House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1394
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1394”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1192
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1192”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1326
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1326”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1349
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1349”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1360
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1360”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1404
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1404”
|
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
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
0:00
We had Seth in here, and we had the county judge here. We also had our county attorney here. And when we got done with the meeting and got out in the hall, we got to looking at the bill and a couple issues that were raised. And in reality, the way the bill was written as I presented it before, legally would have prohibited the improvement districts, the property owners improvement districts, from being able to exercise eminent domain for the purpose of putting in utilities. That would be the gas, the water, sewer, and that was totally opposite of what I told you.
So I'm bringing this amendment back to you or bringing it to you for your approval to be added to the bill because what this amendment does is tighten it up and brings it down to the very narrow scope of what I want to do when it comes to this area, and that is just preclude property owner improvement districts from being able to exercise eminent domain for the purpose of taking property to put a road in. So the only thing that they're not going to be able to do when this bill passes is condemn property or exercise eminent domain to take away property to put a road in.
I promise you this is not tied into the UN 21 agreement or agenda or any of that other stuff if you've been getting e-mails. And I honestly think that some folks have been reading it wrong and have been drawing some false assumptions, and they just haven't been reading it accurately. So if you've been bombarded with e-mails about that, I apologize. But this amendment keeps me true to my word of what I said the intent of this is. It also changes, and I would like to request that it get a positive due pass because I've attached that it would be referred to as Seth Law because Seth was just done wrong.
That's all. And maybe this will help somebody else from having that painful experience he had. I'll be glad to answer
any questions. All right, committee, any questions? Nobody has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Hammer, are you close for your
Chair
Unverified
1:55
bill? I ask for a good vote, please. Thank you. All right. Got Representative Gillum with a motion. 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 very much. Appreciate it. With that, let's back at Representative Hammer.
My apologies. I made a mistake. We moved to expunge the vote. Got a motion to expunge the vote. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed. All right, the vote has been expunged. Representative Hamner, you want to present your amendment. Do we have a motion to accept Representative Hamner's amendment? Is
that right? Okay. We've got a motion, Representative Sleeker, to accept the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed. Ayes have it. Now we've got the bill. Representative, are you open and closed for your bill?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:48
I'd really like to get out of here. Thank
you. I'm closed. We've got a motion to represent Slinker. Pass the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. Ayes have it. My apologies, Mr.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:59
Hammer. None taken. And let me just say, last term I served on this committee, and I miss y'all. I wouldn't give up the committee I've got, but I miss y'all. Great committee. Appreciate the
Chair
Unverified
3:08
work y'all are doing. Thank you. Come back to see us anytime. Thank you. All right. Without
objection, we're going to move around on the agenda. Representative Fielding.
You recognize. Present your bill, Mr. Fielding. House Bill 1394.
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
3:26
Representative Fielding. You recognize. Present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may request if I could have the Colonel Major Hankins. Mr. Chair. That's all right.
Speaker 14
3:54
Colonel Berkshavt, come in. Chief Berkshavt, come in.
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
4:00
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, this is what I call
a safety deterrent bill. As you know, texting and driving is dangerous. As a matter of fact, it is known that it is more dangerous than drinking and driving. We already have a bill that is at its own place, but this bill that is, in fact, does not have a penalty on it. During the interim, I got with all the officers, I guess, forces of law enforcement together during the summer. And Mr. Chair, we worked on ways that we could come up with a safety deterrent. What I'm trying to do is deterrent you from picking up that phone and texting while you're driving.
now if you get caught texting and driving all you get is a warning but mr. sheriff what I wanted to do with this bill is to put a deterrent penalty in this bill if you are caught Texan the first offense is a $200 fine and up to a 30-day suspension of license the second offense would be a $300 fine and up to 90-day suspension of license. The third is a suspension of offense. It's a $500 fine
and up to one year suspension of license. Now, we're not trying to take away those personal privilege or rights that want to be able to drive to work or to go to school. We have in place, and I think that they get a waiver to take care of that responsibility if they need to go to work or to arrive to class or anything. Also in this bill, Mr. Chairman, we put an education part in this bill
that would help, that I think that would help the Arkansas State Police and Chief Colonel is here to talk about, Hankins is here to talk about that part
Speaker 22
6:16
of the bill. I'm Major J.R. Hankins. I'm the Highway Patrol Commander for the Eastern Region of the Arkansas State Police. And is there any questions on this? My agency does
Chair
Unverified
6:33
not oppose the bill. Committee, any questions?
