House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1414
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1414”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1175
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1175”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1514
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1514”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1558
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1558”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB357
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB357”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 4, 2026
All right, everybody that may be here to present a bill, we've got Representative Hammer. He's got a special order of business, which
means he gets to go first for a lot of the amount of time. So just so everybody know, if there's another bill they
have to run real quick and another committee, you may want to do that. I don't know if there's anybody here or not.
Also, committee, we've got Representative Hammer, which is going to present House Bill 1414. We've got it actually printed out in front of you so we can all have it in front of us for the special order. Representative Hammer, welcome, and
you are recognized to present House Bill 1414. Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I ask
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
0:49
a question, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Did the handouts?
They're getting, we're starting that process of passing them out right now. If
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
0:57
I could get one of those, please. I sent mine with the original. Judy,
she'll just make sure you hand him one, too, please, ma'am.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05
Thank you. With the chair's permission, what I'd like to do, if you don't mind, is once everybody has a copy of the summary of the bill, I'd like to just go through that. I'll try to be as expeditious as possible. I'll be glad to answer questions either as we go or if you would like to ask that people make their list of questions, a lot of them may get answered. After I go through this, I would just like to know the discretion of the chair, which you'd like to do. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you for asking.
Thank you. Beginning on the first page of the summary of the bill, some of the basic concepts of the current law is
that it requires reasonable written documentation, scrap metal recyclers to maintain an accurate and legible record of each scrap metal purchase transaction, a clearly identifiable date- and time-stamped digital photograph of the seller scrap metal. A scrap metal recycler shall file a daily electronic record of scrap metal purchases made for that day and also require scrap metal recyclers to have the ability to record and deliver electronically daily purchases.
Now, some of the challenges that are addressed or not addressed by the current law, nor will they be addressed if this law is not approved or passed out of the committee, is that law enforcement will continue to struggle to have enough manpower to investigate scrap metal as a priority crime. When you stack it up against all the other crimes that they have to deal with, this is not a high-priority one, so it makes it difficult. Theft of metals continues to be a significant crime with the laws that are in place. In fact, just this last weekend, you may remember $5.5 million worth of damage
in stolen copper and damage to railroad equipment down in the Pine Bluff area alone. and that's just one example of what we're up against. Scrap metal recyclers are an unregulated business. I will tell you that I've got an appropriation bill introduced that will provide five additional officers to the state police for the development of a scrap metal task force that can assist local law enforcement as well as have statewide authority. Currently, they are unregulated. In the event the appropriation bill is not successful, changes to the bill will assist the Sheriff's Department of Law Enforcement
maximizing their resources. In other words, they'll be able to focus more on the most probable situations involving theft of metal, and it'll help take off a layer so that they can get to the real problematic areas. It'll maximize the use of law enforcement time. Preemptive measures that address theft of metals prior to being sold at the scales. Right now, we're pretty much in a reaction mode where we have to deal with it after the fact. This would be a preemptive strike that would allow us and give us tools to be able to identify the majority of the problem on the front end without having to deal with it on the back end, thus reducing the amount of theft.
Measures that other states have implemented that are not included in this bill, but I want you to know the severity of the situation based on what some other states are doing. One item is that they are eliminating cash sales in all areas of restricted metals and requiring checks to be mailed to a physical location of sellers. In other words, it's taking the cash out of the scenario. And number two, a minimum of three-day hold on restricted metals. That means that the yard has to hold the metal for three days. Some places it goes up to seven or eight days before they can actually process it.
Those are things that are being done in other states, but that's not reflected in this bill. Just a point of reference to give you the severity of the matter. Situations that are currently or potentially will increase the potential for scrap metal theft. If the new steel mill in northwest Arkansas goes through, we all sat in the chamber and heard how they said a predominant amount of their metals comes from recycled metal. It's just going to increase the potential, and it's also going to create the temptation for scrap metal to become that much more precious of an item to steel.
And thieves are increasingly targeting difficult areas to monitor, such as metals from farms out in rural areas, and so it makes it very difficult for law enforcement to be everywhere at one time. What this bill can help achieve, tighter controls involving theft from employers. Some of the situations that we have to deal with are employers that they themselves are being stolen from. It requires greater involvement of law enforcement prior to the scrap metal being sold because the sheriff is the gatekeeper, so it involves a higher level of involvement of law enforcement.
It allows the licensing process to increase the difficulty to sell restricted metals except by the proper owner, and it's a preemptive effort to reduce the sale of restricted metals prior to the sales at the scale and allows law enforcement to investigate a load prior to reaching the scrapyard. Common complaints that I've heard over the last two years among the scrap metal recyclers that they themselves are victims being stolen from themselves, and so even they are having a problem with people stealing from them, going in at night, taking items, throwing them over the fence, loading them up, bringing them back through the gate the next morning,
So even they are experiencing problems. They are required to assume the responsibility of enforcing laws by having to regulate it at the scale. And that if those convicted of theft, this is an idea that actually came from a predominant scrap metal yard in Pulaski County, that if those convicted of theft were not allowed to sell, it would address a significant portion of the problem. And then the fourth complaint is that legitimate scrap yards are disadvantaged by scrap yards that are either operating under the radar or not complying with the law, such as electronic recording.
Now, here's some key statistical information, and I think this is referenced to you in a map that was handed out to you. It had a bunch of dots or one of the other handouts, so everything I'm saying is supported by documentation that you've been given. Among three divisions in Little Rock, that would be the three divisions mentioned in brackets, there were a total of 492 averages. There were a total of 492 reports of theft of metals in 2012. Now, one report could include metal theft or multiple thefts,
such as the situation at Bowman Curve Shopping Center, where they went in and they just stripped out every air conditioner unit in the mall, but that was reported as one theft. So please expand your thinking that it's not just one unit. It can be multiple scenarios. I mean, it can be multiple hits under one report. In January alone of this year, there were 54. So if the trend holds true, it will run higher in 2013, projected to be 648 if the 2012 trend should continue.
There's a discrepancy of the number of yards with water permits, which is a requirement by ADEQ that you have to have a water permit if you're going to operate a scrapyard. There's a discrepancy of the numbers of the yards with water permits by ADEQ and the number of yards signed up with leads online. And what that means is there are folks out there that have got the water permit, but they don't have the Leeds Online equipment, and they're operating under the scales, or they're operating under the radar. Leeds Online reported that the scrapyards signed up, 30% of the scrapyards that are signed up,
30% did not report information on a timely basis. They did not download at night. Some of them went as long as a week before they downloaded it. And to the argument that the police need to do more, you can understand why it's hard for the police to do more if these individuals are not reporting on the basis that they're supposed to. Now, here are some of the key components of this law and why they are needed. It adjusts the Class D felony charge to a combined total value of $1,000 resulting from stolen metal and the value of damage created by the theft.
No longer is it just the value of the metal, but it's the damage created by the theft of the metal. Classic example, what happened this weekend with the railroad. It was like $220,000, I think. I could be wrong on that, but it was a significant amount of dollar of value of copper that was stolen off those engines. But the damage that was done was $5.5 million. So you can see in a smaller scenario where it's an air conditioner that is stolen, and maybe it's only valued at $750, but to replace it, it's going to cost somebody more than that.
Adds to non-ferrous metals list stainless steel and beer kegs. adds a list of theft offenses that would prohibit a seller from being able to obtain a license unless the sheriff of the county that the seller lives in gives an exception. And what that means is you'll see as I go through this that one of the factors of the law is that if you've got a conviction of theft as defined in the law, that you would be prohibited from having a license to be able to sell. It does allow for a sheriff, and I'll give you an example.
You've got somebody who's got a record of theft, a conviction of theft from 10 years ago. He's a good guy. He's just trying to dig his way out of a bad problem. He's out there working and scrapping. If he's got that relationship in the county where he lives, the sheriff can override that and be able to give them a permit to be able to go out and to scrap. So it tightens it, but it doesn't just lock the door on it. Now, the only two exceptions are if you've got a conviction of theft for scrap metal or you've got a conviction of buying stolen scrap metal. If those two convictions occur or show up on your record, you're out of the game.
It's a deal over. You'll not be able to buy, sell scrap. Sheriff can give an exception to someone convicted of theft of scrap or cannot, excuse me, what I just said. And then shoplifting is not factored in. So when we have conviction of theft, we're not talking about the shoplifters here. It requires verification of each person accompanying a load to be brought to the scrapyard. If you've got three people in the vehicle, they all have to be verified so that you can determine if one of those is a person who's got a conviction of theft and they are just using the driver to be able to fence the material.
It increases the fines of scrapyards for not downloading daily required information, and I'm giving you the page and where it's cited in the bill if you want to look it up, and I think you've got copies of the bill. Increases the fine for those who violate Section 7 by raising the fine from $500 to $1,000, raising it from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony and creates a Class D felony for anyone who operates a scrapyard without a license, and that includes a $10,000 fine. The reason for number six is because you've got legitimate scrapyards out there that are
playing by the rules and trying to do the right thing, and then you've got those that are under the radar screen as supported by the number of permits issued by ADQ and the number of people signed up for leads online and the numbers don't match. It's intended to protect the scrapyards that have the reputable reputation, and it's intended to flush out the other ones and put them out of business because theoretically, in my opinion, that's where a lot of the problem exists. Implementation of a licensure process for seller and buyer and provides for a private
citizen. The cost of the license to sell or to buy is just $20, and it's going to be paid to the sheriff's office, and it will be deposited to the communications facility and equipment fund which is an existing account that the $20 would go in. Specific areas applicable to all applicants, in other words, everybody has got to meet these criteria. All applicants must apply for license through the sheriff's department in the county where they live. Applicant who has theft of scrap metal or theft by receiving a scrap metal cannot obtain
the license. Applicants who have a theft offense cannot obtain a license unless an exclusion is granted by the sheriff's office. The license can be revoked if convicted of theft. It's valid for one year and would be entered on the electronic display screen for the scrap yards to be able to view. We have communicated with Leeds Online, and David, who is the lead person for Leeds Online, has assured me that this is very doable with no additional expense to the state. It would create a field on the Leeds Online screen so when the scrap metal buyer enters
that information, it will show the license that that person has so they can match it against the contents on the load to determine that that person has the legal right to be selling those kind of materials. There are three types of licenses. Class one license is issued to any person who is selling scrap metal that does not include non-ferrous material. So if you're just out there picking up washing machines and old metals and cleaning up the yards and doing that kind of stuff, you'd be able to do that with this license.
The Class II license, where we begin to have the most problematic issues, it's issued to any person who is selling scrap metal that is non-ferrous, that being farm equipment, HVAC, commercial construction equipment, automobiles, and whole or in part, and batteries. And it requires the applicant to have an HVAC license, plumbing license, electrical license, general contractor's license, or a 90-day conditional license from the sheriff's office. So if you're not a professional and you're dealing in copper and your sheriff knows you well enough
that they're willing to put their name on the line and say, I'm going to give you a 90-day provisional license because you're out there tearing down a house and it's got copper in it and I know where you are and I know what you're doing, it creates the opportunity for that individual to be able to achieve that purpose. The Class III license is issued to any person who is selling scrap metal related to railroad communication entities and public utilities. And this would require a letter from the related authorizing applicant to sell the scrap, sell that. In other words, you've got to have a letter from the railroad AT&T, Benton Utility, or somebody like that in order to present those kind of products at the scale.
How about the general public? If you're a renter, determined by whether you can produce a current property tax document and a driver's license with an address that matches, you will need to go to law enforcement to get the permit to sell. If you're a property owner, and you can see this on page 6, line 23, if the load contains no non-ferrous metals, it can be sold with the current property tax document and the driver's license with the address to match. The load contains non-ferrous metals, such as copper, et cetera, as that.
You'd have to go to law enforcement. You can go to your local law enforcement. You can go to your sheriff's department and obtain a permit to be able to sell that. Now, I just want to draw your attention that in one of the handouts that you should have been given, it's information that's provided from leads online. And one of the things you'll see is that that is a history of the ticket sales that occurred in the last year in the state of Arkansas. And you'll notice that for the number of ticket sales, one to ten, in other words, a person sold one to ten times in the state, that is the lion's share of the ticket holders.
