts, central business districts, rural road improvement districts, oil, natural gas, and logging companies. All of these
Speaker 159
49:12
entities are going to be impacted because of the definition section in Section 2.
Speaker 158
49:19
That's the largest impact, is that we're changing from a constitutional standard that our courts have been applying to the statutory standard with new language. And we're all left kind of guessing how the courts will use this language and how they'll interpret it. But it applies to almost any entity that has eminent domain powers. I'll go ahead and add that the Supreme Court standard is a bit fluid. They like to take into account public use and public good that's occurring today, but also allow us to think of future public use and public good and how that will be impacted.
Speaker 159
49:53
And this bill seemingly takes a very narrow view of all this. There are additionally some drafting concerns that I have for the intent of the bill and just trying to
Speaker 158
50:06
think of how it will be applied. If you look at Section 2, one of the big things in the title and what it's supposed to do is impact blighted property, and it certainly would, but there are other statutory sections that municipalities would use for blighted property, and they're going to be not impacted. They have their own definitions and their own procedures,
and that would be Arkansas Code 14168301. Additionally, Section 3 is placed into Arkansas Code 1815200, and that section gives municipalities the power of eminent domain for parks, boulevards, and public buildings. It's a very limited section. So the inclusion in there, I don't know if that really helps this bill or makes it clearer or less clear. Overall, it's just not a very clear bill on what they're trying to do and how it will impact everyone else.
I'll lend that we think at the Municipal League that we should leave this to the Arkansas Constitution and the Arkansas Supreme Court who have been applying this correctly and have been very strict on when we can and cannot do these sorts of things. The only possible avenue that municipalities have for economic development at all was passed in 2016 by the voters, which would be Amendment 97, and then the other statutory section, the Local Job Creation, Job Expansion, and Economic Development Act.
That's the only way we can do economic development, and we would prefer to leave it to the Constitution to decide these issues. I'll be happy to answer
Chair
Unverified
51:48
any questions. Members, are there any questions? Representative Tosh,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
51:53
you're recognized for a question, I think. Thank you, Madam Chair. You heard my previous question to Representative Gonzalez, and obviously I know you're speaking against the bill, But it appears that you've done a lot of research.
Can you answer my question as to why there was an amendment that would delete the railroad companies from this bill? I can only imagine that the
Speaker 159
52:13
railroad companies thought that that was going to be how they would be impacted and convince someone to delete it. Otherwise, I can't imagine. I know you can't speak. I
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
52:23
just thought maybe as you reviewed or researched the bill that maybe that answer popped up. I know that puts you in a tough spot, but I appreciate you attempting the answer.
Speaker 159
52:33
I'll add, I don't think Section 4 has the greatest impact.
Speaker 161
52:37
So it's addition and deletion. I don't know that it does a whole lot, but that is
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
52:49
my statement for much of this bill. Representative Gasway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Richman, are you familiar with TIFs, and does this affect that at all, the use of those tax increment financing districts to take property sometimes and develop it and use public money? Would this affect that in any
Speaker 159
53:05
way? Yes, certainly. It should impact any sort of scheme or any entity that can take property.
The new definition, I think, is intended to apply to each
Speaker 158
53:13
and every entity, and I know the TIFs are very specifically designed to remedy, you know, to bring up our property values and to help alleviate problems where our property isn't being used anymore. So, yes. Members, any other questions? Thank you.
We appreciate you being here. Thank you. We have no one else
who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Speaker 139
53:40
Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the case law pulled up here. Let me see if I can go back and find that real quick. I was also getting texts in the middle of this. Oh, here's Bob. We'll let him explain it. That'll be
Speaker 171
53:54
easier. Well, we'll let him close for the bill. If that's okay. One of the things, and I just got in a little bit from their testimony, but from visiting with the municipal league, they've been real upfront and honest that essentially they do concede that this basically is just codifying current case law. They kind of wish the case law would be a little more open
so that you could take property for purely the benefit of increasing tax value of property but that's really not the intent of public taking that's not what the the law is in current case law um we actually have good case law um in in arkansas it's solid and so what we're wanting to do is codify that so that we're not in a situation where people's property is is easily taking uh taken without a without having legitimate public purpose and i'm happy you know if the committee wants to still take questions to answer any but But other than that, I would just appreciate a good vote.