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
6:35
Representative Balder, you recognize for question. Thank you, Chairman. My question is currently under current Arkansas law, are there other provisions, other ways that we could, you know, as you're out there and you see somebody who's texting and driving, would that also like fall under careless driving or reckless driving? Could you
also use that penalty? My bill deals with texting and driving. There's a distracting driving that is in place.
And Mr. Chair, Mr. Gill Rogers is here to maybe to answer that question if we allow him to.
Speaker 28
7:11
She's recognized if she wants. If you'll just let everybody know who you
Gil Rogers
Unverified
7:35
are. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
My name is Gil Rogers. I'm an attorney with the Bureau of Legislative Research, and as we're asked to do when we on the few occasions we come over to speak, I have a statement from the Bureau that I need to read. I've been asked by the sponsor of the legislation to explain certain aspects of the bill to this committee. However, the Bureau of Legislative Research is the General Assembly's nonpartisan, impartial staff services agency. Therefore, as an employee of the Bureau, nothing I say should be interpreted as advocating either for or against the bill or for or against any issues presented by the bill.
Thank you. Now, and to answer that question, we have in place a texting and driving prohibition, which probably trumps the distracted driving prohibition. The two exist, but I don't think you'd be able to
Speaker 37
8:27
issue a citation for both. It would be one or the other. But currently there's
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
8:35
no penalty associated with texting and driving, and so would you use either distracted driving or careless driving? and we wouldn't fall into careless driving,
the definition of careless driving if you're texting
Speaker 35
8:53
and driving? I think that that would probably be left up to the prosecutor or the officer
Gil Rogers
Unverified
8:58
who's writing the ticket. But most likely, since one is specific and the other is general, the specific is going to govern in the statutes. Okay. All right, Representative Feit. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
9:15
Are we allowed to pull someone's phone and look and see how recently they've been texting if they
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
9:23
are involved in an accident? MR. Current law, I don't think
Chair
Unverified
9:27
we have that. And this bill does not occur and the bill to do that also. It does not. MR. Representative
McElroy, you're recognized for a question. The only problem I've got is I'm going
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
9:46
down the road and I'm dialing this phone right here.
And somebody behind me sees me. Do they know I'm texting or am I dialing the number? Now, you know, how can we enforce that and what's going to be the difference? That's the only
Speaker 54
10:06
thing. And I know it's dangerous. But I bet everybody at this
table has done it. Oh, no. No, never, never. Liar, liar, pencil fire. Representative McElroy, you are correct. And the intent of this bill is to deter you from texting.
We're not trying to deter you from dialing or calling someone or looking through your book. The intent of this bill is to try to deter you from responding back to a text or sending a text that
Speaker 19
10:36
you have ever received. I know, but how is
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
10:39
the officer going to tell the difference or say the guy's behind me and he sees me dialing the phone and he says, that fool's texting, and I'm a bad driver anyway. I'm all over the road anyway. So, you know, that's the only question. And I know what you're talking about. I get on my daughter constantly. Do not text.
But trust me, these kids are doing it, and some of the grown people are. But I thought that was a legitimate question, and I'm not –
Chair
Unverified
11:05
that's all I'll say. Thank you. You have a valid question. Mr. Steele,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
11:10
you're recognized for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just looking at the criminal penalties for careless and prohibited driving, which I think is one of the comparisons that Representative Ballinger asked about. It looks like it's a $100 fine maximum for careless and prohibited driving. Of course, you add in usually a couple hundred dollars court costs and other fees.