And it breaks it down as to those that sold one to three, four to six, and then seven to ten. What you'll see on that is that the lion's share of people that are selling in this kind of situation, they're just personal property owners wanting to clean up their property, don't want to have to go get a permit. you'll see that the lion's share of them amounted in the one to three tickets. That means they only crossed the scale one to three times, and that's information provided directly from leads online. In fact, that's on your handout. I summarized it on the handout for you.
A person convicted of theft is required to take each load before law enforcement. This keeps the person who shows up with the personal property tax and the driver's license to match the address from being able to go out and to steal copper and then present it to the scale and do it without having to get licensure. License requirements to operate as a scrapyard. This is what applies to the scrapyards that want to buy. They must obtain a permit from the sheriff's office in the county that they're located in. That's only $20 per license.
They must have a fixed location with full complements of utilities. One of the problems is there are people out there operating in flea markets and on parking lots that you can take your scrap metal to. They'll give you a smaller amount than what they can take it. The problem is it's a way to fence stolen materials. You've got to have a fixed location in order to be able to buy. You have to have the valid permits from ADQ, which is a water permit. There can be no conviction of theft as defined in the law, and you have to have the ability to comply with the online monitoring system,
which currently is leads online. So these are all designed to give the presence of a permanent fixed location instead of just operating under the radar screen. Here are some general questions, and I'm about to bring it in for a landing for questions. How will the public access the license? It will be available at the Sheriff's Office or it will be available online through the Association of Arkansas Counties, who's volunteered to host the application for both selling permits and for buying permits.
How will the Sheriff's Office keep track? I'm sorry. How will the Sheriff's Office keep license authentic? The license will have to be submitted by the person wanting the license. The sheriff's office will have a raised stamp, similar like a notary public, that they will stamp it for authenticity. And the license number will be entered into the electronic online system, so the number matches to the person the license is issued to. So when they come across the scales, they'll see the license and they'll see the number, and the person at the scale will be able to look and see in that field on their Leads Online screen
that this person is authorized to sell that kind of material. How will the license get renewed? The license date will be entered on the license when it is purchased, and that will also be on the screen. So if somebody shows up to a scrapyard with a load and the license is out of compliance, then the operator of the scrapyard would have to turn that person away. A good scrapyard operator will tell a person that comes, hey, your license is about to expire. You need to go get it renewed. Who is developing the license? License, legislative research, we're working to get that developed.
And then how will the bill impact scrapyards on the border? Citizens in Arkansas will not be impacted because I've already covered that in the content. Citizens in surrounding states who sell in Arkansas will require to get a license issued by the sheriff in the county of the scrapyard at the closest point of entry. I'm going to tell you right now, in the bill, that point is not in there. I'll have to come back with an amendment because that came to surface about 10 o'clock last night. And I realize that if somebody lives in a surrounding state, and I think Mississippi is the only state surrounding us that has leads online,
we have to do something to allow people to bring their materials in from out of state. They would have to go to the sheriff's department at the point of entry closest to the state, and then it would be on the duty of that sheriff in Arkansas to contact the sheriff in that county and make sure that person is a reputable person. I'm going to tell you a side note. So if this bill gets through and clears, my intent is to take it on as a personal project to develop a regional coalition of surrounding states so that hopefully we can all come up to the same level of laws and make it tougher for people to be able to sell stolen metal.
I gave you a long list of people that are supporting this bill. I'd like you to take note of that list. And then there are some testimonies at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to bring. And I've advised those that are giving testimony, I've tried to give you a little bit of a sample from each one of the fields. I've advised them that we need to be, you know, brief and to the point for the sake of time. And I'll be glad to answer any questions at the direction of the chair. All right. Representative Williams,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:36
And thank you, Mr. Hammer. Let me first
commend you for your work on this bill and for the, I think, 11 or maybe 10 members who
are new to the committee. Let me give you a little brief history of this issue. In 2009, I sponsored legislation that was co-sponsored by 64 House members, 15 Senate members, passed without a single objection to regulate or to provide some protection for those who've been victims of scrap theft, like myself,
in restoring my house in downtown Little Rock. Right before I moved in, someone stole the entire HVAC system only for a couple bucks' worth of copper. And I heard repeated stories like this throughout the city and particularly in rural areas, farmers' pivots being taken from irrigation systems and so on and so forth. So we worked hard to implement a program, brought leads online in that had some impact. But let me say that then in 2011, Representative Hammer made some amendments to the bill that we passed in 2009,
and this is why term limits is so important and sometimes will have unintended consequences. What Representative Hammer did was pretty good, but one thing that it removed from the bill was the prohibition from someone who is convicted of scrap theft from being able to having their purchase delayed for three days and not being allowed to take cash payments. That was in the bill in 2009, but it's been taken out through substantive amendments. And so sometimes you really have to know the history of what's happening before you know really to get on board. And I say that because I piggybacked on what Senator then Representative, now Senator Malek, did.
So it's important that we have some continuity. And so I've been with this issue for a long time. But it pains me somewhat today to say that, and I've told Representative Hammer this, I am opposed to this bill because I think it's now going a little far. I think we have to be careful when we put labels on people like Democrat, Republican, or conservative, liberal, because I find myself here as a Democrat. My colleague, Representative Hammer, who worked together before, as a Republican, I'm here arguing for less government, less regulation, and less taxes or fees, because let's see what this bill does.
And I'm going to get to some questions in a minute if you indulge them, Mr. Chairman. This bill increases government by creating a system where the sheriffs are going to be involved, and we're going to at least add six new sheriffs, So we're going to at least expand government by six. We're going to significantly ask the government to get in the lives of private citizens, and I'll talk a little bit more about that. And putting a lot of burden on the sheriffs, and I know my sheriff in Plastic County, where we have the most tickets, he doesn't even support this. We're increasing regulation to a point where I think we're going to discourage legitimate scrapping.
What concerns me is there are parts of my district where people who would rather just dump this stuff as opposed to scrap it, and then we create a system where we've got a city that's really not as clean as I'd like to see. And so that concerns me because we're – scrapping is a legitimate business, and we need to support folks who are doing legitimate business. And I think we're putting a lot of burden on folks who are doing things right, and there are some bad actors out there that we need to really work on trying to figure out how we handle those. Then it imposes a fee or a tax, whatever you want to call it, an additional $20, and that's renewed every year by both the buyer and the seller.
So if I want to sell my little small scrap, I've got to pay $20, as I understand it, to go and get $5 worth of scrap. Well, that's just not worth my time. I'm just going to not do that. And I can't give it to somebody else, the junk man who's going to pick up things, because he's got to have some kind of way to know that I actually gave it to him, and he's got to be able to authorize that. So just a little history. But let me get to my questions, and I'll be as brief as I can. And I've gone by section. Section 1, Mr. Hammer, one thing that concerns me, Section 1 creates a presumption of guilt for someone who has one of these non-fares metals like me in my back of my Ford F-150.
If I can't tell you, if I can't, I think the terminology is unexplained possession. I'm not sure what that means or control. So if I'm controlling scrap that may have come for even my house, a policeman can stop me. I'm presumed to be guilty. This is very similar to, let's say, a shoplifter. You go into a store and you put something in your pocket and you walk out, or you're presumed to have stolen that if you don't have a receipt for it. That's, in my mind, a very different situation. Then that's a rebuttal presumption.
I show you the receipt, then I didn't shoplift. Here you create a presumption of guilt that I can't rebut,
I guess, unless I go to court. Because I don't know, if I can't satisfy a policeman, I guess, that that's really my hot water heater, then I guess I'm arrested. Is that how I read that,
this presumption of guilt? Because, you know, in law school you're presumed innocent. But here you're presuming that I'm guilty if I'm controlling scrap and I can't satisfy, I guess, this policeman's idea that it's, you know, this unexplained possession.
I don't know how that's a very loose term that gives me some concern.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:34
Can you help me with that? Sure. And first of all, I want to thank you for
co-sponsoring that legislation in 2011 with me that you referenced a while ago. And I appreciate your co-sponsorship on that. Second of all, I'd like to, with regards to, I'm going to go direct to your question and opportunity to respond to some of your earlier comments, I will. The presumption is removed by the fact that you have a license on you that if you are a regular operator that's doing this on a regular basis,
which if you looked at the numbers that I gave you, the smaller the numbers, the greater the indicator that the folks that fall in that category are actually out there doing this every day for a living or they're trying to make a living for this every day. So all you've got to have on you is that license, just like if a policeman stopped and asked you, where is your driver's license, or you're out hunting and they say, where is your hunting license? It's easily resolved just by having that. Let me give
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:29
you a scenario. This is a real, real scenario.
My wife, without my – well, I shouldn't say that. My wife built an outdoor kitchen. You sure you don't
Speaker 29
26:40
want to change that? Yeah, my wife – we built an outdoor kitchen that we wanted
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:45
very much. You're presumed, but anyway. And we had an outdoor faucet, and I forgot during the winter to
turn off the water of that faucet, and that stainless steel faucet expanded and cracked. I thought it was because of the outdoor faucet. I know how to do that.
So I called the company and said, clearly, I've only had this couple months to do this work. And they said, well, we're going to send you another one. So they just sent me another one. Well, I'm waiting until you get warm before I take it off and put a new one on. But when I take that off and throw that
back in my 40.15 and drive down the street, please stop me. I'm not a licensed plumber. But clearly that was mine. I don't have the receipt for that fixture. How do I prove? And let me say, you know, there are some people that that's a real concern for, that, you know, that this is a real possibility they may be stopped. And I've been followed before for doing something, nothing at all.
And so I'm really concerned about who may be stopped when they're legitimately driving around with their own faucet. And I don't have an HVAC license, and I don't have the receipt from six months ago when I purchased that faucet. How do I handle that situation? I would
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:51
say you handle that situation by explaining to the officer, here's my driver's
license, here's where I live, and this is why I have this. And, you know, I think that you should be able to, that you would be able to explain to the officer. And if you give a legitimate reason, I don't particularly see that as a problem.
Now, I'm not going to say that there's not some people out there that may take advantage of that situation in law enforcement, but they can do that in any area of the law if that's the type of person
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:18
they are. I'm going to have to cut you off because I've got a bunch, but here's the problem with that. That required explanation violates my right to remain silent. So I'm going to
go to jail unless I explain to him that that's my faucet. So that's a problem right there because that clearly violates just my conscience right to remain silent. I shouldn't have to tell someone or the law enforcement, if I don't want to, that that's my faucet that my wife said we should have.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
28:43
Can I ask you this leniency? There will be a member of law enforcement up here in just a minute to give testimony, and we
can direct that question to them because I think having them
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:54
at the table can help address that question. Well, I'm happy to hold that. Let's go to Section 2. In Section 2, you attribute to the person who receives the scrap that's being sold the criminal activity of someone they have no knowledge of. So let's say that person who stole my HVAC before I moved in, that caused me a lot of damage. That was a $5,000 HVAC for about, I don't know how much.
Let's say they got $950 worth of copper. They probably got $45. But let's say they got $950. They did me $4,000 worth
of damage or whatever they got. Then they go and scrap that copper, and the copper dealer gives them $5, $10, whatever. Because it cost me $4,000, the scrap dealer only gave them just a couple of bucks. Now you're holding the scrap dealer for the sins and the criminal activity
of the person who stole my unit. Is that how I read that? Because you combine those two, you combine the cost of the destruction to me, $4,000,
so he's already over the $1,000 limit. He's already subject now to zero to six years in jail with a class D felony with the fact that the scrap dealer accepted this unit. Maybe he knew or maybe he didn't know, but whether that's not really in
your bill, it doesn't matter. If he accepts it and pays for it or if he doesn't even pay for it, he's guilty because you assume the liability of the
person who actually stole it. So I'm now, as scrap
dealer, being held responsible for the criminal activity of someone who stole my unit.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
30:21
Is that what you really intend to do in this bill? What I intended to do in the bill and what I think may be supported in the previous two bills where the original language has not been replaced, what we've done is combined the price. We've combined the cost of what the scrap material was sold for at the scale, but the law enforcement, the law side, can calculate in what the damage was. An example of that is they go into a new house, they rip out all the wire copper, they go to the scrapyard, and they might sell it for, you know, $100. But the damage that they've done to the house far exceeds that.