And I would just say to the municipal police. I think
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
54:47
Representative Tosh has a question for you, and I'll allow that. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that because I know we've asked this and trying to get an answer to it. And, Senator, I'm glad you're here, hopefully, and answer this. You know, I really like the bill. I think it's a good bill. I just didn't understand and was hoping you could explain. Of course, we adopted the amendment, but the amendment excluded the railroad company's property that was adjacent or adjoined that property. And I guess I was just curious as to why that exemption was made for them.
Speaker 171
55:17
So what they did when, and this is what I think happened in BLR, because of the fact that there was language that dealt with the taking with the railroad, they included that in just as cleanup. The railroads looked at it and said, well, does this mean that this changes anything for us? And the answer is no. So they're still subject, just like everybody else, is to the law of takings. They're still subject to this bill. But them being singled out like that made them feel uncomfortable. So essentially that was just being pragmatic. We took them out because it wasn't necessary in the bill,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
55:49
and it made it where they're okay with the bill. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Ballinger, can you just repeat for me, make sure I've got this right? All this bill does is codify what the
existing case law already makes. That's correct. Thank you. Representative Gonzalez, Senator Ballinger, you're recognized to close for
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
56:11
the bill. I am closed and appreciate a good vote. I'll just say the Municipal League is not known for standing up for
Speaker 142
56:17
property owner's rights, so I appreciate a good vote also.
Members, representing Gonzalez, Senator Ballinger, close for the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Maddox? Do pass. As amended? As amended. We have a motion to do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
56:39
the table? Representative House, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. We've had these things come up where we're just, quote,
codifying existing law. We are under and have always been under the English common law system,
which recognizes that no code ever encompasses all circumstances. as opposed to the Napoleonic Code like they use in Louisiana
and parts of Texas, where you try to put everything in a code and then you try to make your facts fit into the code the way it's written or interpret the code the way it's written to fit the facts. Whereas in English common law, you use reason, you use what we've done in previous cases, and are flexible.
I was all for this until I heard the question about TIFFs. And so are we going to make a policy
here now that basically tells the cities you can't do TIFFs anymore? That's what's happening. That's going a little far, and we're making a big policy decision by doing this. I don't know
anything about TIFFs. I don't even live in a city, so it doesn't affect me personally. and only have one small incorporated town in my district,
a little bit of Jacksonville, a little bit of Maumelle, but it's a residential area. So when you vote on this, just think about that. This is kind of saying this is the law, and if there are other circumstances, if they don't fit into this particular code, then they don't count anymore. And that's kind of the way the Napoleonic code works. If it doesn't fit within the statute, then you either have to change the statute or make it fit. And that's a real simplistic explanation, I know.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other discussion? Members, we do have a motion. Do pass as amended. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The no's have it. The bill has failed. Thank you, committee. Representative Kapp, I believe the amendment has come on Senate Bill 646.
So members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 646. The amendment on your tablet is not the correct amendment, so they're passing out the correct amendment to you. So if you'll turn to 646 and turn to the amendment that's being passed out.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
59:50
Madam Chair, may I ask that Lori Comperis come to the end of the table with
me? Yes. members you have the amendment before you now and representing cap you're recognized to present the
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:00:23
amendment thank you madam chair the purpose of the amendment is to add me as a co-sponsor and while we were sitting here this morning and the prosecutor's office realized that there was some language that was supposed to be deleted so specifically on page two we are asking to delete or the public defender appointed or assigned to the case. So, again, that's the purpose of the amendment. Are there any questions on the amendment?
Representative Blake, you're recognized. Just real quickly, why are
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
1:00:59
we deleting on page 2, line 1, the public defender appointed? I'm going to let Lori answer that. The
Speaker 187
1:01:09
reason is that we moved that language up into the first part of the bill where it says who all the crime lab is supposed to give the information to and took them
Speaker 188
1:01:19
out of this section where it's talking about people who aren't parties to the case.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:01:28
Representative Kapp, you're recognized. I take a motion for due pass on adoption
of the amendment. Members, we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:01:43
Motion carries. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 646 is an act concerning confidential and privileged records of the state crime lab and for other purposes. And like most bills that we see, we bring legislation in regarding to a problem that someone may have encountered with a limitation in the law.