But why is the fine in this? The
fine in your bill is $500. Is that correct? Well, for the first offense, it's $100. Okay. And the $500 coming as a third and sequential offense if you are caught. So the initial offense is the same as careless, prohibited
Speaker 19
11:45
driving? I don't think it's two. Two hundred. Yeah. Okay. And
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
11:53
does the bill, I guess I'm asking about the current law, rather than your proposal,
because you're only changing the penalties, correct? Correct. All I'm going to add in the penalty, too. The current law is I
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
12:06
have a warning on if you're called texting and driving. Does that include tweeting, emailing, Facebooking, any of those
things, or is it just texting? I think it would include anything where you are using a keypad to transmit any kind of wireless connector you are using. Okay. And I'll ask, I
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
12:23
guess the colonel maybe or whoever could answer, is this a primary offense? This is something that if an officer sees someone driving by at 60 or 70 miles an hour,
it looks like they're using a wireless device, they can pull them over for that reason? You can
Speaker 66
12:37
be pulled over for texting, yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
12:40
Representative Fiennes, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Fiennes, good morning.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
13:00
Good morning. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this to us this morning as I get to use this microphone.
The question becomes this, and where I have trouble with is the enforcement and maybe the proof of the matter. Because if I'm pulled over for texting, Facebooking, whatever, which I shouldn't be doing and I'm not advocating or condoning the practice, but would it simply not cause more problems for prosecuting? because if I'm smart and savvy and wise, won't I just delete the text before the officer gets to the car to see my phone to see if I was actually texting? Representative Vines, I believe if you are involved in an accident,
then I think that at that point, then your phone probably could be used as some type of evidence to see whether you were texting or driving. And at that point, the officer can require the, or send a, I guess, affidavit sum to the carrier to see whether there was a transmission going on at that time. You said you can delete it out your phone, but your carrier still has that on your record.
We also have a device at the Arkansas State Police that we can determine whether within that time limit of that accident, whether it was 15 minutes or whatever, can pull up those exact minutes within that time frame of that phone to see whether there's some type of transmission going on. You're talking about an accident
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
14:33
situation, but simply going down the road, I mean, is that going to be, I don't want to say worth the trouble,
but is that going to be something that's going to be worthwhile to
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
14:47
pursue just for a traffic stop? Well, I think it's, and what I want you to think
about is this is more of a sufficient deterrent that we want you to do. If you pulled over for texting, then I guess it lies on you, the officer, were you texting? I'm going to lie and say, yes, I was, no, I was not texting. I'm going to say, yes, I was texting. You know, it's going to, you know, rely on you to give that testimony to that officer.
but my point I'm trying to be to be a deterrent and this is what this penalty is this penalty is a deterrent penalty, a safety penalty for you to think twice before you start texting on the phone the same way we have a penalty for littering I think that's a deterrent penalty, that you think twice when you throw that paper out and I think those that are drinking and driving And those that likes to drink, I think some of them think, you know,
am I willing to be able to drink enough before I go down this road? Can I drive down this road if I just drink one beer? If it's in your mind something to think about. All
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
16:05
right. Thank you, Representative Feeley. All right, Representative Gilliam, you're up next. Now it's for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My main question that I was going to ask was taken by Representative Steele. So I'll just ask to go back to a clarifying question here. Real quick, this is only geared towards minors?