In my way of understanding the law, which I'm not a lawyer, but my way of understanding the law is that the scrapyard would have a bigger problem and that they've bought materials that are stolen to the value that they gave the person for it. But the person who created the damage is not only responsible for what they get, the $20, $30 from the scrapyard, but they also
have added onto them the damage that they created in taking the wire. But that's not what your
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:19
bill says. Your bill, this is actually in a section that's titled, Theft by Receiving Scrap Metal.
The only person that could receive scrap metal would be the dealer who is giving the money for the scrap that's being sold. So you're charging the dealer who receives the scrap metal with the sins and the crimes of the person who actually stole it, and they may not have any knowledge of it or may not even do it. Then I would argue this
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
31:40
point, two things. Number one, I thank you that you agree with me in theory that while there may be a
flaw in the bill that we might have to go back and amend, that you're not disagreeing that there ought to be a combined effort for the cost of the materials plus the damage to the property that's been done, number one.
Number two, you know, at some point, and given the severity of this, the scrapyards have to accept responsibility themselves, whether it's for the $20 or $30 value of the copper or whether it's the damage that's being created. And that's the integral part of why we need to have the licensure aspect in there is that it gives a greater amount of coverage to the scrapyards that if somebody shows up with that license, the duty of it falls back on the sheriff who is the gatekeeper to giving the license, and it brings equal responsibility to everybody. Let me
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:25
say I would agree with your points like this.
One, the combined amount, I agree, the combined amount of the damage plus whatever they get should be held against the person who actually stole it. Not the
theft shouldn't be held against the seller, I'm sorry, the buyer, the scrap yard. And right now in the law, if a scrap dealer knowingly accepts stolen scrap, that scrap dealer can go to jail for up to six years. That's in the law right now. So I think we're – let me
Speaker 40
32:55
just conclude. May I ask your question?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:58
Yeah. To me, the key word then is knowingly. Whether they take $30 worth of scrap metal or whether it's $30 worth of scrap metal with $15,000 worth of
damage, the key word is knowingly. They assume the responsibility at that point that they accept it that they knowingly did it. So I think that negates the other argument just – Well, I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
33:17
don't think so because the knowingly – you're right. If we can prove the knowingly, it doesn't matter what amount.
And that's why I guess I would say that provision that you have is completely unnecessary, and it would cause someone who didn't commit a crime to be guilty of the criminal activity of someone they have no knowledge of.
So I would say that I don't think it's a good policy for us to write such a policy into our current statutes to hold me accountable for this crime of someone I don't even know. And I think the way it was drafted and is currently in the bill is sufficient to handle that situation. Because under a lot of folks, I'll move to Section 4. Section 4, you list a number of crimes under your definition of theft. we redefine the term theft. Theft in here, you cite the criminal mischief,
which is 538.203 and 204 of the code. That concerns me, too. Here's an example of why. Because under your definition of theft, right here,
some young college student who gets drunk and bashes somebody else's property could be guilty of criminal mischief. Somebody who gets into a fight and they tear up some property could be guilty of criminal mischief. and under your bill, that person couldn't scrap metal because of your legislation. And I don't see any relationship to someone who gets in a bar fight or who gets drunk and destroys something
with scrapping. I don't see any connection there.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:36
Can you help me explain that for me? Sure, two thoughts on that. Number one, what they steal
in the measure of scrap may not be enough by itself, so incorporating all those things would create the opportunity that there is scrap metal involved that does not necessarily become the lead reason why they were charged for that offense. That is one way of addressing it. And the law does allow for people that are under that situation to be able to get a license to buy, and that's part of the 90-day clause that's written in that the sheriff has the discretion to issue a license with the exception of two things, direct offenses that are related to theft of scrap metal
or purchasing of stolen scrap metal. So there is leniency that is built into the law to address that issue, but it's going to be down to the issue of the sheriff issuing the license under a 90-day conditional license. I'm glad you went there because I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
35:24
pointed out, one, a Fifth Amendment to the Constitution violation. Let me point out an equal protection violation here. So let's say the sheriff decides to give me, someone who got into a bar fight 10 years ago,
a 90-day permit or even a license to scrap metal, but they don't give that same permission to Representative Steele, who also I got in a fight with 10 years ago.
So that's an equal protection violation of our Constitution because we're similar people being treated dissimilar. So there's a second constitutional problem with this bill. Let me move on and ask you a question about Section 4 of the bill. It requires not only me, the person who wants to sell the scrap, but the person that's riding with me to also go through the same fingerprints, ID, etc. So when I make my 14-year-old son, who I do this from time to time, help me clean up, and he has a driver's permit. He's not driving without a license yet, and I take him down, and I take my scrap.
So now my 14-year-old son has to be fingerprinted, has to give his ID, has to do all this also. Is that really what you intend to do because he's riding with me when I'm making him clean
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:22
up the yard? Well, actually, that's covered, I think, in another part of the law where anybody under 18 can't sell scrap metal.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:28
Exactly. He's not selling scrap metal. I am selling scrap metal. But since he's in the car with me, your bill would make him subject to all the same requirements as someone who is
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:37
selling scrap. What the bill is intended to do is keep you from using your 14-year-old son to fence scrap metal by you being the one who has the conviction of theft.
And because minors do not have that on their record and we can't access it as I understand it, you could, as a parent,
utilize your child to help commit a crime, and that's why it's written in there. I understand what you're trying
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:56
to do, but that's not what the bill does. And under your bill, if a scrap dealer did not get my 14-year-old son's thumbprint, his license,
all the requirements, take his picture and all that, then they would be guilty of a violation, which could put them in jail for six years, the way the bill is written right now. Would you agree with that? No, I would not. Well, I promise you that's what it says.
Because it says you have to take the information of the person who is with you. And so if my 14-year-old son is with me, how can you get around that? There's no exception here
for someone who's my son. It says anybody who's riding with me. What about page 4, line 10? I don't
understand. That's a parent or guardian who's been convicted of theft. So I'm not, I just gave you a scenario with me. I've never been convicted of theft.
So if I were convicted of theft and I tried to get my 14-year-old son to do it, I understand why you might want to do it. But I am a law-abiding citizen who has a 14-year-old son who's never in my life been in trouble, want to scrap my torn-up stainless steel outdoor faucet and make my 14-year-old son go with me. you're requiring my 14-year-old son to get his learnings permit to take his fingerprint and his picture because that's what your bill does right now. That may have been unintended consequences, but it's in the statute, and there's another point that I think needs to be looked at in this legislation.
And maybe you didn't realize that, and I'll move on because I want to be quick. Let me go to Section 5. You impose fines for not reporting the information quickly. Who imposes that fine, and
how is that collected? That would be imposed by local
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:37
law enforcement, who is currently investigating to the ability that they have time to do so, the law now, so they
would be able to take care of that.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
38:45
And how would they know that a scrap dealer did not report by 5 o'clock or by close of business?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:51
Who's going to let them know that? That would be their responsibility to monitor, as they have to do now, to the time that they have the ability to do it based
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
39:01
on leads online. Okay, so the sheriff's office is going to have to call Leeds Online or look online to see if that report was
done by 5 o'clock or by the time my business closed, and if not, then that's when
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:11
the penalty is imposed? Penalty would be imposed at any time that the sheriff's department, after they closed business at their discretion, would decide that it's a violation.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
39:20
Okay, and so what happens in a situation where I accurately report to Leeds Online,
but it's not uploaded to Leeds Online on time? What happens then? I
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:27
think that's where the communication between the scrapyards and the sheriff's department, if you have justifiable reason for why not, such as electricity goes down and you don't have a backup generator, if you have the opportunity to present to law enforcement reasonable cause for why you couldn't do it, I would expect law enforcement wouldn't implement or would maybe give a warning ticket if it was something outside of that. That latitude and discretion is at their call. But under your bill,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
39:49
it doesn't provide for that. And I wasn't speaking of a situation where I lost power. I was speaking in a situation where I actually reported before 5 o'clock,
but it was Leeds Online who did not do what they're supposed to do by a certain period of time. Under this statute, I could see where the scrap dealer could be liable for
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:06
Leeds Online's activity. In the event that that happened, you're going to have an opportunity in court and you could present that evidence, and this is intended to weed out the 30% that are not recording currently and help bring the penalties to the level because it makes it difficult for law enforcement to do their job that the scrapyards are not downloading, and the information provided to me by Leeds Online, it's not that Leeds Online was not doing their part.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
40:28
It's that the scrapyards were not doing theirs. And I appreciate that. And, again, I think this goes to
where we're squashing a bug with a sledgehammer, not with something much smaller. I think we're going overboard and really hurting folks who may not be doing this. Let me move on to Section 7. We're increasing a penalty, which is going to cause for jail time. I don't see a
physical impact. Is there a physical impact here as our rules require that there be a physical impact? There's not a physical impact. I would say that our rules require before it comes before committee if there's going to be. There is a physical impact.
Is it on there? Okay. Well, I guess I hadn't gotten it.
What is the impact then? I'll get back to that because I hadn't read it. I'll come back. I won't delay. Let
me move on to Section 8. Just my observation that we're creating a lifetime ban from someone from scrapping. is that the policy that we want really no chance
for rehabilitation somebody may have violated the law in the past ten years later they want to do better but they've got a lifetime ban they can't do that, can't scrap forever is that really a good policy you think?
In my opinion yes Let's go to your different licenses that you have am I understanding that I've got to pay twenty bucks to scrap my outdoor fixture that's broke that my wife wanted me to buy, so I've got to pay $20 to actually properly scrap that. Is that right?
Because you added stainless steel to that. Is that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:56
not correct? No, sir. If it's on the list,
the scenarios are if you are doing something in your home and it's you personally doing it, of which you fall in a very small category of the people that do that on a repetitious basis, so this is not going to be a high inconvenience, You would, if it's non-fares, you take that along with your property, your proof that you have your current property tax on there that shows you've got some interest in that property with the address that matches your driver's license. You go to Scrapyard, say, I'm an individual. Here's my two required pieces of information by law, and I want to sell this. But what if it is fair?
It is fair. You go by law enforcement. It can be your local law
enforcement. It can be a sheriff. You can go by law enforcement and obtain a permit from them and be able
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
42:41
to take that and present it. So I've got to pay
$20 to scrap my broken? There's no charge for that permit? No, sir. Okay. And let me ask you, the Class 2 license can be renewed for $5. Why is that for Class 2 and not for
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
42:57
Class 1? That is $5 for the 90-day. That goes back to that 90-day clause that you don't have the professional license,
and if $5 is the equivalent to $20 a year, so it's no higher than what you would pay in
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
43:10
the first place. Okay, let me direct you to
Section 8, Lines 2 through 9. I just don't know what that says. Can you help me understand what the intent of that
is? What page is that, please? I'm sorry, Page 7. I'm sorry, Section 8, Page 7.
You're on page 7. Yes, sir. At the very top of the page, lines
2 through 9, a general public permit which allows a private citizen to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:01
sell items except. Okay. I think that just summarizes what I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
44:05
just said. Okay, so if I have my driver's license and the current tax documents, I don't need to get a license?
If I don't scrap often, is that what that says? If
Speaker 64
44:19
you don't scrap often. I'm just doing it once or twice a year. You fall in
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:27
the category. I'm paraphrasing or I'm giving you a general summation here that based on the numbers provided by Leeds Online, If you're the casual person who is a property owner and you are wanting to get rid of your washer, dryer, your hot water tank, those kind of things, all you've got to do is show up, the non-fares materials, something other than non-fares. You just show up with your property tax from your current ones and your driver's license, and you would be able to access and you would be able to sell.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
44:52
I go to the sheriff and get some kind of – I just
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:56
go to the scrapyard. Not for that item. Now, here's the reason, the overall picture of why the law is crafted the way it is.