And I think specifically what borne this specific legislation is that there was a private attorney that was, I believe, operating pro bono and asked to get crime lab records and was told that they could not and went to the Public Defender Commission and asked to be appointed because this specific statute accepted out and only limited it to prosecutors and public defenders. And so this just opens it up to where if somebody has an attorney, whether it be private, public defender, someone operating again under a pro bono situation, that they would be entitled to the crime lab records.
Members, are there any questions? I see no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or
against the bill. No. Representative Kapp, you're recognized to close. Did you have a question, Representative Blake? No. Representative Kapp, you're recognized to close for
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:03:07
your bill. In closing, I would just add that case law, you know, clarifies that attorneys are entitled to this information. So we're just making sure that the statute isn't used as a means to block attorneys from
obtaining this information they're entitled to in someone's defense. make a motion for do pass as amended on the bill. Members, we have a motion to do
pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Members, Senator Clark had come in to run his bill and had to step out for a minute. We have one bill left and And we're texting him, asking him if he would come back down.
We'll take up Senate Bill 580 will be the last bill we'll take up. Thank you.
I'm sorry, he's on his way. We've texted him. He's on his way back. He was here and then had to run real quick. Oops, he says he can't leave.
Unknown speaker
1:05:48
Thank you.
Representative Gassaway. Any gas away?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members, if we can, if we can come on back. Members, if we'll go ahead and take our seats.
All right members,
if you can come on back. Let's take our seats. We have this one bill, Senator Garner has asked Representative Gasway if he would present
his bill and Representative Gasway has graciously agreed to present it to the committee. I think with the caveat, he's not taking a position one way or the other, but out of a courtesy to the senator, he is presenting the bill. And so with that, I would ask Representative Gassaway
to please present Senate Bill 580 for our consideration. And you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:12:08
Thank you, committee. Again, I'm not necessarily advocating for or against.
I'm simply going to stand in for Senator Clark to make a presentation on the bill. But, hang on just one second, thought I had it pulled up here. So this bill, from my understanding, requires that all custodial interviews of a criminal defendant be recorded by audio and visual media if those are available.
And what I can tell you about that now is there is a Supreme Court Rule, Rule 4.7 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, that are already on point about this issue for recordings of custodial interrogations. And I have seen this personally come up when I was a deputy prosecutor on interrogations of criminal defendants that weren't recorded. And you'll see these things in suppression motions by defense attorneys often if there's There's not a recording, and it was available, and so I think the Supreme Court already says
that these interviews should be recorded, but again, that, and I'm looking at the rule now, Rule 4.7, whenever practical, a custodial interrogation at a jail, police station, or other similar place should be electronically recorded, and then if it's not, then the court takes that into consideration when it determines the admissibility of those recordings, and And that's what I recall of my experience with it, but what this bill would do would require that all of an interview or an interrogation be recorded.
It does provide some exceptions from what I could see. If there's exigent circumstances, if the interview or interrogation is being conducted by a person's parole or probation officer if the person or a person may request that their custodial interview or interrogation not be recorded. A person who makes a request to have his or her custodial interview or interrogation not recorded by audio or visual medium waives his or her rights to have the custodial interview
or interrogation recorded and a law enforcement agency shall retain the original audio and visual recording for a period of not less than three years. And I understand the purpose of his bill because it's always seemed to me, and I'll just argue for it the best I can, it's always seemed to me that any time you have a criminal defendant who law enforcement has brought in for a custodial interrogation, and they don't record that, and then they say in their report that the defendant told me X, Y, or Z, when they had
the ability to record it always seemed a little suspect to me, and so I certainly think the best practice is you ought to record these things. And so what it appears Senator Clark is doing here is to say that all of these should be unless it falls under one of the specific exceptions that he's noted in his bill. And I'm sure that there are some folks here who may have seen this on the Senate end who could provide some more insight into it and may want to speak for or against, and I would welcome them to do that. Representative House, you're recognized for a question?