Speaker 75
16:21
No. No, it's anyone. Okay, and I just misunderstood that earlier. So this is adults, this is anyone whatsoever? Yes. Primary offense? Primary. Just driving down the road, you can get pulled over for this? For texting, yes. Okay. For texting,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
16:38
but going back to Representative McElroy's question, the officer wouldn't really know if they were texting, They just would
know they were touching their phone. Driving erratically, I guess, would probably be something they would think,
you know, why this person driving this away? And then I guess the officer is going to ask you, were you texting? And then I guess, like I said, the Reverend Vines would say, yes, I was texting. And when we have some of those cases, tell officer, and this comes from my local chief of police that brought this to me, that, you know, there are some coming to say, yes,
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
17:18
I was texting. And it's going to be a serious, serious, serious crime
Speaker 78
17:23
for those texting while they're driving. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Scott, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a quick question. What about hands-free voice texting. Is this included? No. Would you consider adding that amendment to your bill?
If that pleases the committee, we will consider it. Representative Shepard, you're
next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few follow-up questions. I want to make sure that I'm
reading this correctly. I keep hearing everybody talk about this is a prohibition against texting, but as I was looking at the statute, it's my understanding that it's actually a prohibition against using any handheld wireless device. That's my question. Is that correct? That's correct. So it's texting, using the telephone to talk?
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
18:30
No. It's just texting, using a wireless device, texting. Well, as
I understand it with the adults, you're modifying the penalty under 2751-1506. Is that right? That's one with
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
18:43
distracted driving. Well, and that's
what we passed. Well, that was back in 2009. My second question is, where do we draw the line? I mean, there's no question texting and driving is dangerous.
But I recall I was on the interstate a few months ago, and I was noticing the number of people that were texting, but I also noticed the number of people who were eating, reading the newspaper, doing all kinds of other things. I mean, where do we draw the line here, and where do we, you know, is there not some virtue in having something that is broadly construed that takes care of a number of different categories versus trying to legislate with regard to certain specific circumstances.
I think you have a valid question, Representative Shepard, and, you know, what I was trying to do in this bill is
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
19:43
simply deal with texting and driving, what we were trying to do on this bill. And I guess
getting back to my point earlier, The wireless interactive communication means typing, text messaging, e-mailing,
or accessing information. And so I would take by that that if you're typing in a phone number, that actually is a violation of this section.
I'm not clever. Mr. Chair, if Mr. Rogers would be able to comment on
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
20:20
that. That's fine. It would be unless the phone being
Speaker 90
20:26
utilized was a hands-free device. Right. Thank you. That could be operated with one hand. Representative Hodge is your next on the list. Recognize for
Chair
Unverified
20:37
a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is,
Speaker 91
20:40
do we know the number of fatalities or the number of accidents that have been caused due to texting or anything?
Speaker 87
20:50
Have you all done a study on that? Yeah.
Tony. Where is it actually limited to testing? Mr. Chair, we have Bridget from the Arkansas State Police. If she come, if you don't mind,
Speaker 94
21:11
sir, let her testify on that. She's recognized. I know Rodney. May I just
Speaker 95
21:16
let everybody know who you are? Hi. My name is Bridget White. I'm the administrator for the Arkansas State Police Highway Safety Office.
And my office collects data on the number of crash accidents that occur in the state of Arkansas. And we do compile those type statistics. But unfortunately, I do not have that with me today. I could call and get that information from my office and report on it before the committee dismisses, if you would like. Well, I think we've got a couple more questions. I
Chair
Unverified
21:48
think we'll get the pleasure of the committee before we decide that.
So, Representative Ballinger, you're next on
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
21:56
the list. This just may be me, but I'm missing the part where it actually narrows it down to just the texting. What provision are we in where it actually narrows it down to just texting? Because I had the same problem as Representative Shepard in looking, to me, it looked like
Gil Rogers
Unverified
22:16
any wireless device. May I address that? There are two statutes involved. We have Paul's Law, which is the 1500 section, and then we have fewer distractions means safer driving, which is the act for those under 21.
Under the Fewer Distractions Act, you can't use a cell phone for anything. It prohibits talking, texting, typing, and so forth for those under 21, except for between 18 and 21 you can talk on a hands-free device. Under Paul's law, Section 1500, which applies to everybody else, it limits it to texting, typing, and so forth, but does not address talking. And I don't have the specific subsection under Paul's law in the 1500s.