Law enforcement is like one of the officers said in a meeting the other day. They just, you know, they sit and they have to look at thousands of pictures. They have to look at hundreds of pictures a day. And part of the way this law is designed and what it's designed to achieve is that through the licensing process, it will narrow the time that the officers have to spend looking at those pictures.
because if you were an individual, for example, that you were making five, six, seven trips a day to the yard and they're recording your information as under the current law, you would be red flagged. That's my term. But you would be identified as a high probable source, and law enforcement could take the time to look at the reason. Why are you coming across the scale five, six, seven times a month without a license? What is it that's creating you to do that, and why don't you have the license? So it will bring you to the surface as far as where they could pay attention
and see if there's a problem there. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
45:59
I don't know if I heard an answer to my question. Let me pose it this way. What do I do? Because the section that I'm talking about, I think I understand what you're saying, but, again, I'm going back to my broken faucets outside that cracked in the winter. I want to scrap that. I've never scrapped before, but I want to scrap that. What do I do? Do I go to my sheriff's office and get a license, or
do I go straight to a scrap dealer with my tax documents and my driver's license or whatever? If you're a non-Ferris individual?
No, it's Ferris. It's stainless steel. Stainless steel. My faucet is stainless
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:31
steel. Well, if you want to take the time to go to the scrapyard for $3 or $4 like that, you'd go by law enforcement, ask for a permit to
sell it, and take it to the scrapyard. And when I used
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
46:39
to ask for a permit, what does that cost me? Nothing. Nothing. Okay, so I don't have to pay anything for that? No. I just got to go by the sheriff's office first. Or local law enforcement. Or
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:49
local law enforcement. Okay. Of which those are going to be online, so before you leave your house, you can print it out and have it with you. I
can print out what's it. You can print out the permit to be able to sell that and have a law enforcement officer stamp it,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
47:01
and you can go to the scales with it. Okay. Let me ask you, you gave us some stats from Leeds Online, and they do great work, and I appreciate the
work they do and have enjoyed working with them and commend them for what they've done. And some time back, I think what we're doing, we're continuing to pile on and pile on. We don't know what's yet working. We know some things are broken and we need to fix it. But one thing, we've not let a whole lot of time go by to see, you know, how we adjust here. How many prosecutions are you aware of have we had since 2009 and then since 2011 when we changed the law?
You've given us the number of tickets, but do you have any idea how
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:44
many prosecutions? Law enforcement, when they come to the table and talk, they may be able to give you a better example or a capture, you know, a picture to give you a better idea of that. But as far as the number of convictions, they are not near as many as the number of thefts. And part of the reason is because when the loads go across the scale, the scrapyards are not taking good, clearly identifiable pictures, et cetera. You know, so there is a problem to get the level of convictions because of the way the current law is written,
Although it's doing some good, it's not doing enough good. That's part of the reasoning behind the licensing process is so that it will give law enforcement the ability to isolate problematic areas easier and spend their time investigating those instead of having to sift through so much other stuff to get to where the real problem is. And I don't want to,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
48:28
I mean, law enforcement, they do a great job. They've got rape, robbery, murder, a lot of things to deal with. Do you think part
of the reason we haven't had as many convictions is because sometimes it just doesn't rise to the level of some of the more serious crimes, and not that this is not serious,
but it doesn't rise to the level of when someone's killed or murdered or aggravated assault. Is that just they're overworked? Is that part of the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:52
concern, you think? I would answer the question by saying that, you know, if you have a choice of
calls that come into the system and you've only got five deputies in the county or so many law enforcement officers on the street at any given time, that if it stacks up behind murder and all the other, you know, horrid crimes, that theft is going to be the last one to be responded to. And the other problem is they're dealing with it after the fact,
and that's part of the beauty of this law. It helps us deal with it before the fact by going to the source of the problem or helping eliminate some of the source of what's causing the problem. And so I think that law enforcement, you know, can only do so much. That's why a law like this will help them be able to do more with the same amount they have. Of course, it's a pitch from an appropriation bill, too. If we get state police on board, they can bring a level of support dedicated to a task force that would help
local law enforcement as well. Go to the hot
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
49:42
spots. Again, Mr. Hammer, I'm going to close because I've dominated the conversation.
I commend you because I think what you said is the most important thing, that it's a law enforcement issue. I, too, have an appropriation bill asking for law enforcement to give some more money to state police for them to crack down on our current laws. I think the current situation is a pretty good situation. We just need more enforcement, and we need more resource for the local law enforcement and our state police to actually enforce the laws as opposed to bringing additional regulation and rules and increasing the penalty, expanding the government, and imposing taxes on legitimate businesses because that's who's following the law. I think we need to do it through law enforcement, and I would ask you to join with me as we have in the past
to work on getting some money to state police and other law enforcement officers to try to crack down because I think we've got an enforcement problem, and I'm concerned that I've articulated at least two constitutional problems with this bill, an equal protection violation and a Fifth Amendment violation. And so it concerns me that this bill, as written, is unconstitutional, and I think it's unnecessary. But I think we do have a problem, and I commend you for your efforts to continue to work on this. And I think we should do that through resources to law enforcement to help them work on helping to bring some people to justice
when they do this very egregious crime. And it's hit me personally, so I'm with you on that because it cost me a fortune to have to replace that HVAC for about 45 books worth
Speaker 75
50:58
of copper. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I did not
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:01
hear a question of that, and I would like to ask respectfully to respond to a comment that he just made, if you would, please. Five. Thank you. Number one, I didn't say that law enforcement's the problem. Law enforcement, you can put all the cops you want out on the street, and the thieves are going to figure out how to get around where they are.
That's part of the problem now. Number two, whether it's constitutional or not is a matter of opinion. It's a matter of opinion. And I know there's a lot of lawyers around this table, and I respect that. But we know that in any situation, such as we've dealt with as a legislative body, that if a law is put on the books and it's unconstitutional, somebody can sue and challenge it. But whether it is or not is reserved to the Attorney General's opinion, in my opinion.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
51:47
Thank you. I appreciate the equal protection violations, the constitutional problem that I've spotted.
It was my esteemed colleagues, either Representative Steele or Shepard, who spied the Fifth Amendment problem. So you're right, it is. It's just not my opinion, though. I think that's the opinion of a couple of different lawyers at
the table. Thank you. And, committee, just so you know, it's the call of the chair, especially on a special order, to allow everybody leeway on asking their questions on an important issue. So everybody will be afforded the time that they want to ask questions. So, you know, everybody on the committee.
All right, we've got Representative McElroy. You're recognized
for a question. Mr. Hammer, Representative Hammer, I want to commend you because I realize that this is a terrible situation. I'm in the farm community, and my neighbor had $10,000 worth of wire and stole off his grain bins and probably sold it for $50 or $75. But I'm a simple man, and I always try to oversimplify everything. But would you not agree that it would be easier to license buyers than try to license all the seller?
In my district, we've probably got 2,000 outlaws, but we only have two dealers. And I've got a real estate license and an auctioneer license. And we're licensed by a state board. And it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. What happens is that we pay in our fees to have a license to sell real estate and auction. And what happens if you've got a license, they can take your license from you if you don't play by the rules.
We go before the board and they can fine us or they can put us out of business. And right now there's no license. Me and Bubba and Skillet can start us a scraps thing today. And if I'm making $9,000 a day, and that's the problem. There's a lot of money in scrap right now. If I'm making $9,000 a day, and you find me $1,000, I still make $8,000 profit. And I said, I didn't know he was a crackhead. I was just buying that. But I really think that if we go and let the dealers regulate their sale and start them a commission,
And then that, you know, the simple point of it is that people wouldn't be stealing it if somebody wasn't buying it. And most of the dealers, I'm going to say the majority of them, are good, honest people trying to do the right thing. But we keep putting more laws on them that they can't be enforced. And then you've got the guys that are not so good, and they're competing with the guys trying to do the right thing. and i think you know to me this was really confusing and and you know it's a it's a
if you do and done if you don't kind of deal we need the people to get rid of that scrap iron in our county there's all kinds of eyesores out there and there's a lot of people that are trying not to get on welfare because they want to haul that scrap iron and make money on it but if we regulate it so much, you know, it's going to discourage them from doing that. And then on the other hand, you know, they might have to go on welfare because they can't go and haul the scrap iron.
And I just think it would be simpler to control, say, 100 dealers in Arkansas than make a law for 10,000 sellers trying to license them. And I know the sheriffs do a great job. They do. But they've got their hands. I was a county judge for 20 years, and they got their hands so full of stuff trying to do things. And Representative Hammer, don't get me wrong. You know, I went to the meeting with you. You're the only one that's training. Well, not the only one. I bet everybody at this table would agree that this is something that we need to take care of.
We just kind of disagree on what would be the best thing that would work. But I would really like to see you. I like the part in there where you had the license for the dealers. But if it goes to a commission, part of it, you know, they don't want to lose their license because they can't do business. You know, it's kind of like a doctor or a lawyer. You don't play by the rules, you don't be a doctor or a lawyer in Arkansas. And I think that might be the best suggestion. And with that, I'm not trying to disrespect you in any way because I went to the meeting with you and I'm all for this.
We've got to do it. But I really think that it would be a lot simpler if we just started with it on the people that are buying it and not on the seller's end. And I know there's a question in there somewhere. Do you agree that or would you entertain the idea of maybe pushing it toward that direction that we start maybe a commission that would kind of regulate our dealers? And I think the dealers, some of the dealers have talked to me and said that, you know, that they don't like trying to compete with outlaws.
They want to do the right thing. And that will kind of weed out some competition that's unsavory and, you know, maybe just fix this. But now I'll shut up and let you answer my question. Would you agree? Not with everything,
Chair
Unverified
57:13
no. Well, I knew that. I didn't agree with everything
I said either. Representative Nichols, did you have
a question? Representative Gillum, you're recognized for a question
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
57:28
Thank you, Mr. Chair Representative Hammer, I too just want to thank you for taking this on I know this has consumed a tremendous amount of your time and energies and you've, I think, been very diligent over the last couple of years in trying to address this problem You mentioned a couple of things at the outset of your particular testimony here today that I wanted to kind of go back in time with you a little bit and see if you could help walk the committee through this and maybe clarify a little bit.
You were discussing law enforcement's kind of their burden that they've already got, and I know that our other representatives or colleagues have mentioned this earlier too,
just how stretched thin they are and everything, and you were talking about your appropriation bill and how that was going to hopefully add some boots on the ground,
so to speak, to help deal with this. My question is, in listening to all of this so far
today that popped up in my head was, if they're stretched thin as it is now, how exactly will this particular bill, if it is passed into law, stop the actual crime itself?
Because I know that's what we're actually after is the crime itself. How will we deter criminal activity with this bill if everybody knows that law enforcement is stretched so thin? I mean, they might not be able to – it might take them five or six times to find the right dealer to buy it from them and that kind of stuff. But I'm after actually solving the criminal activity side of it. So if you could please maybe address that and walk us through how this bill, given the dynamics that we have with law enforcement now,
will be able to deter the activity in and of itself. Great question, and I
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
59:18
would bring you back to the comments I made earlier when I did have my opening comments, that one of the key principles of this bill is that it was requested from a scrapyard themselves that we take a look, and their comment was that if we would take the folks that are thieves out of the picture, it would eliminate a lot of the problem. So one of the key components of this bill is that we go in and through the licensure process, we would be able to remove that segment out of the picture because they wouldn't be licensed to sell.
And going back to a comment that was made earlier, yes, it is partly the responsibility of the scrapyards, but to their defense, part of what this law would help achieve is that if somebody did show up at their gate to sell material to them, they will know that they have already been by the sheriff in one form, shape, fashion, or another, and the loads that they would be receiving will have come under the eyes of the sheriff's department, either in the form of the permitting or the individual load if they don't have the proper licensure.