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
1:15:32
A situation I've seen used is you have two or more, but usually two, suspects. And you can't get a statement out of either one of them or play one against the other and all that. The police can't get a statement out of either one of them. So they put them in a room together and then walk out, recording and video, and then they get to talking about what they've done and they record that conversation and it can
be very effective because it's really not an interrogation it's almost spontaneous can a defendant reef can under the 4.7 can a defendant refused to be recorded is that right to remain silent it invoked at that point what do you how might that play
out if they say I don't want to be recorded, but yet they do it anyway.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:16:48
I don't, sorry, I don't see anything in rule 4.7 that addresses a potential criminal defendant and their ability to request to not be recorded. Of course, if a criminal defendant invokes their rights, Miranda's been given, then any questioning's supposed to stop immediately, as you know.
But I don't see anything in 4.7 that says anything about a potential criminal defendant being able to request that they not be recorded. But it looks like this bill would give them the opportunity
to do that. Follow-up. You're recognized for a
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
1:17:35
follow-up? We've got a lot of officers now, if not all of them. We hope to have all of them equipped with body cams just for this very reason. You hit me. You assaulted me. You did whatever to me.
in that camera being for the protection of the officer and I'm wondering if the defendant can waive that officer's right to record what's going on even in the interrogation room he got me in there and sexually assaulted me when nobody was looking that camera may in fact be the savior for the
for the officer so I'm wondering if that's bad policy or not yeah
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:18:15
I just don't know I can't sure I So it's hard for me to answer that right now.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:18:21
Okay, thanks. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gazeway, of course, anytime I see the word requiring all, I mean, that's pretty ironclad. and it's almost like it's etched in stone and there's not allowing for any situation, for any flexibility, you know,
and obviously there's no way to put into a law that would have language that could cover ever-conceivable situation, especially as broad a range as it is in interviewing and crime scenes and et cetera. I just have a problem with that word and kind of the box that it puts investigators in and law enforcement in as they try to maneuver around this law here to make sure they're in compliance with it
and actually could result in, in my opinion, a statement becoming inadmissible in court and allowing someone to go free that shouldn't have. Would you care to elaborate on that, or do you see it differently than I do? No, not necessarily. I mean, so
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:19:41
just in looking at the bill, what it appears to say to me is that, you know, the very first, you have a couple different types of custodial interviews. In the first section, it discusses a custodial interviewer interrogation that occurs at a
law enforcement facility. And, you know, that's one of those interrogations where, you know, if you're at the law enforcement facility, they should have access to audio and video recording. You know, it's 2019, it's not too hard to get a camera set up or an audio piece of equipment set up to do an interrogation that takes place at a law enforcement facility. And so he says there that if it takes place at a law enforcement facility, it shall be recorded on an audio medium at a minimum and visual medium if visual media is available.
And then the second part is when you have interviews or interrogations, I think this goes to your question, sometimes that occur outside of a law enforcement facility because you get custodial interrogations that occur on the side of a highway. If a person's not free to leave, they're in custody. And I think that's the primary test that's used. And so you get somebody out on even a DWI, does this mean now that they have to be audio or video recorded in order for anything that they say to be used in court, and that's kind
of the way that it appears to me. So he did write some exceptions in that I see, but I do understand your concern. Members, any other questions?
We do have someone who has signed up to speak against the bill, Colonel Bryant. You're recognized to come to the end of the table and state your name, and then you may proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill Bride,
Speaker 200
1:21:25
Director of the Arkansas State Police. We did work with Senator Clark on this bill when it first presented on the Senate side.