I think Representative Shepard cited to it a moment ago, but it does not address talking. The distinction there is one wireless interactive communication involves talking and the other it does not. Okay, so the penalties only fall under
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
23:22
the Section 1500 then? Well, the penalties apply
Gil Rogers
Unverified
23:25
in both 1500 and 1600. It increases the penalties. It does not change the enforcement. It does not change the type of the offense.
It does not change what the officers are required to utilize. It only increases the penalties between the
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
23:41
two. Okay, so it increases the penalty for talking on your cell phone and driving as well? If you are under 21. Okay.
Thank you. All right. Representative Wagner, looks like you're going to be the last player. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. My questions or concerns go along the lines of a lot of other committee members. I feel like the language as I read it is still pretty open-ended.
Just like, for an example, last night I type into my cell phone an address and use it as a GPS device. And the way I read this, that's prohibited as
well. I don't think so. That's not the intent of using your GPS device. It's only your wireless
Chair
Unverified
24:30
telephone that you're using. And, yeah, that's the
problem I have with the language, is I agree with, you know, people don't need to be texting and driving,
but it doesn't narrow it down enough to that, I don't think. And the other concern I have is the address I typed in. It's a pretty long address, and a text, sometimes I just text yes, no, or okay back. So I don't know. I mean, I'm having trouble with what's
Speaker 103
25:02
worse than one or the other. But I do appreciate your intent with the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All
right. Nobody has signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Fielding.
Do you want to close for your bill? Yes, I'm close. All right. What's the pleasure
of the committee? Seeing no motion, Representative Fielding, your bill fails for lack of a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Representative House
you're recognized present your bill I believe it was House Bill 1404 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
26:11
to pull the bill up on your pad system.
Well, that doesn't seem to want to work, but it's pretty simple. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. April 2012, I was reading the paper, watching TV or something, and I heard about the case in the Arkansas Supreme Court of Corey McMillan versus Live Nation Entertainment, doing business, incorporated in Ticketmaster, and it had to do with the anti-scalping law.
I've never met anybody with Live Nation Entertainment representing them. I don't know anybody at Ticketmaster. I don't know anybody at Verizon. I don't know anybody at any other arena. But it struck me as odd because just a few days prior to that, as I went to Verizon Arena, I bought two tickets to some entertainment event, and I couldn't tell you who they were. Somebody my wife liked. I went, and they were nice. But anyway, I gave them my driver's license and my credit card.
They passed those two items through their scanner and informed me that I would have to present my driver's license and my credit card at the gate in order to gain admission. And I said, why is that? And she said, well, that's to keep anybody from scalping the ticket. And I said, I don't have a ticket to scalp. She said, that's the reason it is. And I said, why do we have scalping rules anyway? She said, she doesn't know. She just sells tickets. And I said, thank you.
Turns out I bought four tickets, and my two friends were unable to go. And as I got ready to go into the concert that particular night, I had to wait until two people came along and were willing to go into the arena with me, and I sold them for roughly 75% of what I had paid for them. So I went home and looked at the law and saw what it said, and I said, if I get to the legislature, I'm going to ask the legislature to repeal that law. It makes it a crime to buy a ticket and sell it for a price greater than the face value
to a school athletic event, a college athletic event, and a professional entertainment event. But notice that it does not prohibit the scalping of a ticket to a professional athletic event. So it depends on whether you're going to a wrestling match or a wrestling match. One is a professional athletic event. The other one is a professional entertainment event. So I asked myself, why was there such a distinction? And so some young man who has camped out over the weekend with a lawn chair and a sleeping bag
to get the tickets to the latest Justin Bieber concert, and as he gets his tickets that he's paid $50, $75, $100, and he's walking back through the 10 block on line, somebody says, hey, I'll give you $100. No thanks. I'll give you $500 the next person. And he gets towards the back of the line, and one guy says, I'll give you $2,000 apiece for those two tickets. Well, you know, car payments due, college expenses coming on.