So in answer to your question, the way it's going to help is it's going to bring the problem to a surface before the load actually crosses the scale. That's part of what escapes me as to why the scrapyards would not want to get behind this bill because it provides an extra layer of support between them and the load to make sure that the loads that they are buying are actually loads that are for the best we humanly can do, as legal as possible. Okay. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a follow-up? You might. Thank you.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:00:50
Along those lines, one of the things that I
haven't really heard discussed here very much, you did briefly talk about the permit process the license excuse me the license process the race seal things like that with my background and and coming into this legislature you know one of the things that I have seen for years and years and years that is extremely prevalent in Arkansas is kind of the the side market or underneath the underbelly market concerning documents
in Arkansas, how can we rest assured that the document that's being shown to the scrap yards is a legitimate actual document? Because we do have a multi-million dollar industry in Arkansas when it comes to forged documents and things. So I'm wondering, is there a scenario to protect the scrap dealers in that scenario to where they're protected if the document that is shown to them is proven to not actually be legal?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:58
Well, I think that would be part of what the court system is for, that if something happened that that did occur, that the scrapyard would be able to, in the legal process that is afforded, to defend themselves and any reasonable evidence presented would be considered. But I will say and bring back to you that when the license is issued by the sheriff, that that information is going to be given to leads online who will, in turn, and they are creating an additional field on the screen, as I mentioned earlier, and they will be able to put the license number up to the seller's information.
So when they pull up their driver's license, they'll see in a box on the field that this person has a Level 3 license to be able to sell that railroad iron that they brought in. Again, part of the beauty of the law is that if the scrapyard pulls up their information, it does not have that license, and the guy does show up with metal from the railroad, That would be the alarm system to the scrapyard why they shouldn't buy that. Also mentioned that like a notary public, the raised seal that would be affixed to the permit
when it's issued by the sheriff's department would help create authenticity. So between that, that information being recorded on the Leeds Online system that the scrapyards would have immediate access to should help reduce that from happening. Not say it's not going to happen, but
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:03:20
should help reduce it. Okay, and I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. One last question, then I'll shut
up for at least a little while. So in this scenario we were just talking, though, the actual – if the scrap dealer goes to trial and wins their case, okay,
is there a provision that allows for them to recoup their court costs and attorney's fees? because if they're – as I read this now, they're still out all those court costs and out all the attorney's fees and everything in order to prove their innocence on this. And that's kind of – I'm wondering, is that – did I miss it? Is it in there? Because I'm a little concerned that they may be out $50,000 or $60,000 to prove their innocence on this
with no way to recoup it. And that just may be a little sticking point with me, but is that addressed? Do you know? I would address that by
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:19
saying it would be very rare that that would occur. Not that it couldn't occur, but there are all situations in life involving all of our laws where somebody may have to go to court and defend themselves, and they're not going to have any way of recouping that money, and there is no method assigned. Okay. Fair enough, fair enough. I'm just trying
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:04:34
to make sure I didn't miss it. Okay, thank you. However, just to expound on Representative Gilman's question,
if somebody shows up and submits to one of those, and they're charged with violation and criminal penalties, the person with that fake license is gone. So they have, I mean, that person's going to disappear. And so then you're putting the scrap dealers in the position of somebody with a
forged license being gone, and they're charged with the crime, and that could never, may not ever find that person. So that's a big concern for me. May I respond to that? Yes, sir. how could
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05:07
law enforcement charge them for something if it was on the basis that they produced evidence it was forged they don't have evidence
they have no evidence of the forgery maybe I'm missing but that would be the case if they showed up at the scrap
yard and there was the evidence that this was a forged document that they bought that load under the fact that it was a forged document why would they be charged by
law enforcement because the person that had that document is gone They present it, and then they're out of there. Well, and there again, Leeds Online puts that information up on the screen. That would be a way to tie it in that they could defend themselves with.
Assuming the system works properly. All right. Any
questions from the committee? Mr. Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I concur with Representative Williams and the others about your devotion and dedication to this issue and to most issues and your good faith in it. I have several questions, though, and I ask your indulgence. Absolutely.
Did you indicate that the sheriff may impose a fan? what I said
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:06:21
was and what I intended to say was that if there's a person who is violating the law whether it be on
the part of the buyer or the seller that they would be able to assess the penalties that are written into the law the sheriff would be able to do that yes sir as I
think they currently are now whether they are or not now doesn't that raise an issue of separation of powers
so that a person who's the accuser is also the judge? I believe the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:06:53
way it's written in the law that it would be considered a fine that would be assessed.
So do you know of any other body of law that allows a sheriff to impose a fine on an alleged wrongdoer? Maybe it would be better stated this
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:08
way, that as a sheriff would be able to issue a citation, so would the sheriff be able to issue a citation on this. But he would also,
Speaker 104
1:07:16
under your bill, be able to collect the fan and keep it and use it.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:22
Presuming that in the event that it went through the court, I guess
the court would sign that fee to them. You're more the expert on that.
All right. Now, if one loses his or her license, let's assume that's a legislator or a physician or a lawyer or a barber. Would that person be likely to lose his or her license to practice or participate in his public endeavor?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:58
If you're asking, as a barber could lose their license, could a scrap metal
dealer lose their license? Well, let's assume in Darren Williams, representative Williams hypothetical, where he's driving along with his 14-year-old, and he chooses not to answer a question about how some metal got into his trunk, in the trunk of his car. And he goes to court with a presumption of guilt and is, in fact, found guilty. Does he lose his license as a lawyer, and does he also lose his seat as a legislator?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:08:34
I don't see where that is, if he, in that scenario where his personal license would come into application, but if he ever applied for a license to sell scrap metal, he might not
be able to get that. Now, I have two more brief ones. We do have an impact statement, but I see the impact statement is deficient in at least one respect. Do you have some idea of the number of people who were likely to have been arrested in the last year or two years
for the offense of violating the scrap metal law? And what I'm leading up to is if you have some idea of that number, that means that a number of those would have been subject to going to prison, and therefore there would have been a cause since they would have been incarcerated for a minimum of six years and I don't see the impact statement addressing that. Have you considered
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:30
that? I mean, as with any fiscal impact statement, it comes from our resources and I would trust that for all the information that was available to them at the time
to present that to us that they figured and calculated all that in. But I will say, if I may, I understand that there will potentially, be an increase as a result of this law, but I also understand that there will be the potential for a reduction because if a person currently has this on there, they won't be able to obtain a license. Therefore, the likelihood of them being charged for a crime will be less. And as in all laws, as mentioned a while ago, sometimes you've got to give it a couple years
in order to know what the true impact is on it. So this is just a snapshot for
a point of reference. The reason I ask the question about the number of people who were affected or would have been affected in the last two years would have given us some idea of the possible pool of possible convicts for whom there would be a $22,000 a year for a minimum of six-year cost on the public. But that impact statement has not addressed that, I take it. That
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:40
impact statement is based on the basis of what they know at this time.
And my final question, Mr. Chairman, is there any particular reason that we want to write into the law that some theft is of higher order and priority than other theft, for instance, scrap metal is over against jewelry or is over against simple money or grocery or clothing
or computer. I'm trying to understand it. I understand that some people perceive there to be a problem, but I think that in everyday life that there is as much theft in these other areas as there is in this, and it has similar consequences because it causes some people to lose their homes, their livelihoods, and in many cases their families. I mean, so why should we allow a particular general proposition
theft to be so particularized so as to say that scrap metal is more important than anything else we have, so we're going to give it special attention that we give no other area of the law. Could you address that, please? I will respond. If I
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:04
don't answer your question, please restate it. Make sure I'm on target with it. The charges of theft that are listed in the law are areas that typically include scrap metal of some sort with it, but that may not be the primary charge.
So that's the reason that they were listed there. Secondly, the two areas that are specific to scrap metal were identified as areas where you would be prohibited from being able to obtain a license at all because they are problematic to the particular problem we're trying to address in this law. So I think as far as just cause or just reasons, that's why those two areas were taken out but why the other ones are left in there. And the safety net to it is that the sheriff still has the opportunity to issue a 90-day provisional license to an individual if they can provide to that sheriff
a reason for why they should be able to have that license. As far as somebody losing a license, you know, there are people who commit crimes every day that lose their license, whether, you know, as an individual might create or might have a horrid sexual crime, and that precludes them from being able to teach in school or do other things. So I don't think that it's unrealistic to expect that we would want the same thing out of a problem that's plaguing our society to the tune that it is and endangering lives.
Thank you. Is there any questions from committee? Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, we're going to move to the audience. I think, is there a motion? I think Representative Steele had a
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:13:33
motion. What's the motion, Representative Steele? Mr. Chairman, given that this bill has been vetted by
the committee, I've moved to limit debate 10 minutes per side. Got a motion to limit debate 10 minutes each side. It's non-debatable. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Ayes have it. Limit debate 10 minutes each side. everybody what that means is
each side whether you're for or against it the total time is 10 minutes the total time on each side is 10 minutes that's the pleasure of the committee so I'd ask that you be respectful of the people behind you that they would like to get up and say something about this too so if everybody would please be respectful of those behind you I'm sure everybody would appreciate it alright
Speaker 81
1:14:11
looks like let's see he's presented his bill so we've got let me see here. Again,
we've got to do it against first. Is there Jack Grunfest? Mr. Grunfest, you're recognized to speak against the bill. I've just asked you to go
to the end of the table and tell everybody who you are. If you're here to speak against the
bill, and remember it's 10 minutes total time for each side, So be respectful of those coming behind you. Thank you. Sure, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Jack Grunfest
Unverified
1:14:53
My name is Jack Grunfest. I'm the CEO of Tenenbaum Recycling Group, and I'm also here on behalf of the Arkansas Recyclers Association. I believe our company has a fairly broad geographical perspective on this issue because we have facilities not only in North Little Rock but also around the state, in Jonesboro, Harrison, Rogers, Hot Springs, and also in Berryville. We've been in the recycling business since 1890 and are proud of our efforts to facilitate recycling and discourage scrap theft for over 120 years.
Our facilities around the state have worked well with law enforcement in providing them both cooperation and the data needed to deter and catch scrap thieves. And we've participated in way too many prosecutions for me to even name. Nevertheless, we do recognize that scrap theft still occurs. And frankly, through our facilities around the state and the systems that we put in place to comply with the law, we honestly feel like there's not a level playing field.
And because we are operating throughout the state of Arkansas, we deal with a lot of competitors in each of those communities. And we can tell you that there are a lot of folks who are in this business who are not complying with the current law. And one way to get started in enforcing the current law might be to take the number of ADEQ stormwater permits, as was alluded to, and compare that to the number of folks who are reporting the leads online, and maybe pay a visit to all those folks who are registered with ADEQ stormwater permits who aren't reporting the leads.
I would also note that we can't overlook the importance of recycling. Recycling provides supplemental income to a lot of low-income people in our state, and this would make it very difficult for tens of thousands of law-abiding Arkansans to recycle their scrap metal. Further, I'd ask you to also keep in mind that the scrap recycling infrastructure, which all of us are a part of, are key sources of scrap for our state steel mills. And I would suggest that unnecessarily damaging this infrastructure would be something that the Arkansas steel industry would oppose.
Those facilities count on vibrant scrap collection, processing, and transportation systems continuously supply their mills. And that's what we are in the business of doing. In summary, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we respectfully request that you vote against House Bill 1414. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, it looks like the first person to speak for or
against the bill, is there Mr. Bransford? I couldn't make out the first name. Mr. Bransford.
Mr. Bransford, if you'll just go to the end of the table there and make sure the mic is on, introduce yourself to everybody, less than who you are, you'll recognize. And just one
Richard Bransford
Unverified
1:17:55
more time, I remind you to be respectful of those behind you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Bransford. I live at Lone Oak, Arkansas. I farm about 10 miles south of Lone Oak. We have 30 wells and relifts. They are hit continuously. I've had one well, particularly, that's been hit three times in one year, and all they're getting is the scrap metal, the small amounts,
but it not only inconveniences me because that well is put out of commission, but also it's expensive, too. I've had them go into my gin and take the copper off the wires. while we're gone to dinner at noontime, they'll go in and get their copper. I've had them come into my farm shop and steal my welding leads and even little short pieces of copper. They don't have to be two foot long, and they'll cut it off of a piece of equipment.