Speaker 201
1:21:33
He was kind enough to pull it down, and we worked with him on a few items on the bill. A couple concerns right off the bat. If you go out in rural Arkansas, these sheriff's departments, at the sheriff's office, they probably don't have a video camera room set up. So that's why we worked with Senator Clark and pulled it back to where just an audio. uh you know the state police uh all of our cid investigators who usually do the custodian interviews we do have digital tape recorders so a lot of times when you're doing these custodian
interviews you might respond to a homicide scene you're on a front porch with somebody and so then we have that recorder to do that but uh senator clark did pull the bill down initially worked with us because sometimes in these interviews i've been doing this for 43 years if you put a tape recorder in front of somebody They don't want to talk. They'll just say, hey, I'll talk to you, but with no tape recorder. So we kind of addressed that in this a little bit, that if the defendant, you know, does not want to do that, we could go ahead. But our major concern is that I think, and I'm not a lawyer, I'll depend on my prosecutors or Mr. Gasway here,
but our criminal code 4.7 pretty much addresses custodial interrogations. Our main objection to the bill, the same thing I told on the Senate side was, If you read the bill, it says custodial interviews and custodial interrogations. To us, that's the same thing. I think our criminal code covers the majority of this, but I'm just afraid it would be confusing if you have somebody say custodial interview, custodial interrogation. Our criminal code calls it custodial interviews, or excuse me, interrogations, and I'm just
afraid that it might confuse it as this bill moves forward and it gets out to law enforcement. So that, again, to credit to Senator Clark, he did pull it down the first time. We worked on some things. But, again, it's just, you know, we think the criminal code covers it. We just like the word custodial interrogation. Representative Clowney,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:23:27
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Colonel Bryant. Can you just clarify for me, under the current rules, 4.7, can a defendant choose not to be recorded if they so choose?
Speaker 201
1:23:39
Yes, ma'am, if you hold on real quick. I found one section that might be able to address that, but it says a statement made during the custodial interview that was not recorded because electronic recording was not practical. Let me back up. Number two, the lack of recording shall not be considered in determining the admissibility of custodial statement in the following circumstances. A statement made during a custodial interrogation that was not recorded because electronic recording was not practical.
I think you can maybe tie it in that way. Again, I'm not an attorney. I would refer to maybe some
of the prosecutors can better address that. Thank you. Members, any other
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
1:24:25
questions? Representative Berry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. In this bill, could you use something as simple as a cell phone to record? Or, I mean, and that would satisfy this language in this bill?
Speaker 201
1:24:42
Yes, Representative. It's funny you said that's the example that Senator Clark used at the end of the table. He pulled out a cell phone and was able to, you know, you can use that as a recording device. But, again, just keep in mind, and this is not to disgrace any sheriff, but if you go in the rural parts of Arkansas, some of our sheriff's offices don't even have an Internet. So you have to kind of consider those areas, and that's why I think we made the deal with the video camera, made that optional, because if you get in rural Arkansas, a lot of those
sheriff's offices cannot make it. I gave the example of in rural Arkansas, some of our starting law
Speaker 205
1:25:17
enforcement salaries are $23,000 a year. Representative Maddox, you're
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:25:24
recognized. Well, you kind of touched on it, but my concern sitting here listening is, and I have these in my district, the small rural sheriff's departments. having to comply with this and having to use their phone and keep numerous interviews on their phone. I just see this as problematic, and I guess my question is, wouldn't you agree with that, and wouldn't you agree that Rule 4.7 sufficiently covers the situation as it is now?