It is not, in my idea, my welds are scattered over about 2,100 acres, And there's not any way that our sheriff's department can patrol that day and night. And it's daytime, too, because they simply can't see them. They can't have the manpower to go. Our Lowndes County Sheriff is doing everything he can, but it's just impossible for them to control it. And the only way we can control this problem is to cut out the buyers buying stolen stuff.
Thank you. Larry looks like Neiman to speak against the bill Norman, I'm sorry You'll just go down like everybody else Let everybody know who you
Larry Allman
Unverified
1:19:49
are You are recognized Good morning Mr. Chairman and the Judiciary Committee I will be very brief, three minutes
Because I need to get to Rotary We are sponsoring, co-sponsoring the police awards today, my company, and it's kind of ironic that I'm here for the scrap fest. My name is Larry Allman. I'm president of Solomon Company, and I'm here on behalf of the Arkansas Recycling Association. Solomon Company is a 107-year-old third-generation recycling facility. ARA membership includes scrap metal facilities from around the state along with Arkansas's four steel mills. Many of our ARA members are multiple generation family businesses like mine that live and have invested thousands of dollars in equipment to purchase such computers connected with law enforcement.
We do thumb printing, cameras, et cetera, and additional man hours to meet the current scrap theft law. We're opposed to HB 1414, and it's a matter of record. We don't just come to these sessions against every law. We crafted and worked very hard during the last session. We know the business. We've been doing it for 108 years, seven years. We know what should work. Myself and many other ARA members are here today.
We have worked with the committee and the legislation for the last three legislations, as a matter of fact. We do all the things that the law tells us to do. We do the fingerprinting. We do a picture of the item. We do a picture of the person. We have them sign the affidavit. So we do and collect all this data to leads online so they can look at it every single day. I respectfully submit that despite the fact that the law has only been in place for a short amount of time,
our company and a number of others have provided information to law enforcement for numerous arrests. We recognize that scrap theft continues. Believe me, as it's been said, we're victims of scrap theft as well. We want to be the solution, not the problem. House Bill 1414 will simply divert the scrap from facilities complying with the law and send it to facilities that are neither complying with the current law nor will comply with this 1414 law. Instead of enacting new requirements that will disrupt legitimate recycling,
we think vigorous law enforcement against facilities that are not complying with the current law should be the main goal. The ARA is in support of any measures to severely penalize or shut down any such facilities not playing by the rules. Believe me, that is not difficult. It is not difficult to identify these facilities in addressing this issue, and it will ensure scrap thieves cannot go to these facilities purposely failing to record their names for scraps sold.
We would further submit that burdening local law enforcement with a complicated and elaborate bureaucratic system of licensing is a bad idea, and that will give our valuable, busy sheriffs hell in the process. The scrap thieves will simply sell to facilities not complying with the law and cross state lines and sell to unregulated buyers. This makes it even harder to track down the thieves when you go across state lines. And, of course, the laws will also make it more difficult for tens of thousands
of law-abiding Arkansas citizens to recycle the scrap metal. In summary, the best way is to reduce or eliminate the procurement of stolen materials by this way to ensure that the scrap recycling facilities are meeting the requirements of the current law. 1414 does not address that matter. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I would
like to speak for the bill. Is it Jared Purifoy? Jared Purifoy.
Mr. Purifoy, it's like everybody else. If you'll tell everybody who you are,
Detective Jared
Unverified
1:23:55
you'll recognize. Thank you. Good morning. I'm assuming it's still morning. My name is Detective Jared Purifoy, and I've been with the Little Rock Police Department since 2003. I've been assigned to the Detective Division since February 2008, and that entire time I've been assigned to property crimes. In 2010, I was chosen to work exclusively with metal-related thefts due to the high frequency of incidents. Those numbers that you were given earlier, those are definitely representative of the
numbers that we have in Little Rock alone, not Pulaski County, but just inside the city limits. And the map is representative of the entire city. Those dots that you saw on that map are throughout the entire city. The numbers regarding metal theft related incidents have only increased or remained at a very high level in the last two years. And this bill will only assist in the decrease in those numbers. The problem that law enforcement faces is once the AC unit or copper pipe is stolen,
then there is little chance to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the property depicted in the photographs is exactly what was stolen from the victim. Typically what happens is, unless the person is caught in the act, the crime goes unsolved. If a laptop or a flat screen TV is stolen and recovered, then there is a good chance that the item is functioning and satisfactory to the victim when it's returned. If a metal theft occurs and the item is properly identified at the scrapyard or elsewhere, typically the item is of no use to the victim.
One air conditioning unit can cost between $2,000 and $4,000 to replace, however the thief will only get $100 for the metal, discussed time and time again. In a time of financial hardships for most of us, imagine trying to sell or rent out a house or business if, as soon as it's put on the market, thieves have their opportunity to take what they can. Now repairs have to be made to continually just to keep the structure up to code. There are numerous cases each week of a vacant house or business becoming victimized by metal thieves.
There are even those reports where water causes more damage to the structure and, in turn, more money by the owner or the insurance company to repair. The entire community is affected, whether it is the business for having to pay out of pocket for repairs, lost wages for downed equipment, inability to hire new employees, higher prices for consumers, higher insurance premiums across the board, or the inability for a poor church to spend tithes where they are needed most. This is a problem that needs a solution now rather than later. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, there's nobody else to speak against it, so we're going to go back to this again
Speaker 81
1:26:39
for it. Gary Cannaday. Mr. Cannaday, did I pronounce
Speaker 139
1:26:45
that right? Canada. My bad. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am, again, a victim of the copper thieves, and I was just going to – I have been able to be involved from step one all the way to the actual capture over three different events.
I have a pivot that's located a mile and a half from the England Police Department, and this pivot has been hit three times. The first time they hit me was in the winter, and it was like $28,000 worth of damage, $5,000 deductible on my insurance, and we repaired it. The second time, it happened in July. So not only did we have the actual damage, we had a crop in the field on 300 acres that was damaged to the effect that I figure 25 or 30 percent of our production.
And the third time it was hit, I had to put an alarm system on it, and I actually got there while he was trying to get the wire. And the chase pursued, and our Lone Oak County and our England City Police, they had a real problem who had jurisdiction at the time, This was about a two-hour chase, but after he stopped and he left the vehicle, the police showed up, and there was plenty of representation there of the police.
But the fellow who was doing this stealing was out on parole for stealing copper wire less than 30 days before this time. So I think this bill tries to address some of the problems that we have. In the first case, we had pictures of the thief, but the camera was not working at the scrapyard that day. And so I had a picture of a blank and a picture of the wire.
So there are lots of problems, and I do appreciate you trying to address these problems. and I just wanted to make
Speaker 141
1:29:03
that statement. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if there's any time
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:29:14
left for the foreside, I'd like to ask Sheriff Mike from Columbia County to come up because I think it would be good for the committee to
hear from a sheriff's perspective, seeing how we're making them the gatekeeper, please.
I'll let that be your call. We've got two minutes left, so whatever the pleasure of you is, we can call him now. Call him now, please. What was that last thing? Lowe. Lowe? Is there Mr. Lowe?
Speaker 145
1:29:43
Mr. Lowe, you're recognized, and I just remind you, we've got two minutes left. That was the motion that was passed, so you've got two
Speaker 146
1:29:57
minutes. Thank you for allowing the sheriffs to be here today.
I'll try to get this in in two minutes. I'm the sheriff in Columbia County, Arkansas. We're a rural county. And let me, a lot of talk here about metals, but this is copper, ladies and gentlemen. And copper theft in Columbia County and the rest of the state right now is an epidemic. In layman's terms, it's killing us.
Last year alone, we were averaging two to three thousand a month in Columbia County. This year, we're averaging two or three a week. Entergy Corporation lost two million dollars in their district in and around Columbia County in the last two or three years. They tell me, well, no, I know, they have a crew out every day just replacing stolen copper wire.
We have a lot of oil production in Columbia County. Oil wells, for the most part, are stuck out in the middle of rural areas. They're off the roads, surrounded by woods and the like. these will go out there and steal $5, $20, $30 worth of copper wire. It cost those oil well producers $6,000 to $8,000 to get those wells back up and going. We even had one well
where they caused a malfunction and dumped 180 barrels of crude oil out on the ground and I have no idea what that cost to clean up. In talking to the other sheriffs, they have the same problem. There was another sheriff going to be here today. He is not here because he woke up this morning and found out he had 11,000 feet of copper wire stolen sometime last night.
At the end of the day, folks, whatever works, We have got to be proactive and try to implement legislation to try to combat this. There was a lot of debate a few minutes ago, pro and con, very good debate. I enjoyed it. But about rights and what ifs and this type of thing. But let me say this. I tell my deputies that the law is black and white,
But life is multicolored with lots of shades of gray. In other words, use common sense. Don't bring me a water faucet, okay? Bring me the copper wire that was in the back of that truck when you stopped it for having a headlight out. You see where I'm trying to go with this? You know, there's somethings and there's nothings. You know, don't bring me a nothing. Bring me something. But we're all very aware of people's civil rights, and sheriffs don't find people.
Sheriffs like people into court where a judge handles that. Sheriff, I appreciate it, but the time is up. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate it. Representative,
are you ready to close? Are there any questions from committee? Representative, do you want to close for your bill? I'd like to close for
Speaker 63
1:33:36
my bill. Go ahead. Thank you. you closed no I'm about to okay go ahead thank you well let this thing rise or
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:33:45
fall on this vote right here you've heard that there are issues I respect the fact that there are lawyers that are represented around the table but part of the process of lawyers is to be able to get to
a court and argue and sometimes lawyers are right sometimes lawyers are wrong I don't think that's any less the case here there's some may be right of their opinions and some may be wrong what What I do find is that it's interesting that the only ones that came to argue against this bill are those who have a vested interest in the profitability from this bill failing.
I would at least like to ask you this respectful question, and that is that you do a favorable vote to get this bill out of the committee, and if there are amendments that need to occur to it, I'll give you my personal pledge. As you know, I'm a man of my word when it comes to these kind of areas, that I would make any amendments between here and the House floor, given the fact that those amendments help build a stronger process for us to be able to reduce the amount of crime when it comes to theft. If we're just going to carve copper out of the situation, why are any of the other metals any less important to those who those are stolen from, whether it be stainless steel or anything
else? I just ask for a due pass out of this committee, and if there
are amendments that anybody would like to bring, we'll get those addressed before we go to the House floor, and we'll let it stand at that, and I ask
a due pass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Thank you for your hard work and keeping it in time limits today. All right. What's the pleasure of the committee? Seeing no motion, the bill fails for lack of a motion, Representative Hammer. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on.
Mr. Williams, do you want to run House Bill 1350? And, Mr. Williams, before I recognize you, committee, so you'll know,
we've got lunch coming up here. We've got sandwiches coming up. But as you know, with the special order, we've taken up a lot of time, but we need to do our job and get our bills out. So we do have lunch coming up.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:36:11
the right way i'm willing to
Okay. Representative Catlett, you're right now.
Speaker 163
1:36:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, all I have is a concurrent approval or concurrent amendment to the Senate. From the Senate, as you remember, we passed a bill that would allow officers to drive their cars out of state, and we amended it to require them to use the cheaper of the two modes of travel, airplane or car. So I would appreciate a
good vote so I can get it out.
Okay, we've got nobody, no questions. Nobody report against. Got a motion by Representative Giming. Do pass. All those in favor? All those opposed? Looks like the eyes have it. Congratulations, current in the
Chair
Unverified
1:37:35
amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Representative Williams,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:37:49
you are recognized. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. the Department
of Community Corrections has shown me a mistake in our bill, so I'll have to
fix that amendment and come back to you. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Is
there anybody in the audience wishing to run a bill? Is there anybody from the audience? Representative Steele, you're recognized. You're recognized. Present House Bill 1558. I wish I had seen him.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:38:29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, I'm going to run House Bill 1558 if I can figure out how to work this machine here. This bill, while I'm pulling it up here, and I will recognize I've got Bob McMahon with the prosecutor coordinator's office here, if we have any questions that I can't answer. I hope I can answer any questions you all may have. This is a bill, it's really just a clarification in the code concerning aggregating hot checks. This is not, during Act 570, we increased the limit of the felony amount for a hot check from $500 to $1,000.
It was never the intent of Act 570 to prohibit aggregating multiple hot checks to reach that $1,000 threshold. Similarly, we also raised the limit for delivery of marijuana, but we specifically reserved the right to aggregate those deliveries to that ounce amount that would still consist of a felony. It's very similar. We intended to do them both the same way. I think Representative Williams at the end of the table, you may want to chime in on this, but we're not trying to do anything new.
We're not trying to send more people to prison. We're just clarifying that those hot checks can be aggregated, which was the intent of 570, but the way it was drafted left some doubt there and left some credible defenses there to aggregating those hot checks in order to charge a felony hot check, which would
Speaker 169
1:39:53
be a minimum of $1,000. I'll be happy to take
any questions. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, anybody wishing to speak for or against the bill? Didn't have any signed
up. Representative Steele, you want to close your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate a good vote.
Got a motion from Representative McElroy. Do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to run a bill? Is there any of the committee? We've got some committee members with bills. Y'all, Representative Kazay, you're recognized. Representative Kazay, are you starting with House Bill 1514?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Okay, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. At this time, I'd like to invite Mr. Stephen Sharon,
Speaker 171
1:40:51
District Prosecutor for Judicial District 7, and Shannon Shepard from the Arkansas State Police. And I'd like to reserve there may be a supplemental witness, an attorney with Arkansas State Police. I'm not sure if I'll need to call her yet or not. Yeah.
Speaker 40
1:41:14
committee members just to mix it up I'm going to tell you a story today we've seem to
be in the weeds, in the details of how law is constructed.
You all have read this bill. I'd like to direct your attention to a little story. I want you to imagine, if you will, a lady in financial difficulty, in marital difficulty, tells some friends of hers, you know, I'm tempted sometimes to just burn my house down for the insurance money. So this lady contacts some friends and arranges some
Speaker 171
1:42:11
storage space and starts storing her personal property in a storage unit outside the property.
Had had some property she was storing for her son and his ex-wife on her property. Calls them and says, come pick all your stuff up and get it out of the house. Then calls another friend and says, hey, I've got all this food in my pantry in my refrigerator. I want to get rid of it. Loads all that up, gives it to the friend. The very next day, the house burns to the ground. After that, the lady talks to law enforcement,
sits down with law enforcement and says, yeah, I burned it down. Sketches a little diagram for him and says, yeah, I started the fire here, and yeah, I burned the thing to the ground. And, you know, to make a long story short, comes to trial and decides, well, that's not really what happened. And the end result is not guilty. What I'm asking you to do is to change a common law presumption in the state of Arkansas
that if there's a fire, it is presumed to be an accident unless you can show otherwise. And to that end, I've invited Mr. Sharon to come and tell you about the particulars of a case he's recently tried in Hot Spring County. And to the extent that you have any questions for Mr. Shepard on the investigator's side, I've got him
Speaker 40
1:43:39
available as well. With your leave, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sharon. Absolutely. If you'll just
remind everybody who you are, you're recognized. My name
Stephen Sharon
Unverified
1:43:49
is Stephen Sharon. I am the prosecuting attorney for the 7th Judicial District of the state of Arkansas, which includes Grant and Hot Spring counties.
Thank you for inviting me to testify here today, Mr. Cazay. This is an issue that has become personal to me here as of late. I was recently appointed to fill the remainder of a term as the prosecuting attorney for this district, and one of the first cases that I had that came to trial in my tenure as prosecutor sometime last month was an arson trial. And just to kind of flesh out a little bit more of what Mr. Cazay was talking about, The story he was telling you was from the case of the state of Arkansas v. Fowler.
It was a 2007 case. Her name was Barbara Fowler, and Ms. Fowler did, in fact, burn down her house, we believe. She also was found guilty of, in fact, burning down her house by a jury in Hot Spring County. And thereafter, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, citing the common law presumption that a fire is either naturally occurring or an accident. This common law presumption, what it does is it creates an additional burden for the state to disprove.
It does not require us to meet the standard burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead creates something that we have to actually disprove in our case. The case that I recently had was the state of Arkansas versus Doolin Dwayne Tompkins. And I will tell you a little bit of that story as well. Mr. Tompkins and his girlfriend had been living together for about six years. They'd had a relatively long relationship. It was an abusive relationship. Mr. Tompkins had abused her. He was also an alcoholic, admittedly, on the stand.
They lived together in her house. She had tried to kick him out previously, and he'd made threats, one of those threats being that he would burn the house down, and she did, in fact, kick him out. Now, at one point last year in 2012, she had an open-heart surgical procedure. Thereafter, she was scared to go home. So at that time, she petitioned for an order of protection after she'd had this procedure and asked that Mr. Tompkins be excluded from her house. When she had the order issued, it was served by a Grant County Sheriff's Department deputy.
And after being served on August the 29th, on August the 30th, a 911 call is received from one Doolin Dwayne Tompkins. Mr. Tompkins indicates that the residence is on fire. He was instructed by the Sheriff's Department the day before to depart that residence immediately, that he could no longer be there because an order of protection had been issued. He refused to do so. He stayed there. According to his statement to the investigators after the fire, he drank about 10 beers on that morning. And then at some point, he doesn't remember what happened.
But strangely enough, a fire started. When he calls 911, he indicates there's a fire. The fire chief arrives on the scene, finds a garden hose running in the back door of the mobile home. And Mr. Tompkins is inside attempting to put out the fire that we allege that he had started. At that point, the fire department completes extinguishing the fire. The investigators come in. And the investigator, Mr. Shannon Shepard, who is here today, investigated the Fowler case as well as this Tompkins case.
In this Tompkins case, the investigators determined that human intervention was required in order for this fire to have been started. The problem was that they could not rule out that it was potentially an accident. But the hurdle that we ran into was the burden, this different burden from beyond a reasonable doubt that we had to overcome. And we had to disprove this presumption that a fire is either naturally occurring or an accident. We couldn't disprove that this drawer in this cabinet, the second drawer down that was about four inches ajar,
according to the firefighters that first arrived on scene, that there was no electrical cause that could be determined by the fire investigator. The stove was next to the cabinet. All the burners were off. All the electricals looked to be appropriate and adequate and in good condition. but the drawer that was ajar had hot pads and towels, things of that nature in it. And that was the drawer that the fire started in. The investigator could not testify that it wasn't started by an accident.
You know, he could not disprove that it wasn't started by potentially cigarette ashes or something of that nature. It was his opinion that it was started by human intervention. At that point, after the state finished presenting their case, the defense counsel moved for a directed verdict. and the court granted the directed verdict. The court said that we were able to prove motive, that we were able to prove opportunity, and that we proved that it was caused by some human intervention, but that we were just unable to disprove that it was not an accident.
And that's the burden that has been created by case law, which stems from a 1939 case initially. The 1939 case is where this original presumption comes into place, and then it's been interpreted from the 2007 case and one other, I believe it was 1988, if I recall. But that is what we are here asking you all to address is this presumption. It creates this burden that we have to disprove something as opposed to just proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that somebody did in fact commit the acts that we alleged that they have committed. So it creates an additional burden that makes it almost an impossibility to prove an arson in the state of Arkansas
Speaker 178
1:49:30
under the current law. With that, Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 76
1:49:34
I'm open to any questions. I'll start. I'll tell you what, Representative Ballinger, go
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:49:41
ahead. You recognize your question. I have a question, and this just may be, and I guess give me kind of a practical example. If you have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt,
won't you need still be able to prove that it wasn't started accidentally? I'm going to just, from a practical standpoint, give me a scenario of how that may change. May
Speaker 182
1:50:04
I help with that? Sure. I can certainly attempt to help you with that.
Stephen Sharon
Unverified
1:50:09
The issue is that what this burden creates is something that we have to jump a hurdle to get past the directed verdict motion. In a trial, when the state presents their case, we receive a motion at the close of our case from defense counsel that is for a directed verdict.
They ask the state to direct a verdict of not guilty on behalf of the defendant at that point in time. And the problem is that the state, that the court has to find at that point as a matter of law that we have disproved this presumption. The problem is that it takes it away from a jury as a finder of fact to be able to determine the facts of the case. So it places it in the hands of the court to determine as a matter of law whether or not we have disproved this burden. And so that's where it creates that extra hurdle for us to get over as opposed to submitting it to a jury and a jury of 12 people making a termination about whether someone did in fact commit the crime that we've alleged that they've committed.
It causes us to have to hurdle, jump this legal hurdle as a
Speaker 182
1:51:07
matter of law to make that termination for the court. So does that help you with
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:51:13
your question, sir? Yeah, that actually does, especially in your situation. I'm not sure about in Fowler how that would have come because it did go to the trier effect. And so I think the question would still be whether they proved it beyond reasonable doubt, I would assume. Even if they cited that, it's kind of, I mean, anyone who's been around courts know that they'll use whatever tool they want to get to the conclusion they want to. But if you have to prove over, I'd hate to despair any judges who are around, but if you have to prove it by reasonable doubt,
I think you still have to disprove it it didn't happen accidentally. I mean,
wouldn't you agree? Well, part of what you have in the established case law is that you begin with the presumption of accidental or natural origin. What we're asking for in the bill, and I think the bill does a pretty decent job in laying this out from lines 30 to 36, that all those things are still intact. What we're asking is for you to make it a legislative action to let the facts lead.
And if the state's still not able to make its burden, then so be it. But at this point, we're sort of beginning by handcuffing the state to say, first, rule this out, and then we'll see what your facts show. Next was Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:52:33
just curious to know, are you aware of this same presumption and same case law from any
other jurisdiction, or is this just strictly an Arkansas case, and is it unique to Arkansas law?
I'm unaware of any outside jurisdictions. It may be unique, but I couldn't speak to that definitively. Did
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:52:53
the Fowler case indicate why this presumption was created in that case? Could somebody shed some light on that?
It dates back to a holding in Johnson v. State from 1939, And it deals actually with the subject matter that we're going to talk about in House Bill 1515 of corpus delicti of needing something additional, something beyond that to make
Chair
Unverified
1:53:21
the conviction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nichols, you
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:53:28
were recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What type of impact with us changing the common law as it relates to a criminal issue? Does this common law also apply on the civil side? Does the insurance company have to show that it was not an accident or natural causes? You know, I don't know the answer
Speaker 198
1:53:52
to that, but that's an interesting thought.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:53:55
Well, I understand what you're trying to do, but I know of cases where the court will look for public policy and they'll use a criminal statute to come up with a public policy that applies in a civil action. So this gives me a little bit of hesitation if it's also going to be changing our civil law. Whatever that civil law is, I don't know. That's why I'm asking. So I'd like to be more comfortable on what type
of impact it will have on civil practice.
Speaker 193
1:54:31
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, I don't know. I've got an outstanding witness here that's just chomping at
Stephen Sharon
Unverified
1:54:41
the bit to take that, so I'm going to give it to him. Well, the only thing that I would say to that representative is that in a civil case, the burden of proof is substantially lower to begin with. As clearly you understand the difference between civil and criminal law, with the civil law it is a preponderance of the evidence standard, and so this is reducing a presumption that we have in criminal law.
Now, in these cases that we deal with here are specifically for criminal law. Now, whether your bill will deal with any kind of presumptions with civil law, I'm not aware. It's not something that I personally was interested in for my testimony here today, so it's not something I explored. But the burden of proof is substantially lower in a civil case to begin with. It's, as I said, a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And so I can't see that this would substantially affect that other than if the presumption were affecting the civil law as it currently stands.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:55:35
Well, where I'm coming from on this, there was a case in early 90s, Basinger versus Walmart, where Ms. Basinger was on workers' compensation, and I may be a little bit wrong on my facts, it's been a long time, and she was fired from her job, and she brought a civil action against Walmart for wrongful discharge.