Speaker 207
1:25:49
Yes, sir. That was my testimony on the Senate side. That would be my testimony
here today. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Thank you, Colonel Bryant. We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gassaway, I recognize you took a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:26:08
close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to make the best argument, I guess, that I can for the bill, I will say I always go back to these experiences I had when I was a prosecutor,
but I had a case one time where we had an arson that had occurred in the city of Harrisburg, burned down a VFW, and there was a federal agency that got involved, and they interviewed the defendant, and there was no recording. Everything that they gave us was a bunch of handwritten notes, and I think that, you know, our state police and our, you know, local departments, they do a pretty good job about trying to, you know, recording these interviews when they can. That's certainly encouraged under our current rule, but it made me uncomfortable. I mean, even as the prosecutor, to think that a law enforcement agency, you know, in 2019,
with access to digital recordings, digital recording devices that, you know, just about Not everybody has a cell phone. You know, I don't care who you are, you know, how much money you make. Just about everybody you know has a cell phone that has a recording ability on it. And but in that case, there was no recording and this person had allegedly confessed. And you know, that's concerning and that should be concerning to all of us because if you're ever in a situation where you're interviewed by law enforcement and they said you said
one thing, and in 2019, when they have the capability to buy video or audio, record these things, you know, I think that they should do that. Now, is this the best bill in order to effectuate that or to make it happen? You know, I'm not sure. I think there have been some legitimate concerns expressed about rural departments and things of that nature, but if you're taking a confession from somebody or you're doing a custodial interrogation and you're going to take statements that are going to be used in court and the question is going to come down to whether or not they said it, whether or not the law
enforcement officer says that they said it, and they say they didn't, and there are means to record in this day and age, and there's not exigent circumstances or other things that exist, then I think that's what the purpose of this bill is, and that can be, I think there's a good argument to be made there. So with that, I'm closed for the bill.
Representative Gassaway is closed for the bill. what are
the wishes of the committee representing cap you recognized motion
for do pass we have a motion to do pass on the table is there
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:28:38
any discussion of the motion represent Tasha recognized for discussion thank you madam chair I think the intent of the bill is good and representative guys well I know you did a good job representing the bill but here's my problem you know I think a better word could have been used other than all and I understand the your comments about in this day and age about cell phones and recordings but you know and I think we all know it just in on this committee that there's a lot of areas in our state that still
has poor phone reception and it I think to rely on the word all really puts law enforcement at a great disadvantage especially when that interview could be so crucial to the to the outcome of that trial and so I just feel like we could have chosen a better word you know than that to put a put them in that box make it that ironclad and make it where there's no room for flexibility so
with that I'll be voting no on this
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:29:39
bill representing Maddox you're recognized thank you madam chair just to echo representative Tosh and as I stated I feel this is problematic for numerous reasons but especially for the rural sheriff's departments I mean this could potentially apply to roadside interviews and to say a deputy has to pull out his phone and try to record the statement while there's a danger issue there there's a then there's a record keeping to think
that some deputy is going to have 25 separate recordings on his phone I just I think it's been stated we have a good rule in effect now I think we need to be real careful about changing rules that we all seem to say are working pretty sufficiently right now so I can't support this members any other discussion we
do have a motion of do pass on the table all in favor of the motion please say aye all opposed say no the nose habit the bill has failed thank you madam chair thank you committee yes
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
1:30:40
Vice-Representer House. There's something in this bill, though, that I think really ought to be addressed, and that's the essential question. Does a suspect have the right to refuse to be recorded, especially in light of the body cameras? Is there a way that we can put that question maybe through this bill into interim study and get some feedback and see where? I
think that's a good suggestion, and I will visit with Senator Clark to see if he'd like to do that.
We've got several things, I think, that are going into interim study off of this committee, and I think that's one that could be there, and I think that's a good place for it to be. It's going to come up. I think you're exactly right. Members, we have, before you all bolt and run, we have now worked all the way through the Senate bills, and everything else I did put on deferred because I knew at this point in the session the chances that it could get out of here, get to our floor, get to the Senate, get out
are just not there. I do, as we close out today, I do not anticipate that we will meet again. I think this is our swan song. I'm not anticipating that. I know y'all are terribly disappointed. but for those of you who were not here the other evening I do want to say thank you very much you have been a very diligent committee you have been a committee that has worked very hard to try to do the best for the state of Arkansas and I do appreciate that we do want to once again
please give a round of applause for our staff they've done a great job they have had to try to herd a bunch of ants which I think is what we're kind of like on occasion. And so we do appreciate their hard work this session. I do not anticipate that we will meet again. And with that, I'm gaveling us out. Thank you very much. Session, we are adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1748 Richmond CONCERNING A VETERAN WHO VOLUNTARILY SOUGHT MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY SEEKS TO OBTAIN A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1705 Gazaway TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REPORTING AND TRANSPARENCY OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN RELATED CAMPAIGNS.
HB1486 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD BORN OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE.