And actually a Benton County jury awarded the lady $30,000 plus. The case was appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld it because Arkansas law said that if you discriminate against somebody based upon their workers' compensation claim, that was a criminal offense. And so they use that then as recognizing the public policy of the state of Arkansas that
you don't need to be firing people based on their workers' compensation claim. So that's why I'm having a hard time doing away with some law out there that might be beneficial to consumers. You still have the ultimate burden of proof in the criminal trial, but I'm afraid it might have some unintended consequences on the civil side. But it was a Basinger v. Wal-Mart case, I think it was 1991. Now the legislature in 1993 changed the law where it was no longer a criminal offense,
but still that was what the courts looked to to establish the public policy of the state of Arkansas looked to a criminal statute
Speaker 29
1:57:27
but applied it in a civil action. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Representative Gazette, I think I'm following along with Jim here and I'm asking you a question. I don't know the answer. Maybe you do. I guess what my concern is this does anything, you know, on the civil side for does it affect
your insurance or how would it affect if your house burns? this opened the door in any way for the insurance company to say, you now have to prove it was an accident? I don't know. I'm tossing
it out there. I understand and I hear the committee's concerns. My thoughts on that, Chairman, would be to go ahead and vet the bill today. I'd be happy to pull it down and then bring it back on another time and provide some civil impact. I think it's a good
bill. I really do. I just follow along with Jim's. I've got thinking about those questions.
Representative Walker, you recognize your question. Before he pulls it down, I'd like to ask a question. This is, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. This has been the law in Arkansas since Arkansas became a state, and it preceded Arkansas statehood and was more or less universal in the country. based on just one case do you think that it's appropriate
this is a follow up on what Representative Ballinger said, do you think it's appropriate simply because you lost the case to change the common law and the body of law that attends it which has other kinds
of consequences that may be connected thereto I wouldn't say that I'm eager to change the common law in all respects and the change that I'm proposing with this bill is not a wholesale abandonment of the common law, but mainly, as the wording of the proposed statute reads,
that there is not a presumption. It's just to let
the facts lead. Well, Representative, here's a problem I have. Oftentimes, the prosecutors come here with a case they've lost, and I respect Prosecutor Sharon and his family and the county, and I believe them to be in good faith but simply losing a case and having some emotional attachment to the case ought not to be the basis of changing common law and the question is
could one have as a prosecutor anticipated the possibility that a jury may rule against the prosecutor and in that situation then develop the evidence so that the options would be there Motions for directed verdict are sometimes granted. They're not frequently granted. But since they are there, it still did not prejudice the prosecution from being able to prevail, notwithstanding whatever the common law was.
So the prosecution could have prevailed had the case been sufficient. So I'd hate to see the common law tinkered with simply because one or two or four or five prosecutors over a period of 70 years have their feelings hurt by losing
a case. Well, I think that even the appellate courts in reaching their decisions, and I feel like I'm giving previews for coming attractions here, talk about the, I don't want to misquote the judges,
but the offensive result of setting the guilty free to maintain the integrity of the rule. What I'm proposing with this bill is simply to allow the finder of fact to find those facts based upon the standard burden of proof that applies in all other criminal cases. That you
Speaker 99
2:01:33
just abandon common law altogether?
No. Why not? The common
law informs, certainly, but that's the entire purpose of statutory enactment, is to refine and improve upon where you see gaps in it. The common law on its own I'm fine with, I'm trained that way, but I'm not, it's not infallible.
Chair
Unverified
2:02:10
Any other questions from committee? Can everybody speak for or against? Do
you want to close your bill, Representative, because I?
Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, I'd kind of like to pull it down and bring in those civil consequences for the committee members. Okay.
Before we do that, I don't think you'll be okay to agree with me that somebody else was going to speak for it. Mr. Rosenzweig, if you want to speak against it. Go ahead and do it now. Committee, we've got lunch that's brought in.
I just ask everybody, you know, so we don't cause a big ruckus or take time, If you'll just
start going one at a time to grab a sandwich, and we'll let Mr. Rosenzweig, I'm
Speaker 208
2:02:52
sure we'll still all be able to hear. Mr. Rosenzweig, you're. I'm Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. And I understand what he's trying to do, but I believe the bill is dangerous in this respect. It will allow convictions of people without any evidence that a crime occurred. That's the problem with this bill and the other bill to which he referred.
Fires are something that occur naturally, occur by accident, but occur naturally. Lightning strikes and all wiring problems and all sorts of other situations. And you would be allowing a conviction in this case without any evidence that a crime occurred. The common law is there for a reason. It's something that's worked out over hundreds of years and worked out because of various miscarriages of justice, because people got convicted improperly, because all you would need for a conviction is the
fact of a crime and someone coming in to say, oh, they said they were going to do something at some point in the past. It may be one day. It may be a month. Someone could have made it up. Someone could have misinterpreted. That's why there is a requirement that there be proof of some sort, expert testimony from the fire marshal or someone, that this, in fact, was deliberately set.
It is in order to avoid the miscarriages of justice that would come otherwise. Obviously, you can have spectacular cases where people confess on tape a dozen times. But that's not what you normally see. What you normally see is some disgruntled ex-in-law saying they said something ambiguous a month ago or a year ago or whatever. So that's the problem with the bill. Rep. Seale, if you can ask for a question.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:04:51
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rosenzweig. I was just – this does seem to be a pretty unique wrinkle in the law, though, doesn't it? Because, I mean, for example, if Representative Shepard went missing, there wouldn't be a presumption that he's still alive. I mean, there wouldn't be any presumption either way. If someone dies, there's not an automatic presumption that the doubt of natural causes that you have to overcome before you can then overcome the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt so that somebody killed them. You have to
Speaker 208
2:05:21
prove cause of death and manner of death.
You have to present evidence of cause and manner of death. You can't
Speaker 209
2:05:29
just prosecute someone because they're lying dead on the ground
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:05:34
and someone said something. But you don't have to overcome a presumption that
they died of natural causes, as you
Speaker 213
2:05:42
would now have to overcome a presumption that the home
Speaker 208
2:05:47
burned naturally. Well, the problem with this is this is something that, again, occurs in nature all the time.
Now, there are various exceptions to the cause of death issue. Now, the Supreme Court has held, for instance, that if you see Representative Kazay shoot me and, you know, you watch him shoot me and I fall over and I'm no longer breathing, you're not going to have a big problem, you know, with the medical examiners on vacation that week or something. But that's not the situation that the common law was developed for. Again,
this wasn't something made up by the ACLU last month. This is something that's been there for hundreds of years because it comes out of long experience that predates the Fowler case or some other case. And, yeah, there may be cases where, you know, where a guilty person or a possibly or evidently guilty person goes free. But, you know, our system is predicated on the fact that it's better that an innocent
person not be convicted than that a guilt or better that a guilty person go free than an innocent person be convicted. I think you make
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:07:15
a good point. If I might just follow up, Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that this is a very unique wrinkle because you don't have – case law, common law developed in all these other areas, for example, death of natural causes and presumptions have developed in every other area of the case law, but I don't think I've ever seen a
presumption that something happened naturally that you have to overcome before you can then
Speaker 114
2:07:39
just get to the basement level of actually
Speaker 208
2:07:41
trying to get a conviction. I tried one of these cases in 1979, right when I was starting out, and my client was mentally disabled. He was just barely able to say anything, and he had come in and had signed a piece of paper that the police had put in front of him saying that he had set these six fires. and
the judge let it into evidence but the fire marshal came in and said on four of these we didn't know that they were arson until he told us and this was like a pre-printed sheet of paper that they gave unsolved fires and anyway the Supreme Court reversed four of the convictions upheld two of them Thank you. We've been informative, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right,
to speak for or against the bill?
Anybody out there wish to speak for or against the bill? Representative Kazade, are you requesting from the committee to pull it down? I'd like to,
Speaker 178
2:08:52
Mr. Chairman, just to deal with that civil impact. Okay, and without objection, if
the committee will allow you to pull the bill down. Thank you very much. Thank you. Senator Fowles, looks like you are here to present your bill. Looks like you're here to present Senate Bill 357. Senator, welcome to the House end. You're recognized. Thank you for having me,
Speaker 218
2:09:14
and thank you for getting lunch before I got up here.
Speaker 219
2:09:18
This bill, a little simpler than House fires and Representative Shepard going missing, deals with something, just adding saliva to the means of testing for alcohol or drug. And quite simply, the saliva test will tell if someone is under the influence of drugs immediately. The chief of police, the sheriff's association, the prosecuting attorneys association have all endorsed this as well. And the way it works is that there's some small tests that they've developed, relatively inexpensive,
and law enforcement, upon stopping someone with probable cause, can wait 10 minutes. If there's nothing in their mouth, nothing in the suspect's mouth for 10 minutes, then they give them the test and can immediately check to see if they are with, you know, have a drug or alcohol impairment. They can then take them back to the station and test for them blood and urine, other means, but this gives them a good checkpoint out in the field and is very easy to certify their training.
There's 17 other states that do this currently, and this would just add us to that. I'll be happy to entertain any questions. Any questions from committee?
Representative Steele, you're recognized. Sorry to keep being the
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:10:41
one that asked all the questions here, but this is similar to the portable breath test they have, And that
has a specific rule that it's not admissible at trial. Would this have the same rule? I think it
Speaker 222
2:10:52
would be in addition to other things. I don't know that it's inadmissible, but it would be just another factor.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:10:58
Okay. But it wouldn't have the same specific exclusion from ever being mentioned at trial like the portable breath test does? As far as
I know, that's correct. Thank you. Any
other questions for committee? Mr. Walker, you recognize. Thank you. What is the experience with this test on a national basis and over what period of time? Good question.
Speaker 219
2:11:30
I've got some documentation and I have some tests. I didn't bring them with me. But the fact that 17 other states use them, it tests for 14 different drugs. The success rate of the test is in the 96th percentile. Again, I don't have a fact. Here's a number that we've used this for 10 years, and it's caused this, this, or this. But I think it just is an added tool for law
enforcement. Well, how do you get it admitted?
I'm trying to anticipate how a person could defend against it. How does one defend against the validity or credibility of that test if one disputes it? I guess that if
Speaker 219
2:12:18
I was in the field or going back to Representative Shepard, we found Representative Shepard and he fails the test, they take him back to the station, then he administered another test, blood or
Speaker 218
2:12:32
urine, and it would just solve to the question of verifying that he was impaired.
With blood, you keep the blood, I take it. And would you keep the sputum? I would think that
Speaker 219
2:12:49
the test itself would tell you it's not a whole lot different than a pregnancy test in that it tests and gives you a line, positive or negative. But I'm just
trying to understand whether or not one would have access to his own sputum that was presented and taken, so as to say that the result is different from that represented. I can't answer that.
Representative McElroy, you recognize? On this test, does it just substantiate that there is alcohol or drugs present, but it It doesn't show the level. That's correct. It's
Speaker 222
2:13:27
a plus pass-fail test. Thank you. Any other questions for committee? Anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against the bill?
Anybody wishing to speak for or against the bill? Senator, do you want to close for your bill? I'm closed. Senator's closed. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion for Representative Gillum do pass. All those
in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of
the committee. Is there anybody else here ready to run their bill? Is there anybody else here who wants to run the bill?
All right, seeing nobody, do I have a motion to adjourn? Got a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion to adjourn.
Agenda
HB1414
HB1175
HB1558
HB1514
SB357
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Mark D. McElroy Chair
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 40
Speaker 64
Speaker 75
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 104
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 81
Jack Grunfest
Unverified
Richard Bransford
Unverified
Larry Allman
Unverified
Detective Jared
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 141
Speaker 145
Speaker 146
Speaker 63
Speaker 156
Speaker 69
Speaker 161
Speaker 163
Speaker 169
Speaker 171
Stephen Sharon
Unverified
Speaker 178
Speaker 76
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 182
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 193
Speaker 99
Speaker 208
Speaker 209
Speaker 213
Speaker 114
Speaker 168
Speaker 218
Speaker 219
Speaker 222