HB1114 Lowery TO CREATE THE PARENT-CHILD INTRASTATE RELOCATION ACT; TO PROVIDE FACTORS FOR A COURT TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A CHANGE OF A CHILD’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE IS IN THE
CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB319 B. Ballinger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMINENT DOMAIN; AND TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN.
HB1972 Blake CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA.
SB658 Hester CONCERNING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, AND THE JUDICIARY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB503 Bledsoe CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE.
SB568 Caldwell CONCERNING THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CONCERNING DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB580 A. Clark REQUIRING THAT ALL CUSTODIAL INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATIONS BE RECORDED BY AUDIO AND VISUAL MEDIA, IF AVAILABLE.
SB617 Irvin REPEALING THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE.
SB646 G. Leding CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED RECORDS OF THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY.
SB647 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE REIMBURSEMENTS ADMINISTERED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS.
HB1009 Dotson PROHIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING UPON A SCHOOL CAMPUS.
HB1307 Dotson PERMITTING A BANK OR BANKING INSTITUTION TO UTILIZE THE SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION OF A DISTRICT COURT.
HB1450 Wooten CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN BY A RETIRED CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
HB1294 Della Rosa RESTORING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN THE RESOLUTION OF DRIVING OR BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED CASES.
SB267 G. Stubblefield TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON WITH A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN WHO FAILS TO FILE A RENEWAL APPLICATION BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE PAYS A LATE FEE.
HB1494 V. Flowers CONCERNING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY ON A DEFENDANT WITH A SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS.
SB14 L. Chesterfield CONCERNING THE FEE TO ATTEND A VICTIM IMPACT PANEL THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW OF ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF DRIVING OR BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED, REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST, OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR.
HB1834 Sullivan TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES.
HB1680 Gazaway CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF "TARGET GROUP" AS IT APPLIES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION.
HB1635 Petty CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE SENTENCING RANGE FOR REPEAT FELONY SEX OFFENDERS; CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS; AND CONCERNING SEX OFFENSES AND SEX OFFENDERS.
HB1919 Scott CONCERNING THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS OF RESTRAINT ON INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE DURING A COURT APPEARANCE.
SB543 Irvin TO CLARIFY THE UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORT FEASORS ACT.
SB569 T. Garner CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF BATTERY IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND CONCERNING BATTERY AGAINST A PREGNANT WOMAN.
HB1843 Gates CONCERNING A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SCOPE OF WHERE A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY CARRY AND POSSESS A HANDGUN.
HB1844 Gates CONCERNING WHAT CONSTITUTES CRIMINALLY INJURIOUS CONDUCT UNDER THE ARKANSAS CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS ACT.
HB1828 Lowery TO CREATE THE PARENT-CHILD INTRASTATE RELOCATION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT A CHANGE OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF A CHILD IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
HB1898 L. Johnson CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED DISORDERLY CONDUCT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
HB1938 D. Garner GRANTING A PUBLIC COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE IF POSSESSION OF A CONCEALED HANDGUN ON THE CAMPUS OF THE PUBLIC COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY BY A PERSON IS PERMITTED; AND TO MAKE ORGANIZATIONAL AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
HB1939 D. Garner TO ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PURCHASING, RECEIVING, OR TRANSFERRING A FIREARM.
HB1940 D. Garner REQUIRING THE USE OF A RESTRAINT HOLSTER FOR A PERSON WHO CARRIES A HANDGUN.
HB1962 M. Hodges TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES FROM A FELONY TO A MISDEMEANOR.
HB1971 Beck CONCERNING DISTRICT COURTS; AND CONCERNING THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
HB1059 Pilkington CONCERNING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE OR IN THE DEFENSE OF OTHERS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 4, 2019 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
Speaker 37
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Steve Hollowell
Unverified
Kristen Clark
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Representative Lanny Fite
Unverified
Speaker 84
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 90
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
Speaker 123
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 130
Speaker 139
Speaker 147
Speaker 151
Speaker 152
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Lanny Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 158
Speaker 159
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 161
Speaker 171
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 142
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 188
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 205
Speaker 207