But he can't sell those tickets, which are his legitimate property, because it's a crime in the state of Arkansas. We will take that young man, if we catch him, and lock him up in a cage like an animal until he post-bond or pays the fine. And if he refuses to pay the buy-in, fine, he will stay in jail, as we all know, under our law. And it just seems to me that it is ridiculous that you cannot sell your own property for whatever you want to get for it.
Shares of Walmart stock or Dillard stock or any other stock a lot of times has a face value of $1, par value as we call it. And you may buy that share for a dollar at the initial public offering, or it might be $20, whatever. But you're paying more than the face value and the issue value. If you hold on to Walmart stock that you bought perhaps in the 1980s or 1990s for year after year after year, you're certainly not going to sell it for what you paid for it. You're not going to sell it for the face value, the par value.
What I'm saying is I think it is paternalistic of the state of Arkansas to tell someone that they cannot sell their own property for whatever the market will bear. Now, I don't care whether Ticketmaster or eBay or anybody else makes a profit or a loss. That's not my business. I don't care whether Verizon or any other arena in the state of Arkansas requires a driver's license and a credit card in order to gain admission to a professional entertainment event.
It's their ticket. They can sell it to whomever they want to under those conditions. But it just seems to me, as I look through this 10-page, double-column opinion rendered by our Supreme Court, as I look through the statutes and the interest in the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's Office that worries about somebody scalping a ticket, I look at how much resources the state of Arkansas is expending to enforce this law,
And I said, this is just bad public policy. So I'm asking you to approve this bill. It doesn't touch the colleges. It doesn't touch the high schools. I'll leave them alone. That's something for them to think about. But it says if you've got some tickets to a professional athletic event already, you can scalp them. Now it says if you happen to have two tickets to a professional entertainment event, you're welcome to sell them for whatever you can get for them. Good luck to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative.
Representative Steele, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
32:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, my understanding is this law came from several years back when Hannah Montana was still Hannah Montana. 1993. And my understanding is there was some kind of computer program that would buy up all the tickets as soon as they got on the market, and they were not affordable to anybody in the state that had been waiting around with little girls dying to see Hannah Montana. and they were camped out waiting on those tickets to go on sale and some computer program ate them all up and then sold them all on eBay for three or four times the price.
And I'm assuming that's – my understanding is that's why this law is in place. Aren't you concerned that we're going to go back to that time? We had – I'm embarrassed that we're talking about Justin Bieber and Hannah Montana, the House Judiciary Committee, but we had a Justin Bieber concert here recently. And I would think the same thing is going to happen. you've got a demand that far outweighs the supply. And I think that there's some public policy interest in seeing that folks in Arkansas that want to take their kids to see something like that are able to do that
rather than some computer program eating them all up and then turning a huge profit and selling them probably only locally. Are you concerned that
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
33:49
that's going to happen if we repeal this law? No, sir, I'm not. The reason I'm not is because Verizon can sell their tickets to whomever, however they want to sell them. That is none of my business as the state of Arkansas, how they choose to do business. You get into an ancillary problem. It turns out that a lot of entertainers, and I read some literature where there were like 17,000 tickets to a particular event.
I don't remember who the entertainer was. All but 1,700 were given to fan clubs and friends and radio stations and newspapers. And only 1,700 tickets actually went on sale. Whether they advertised the fact that only 1,700 tickets were available for sale, I don't know. I didn't get that much detail. But, again, the entertainer is paid for their performance. The arena is paid for their performance. And they have the right to sell their services to anybody they want under any conditions they want.
If they want to sell to Ticketmaster or eBay, that's their business. I think it's poor business ethics to do somebody like that. But I don't think it's a crime where we ought to lock people up in a prison
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
34:59
for doing it. I might follow up, Mr. Chairman. I guess what I'm speaking to is
this isn't – we're not exactly talking about an arm's length, you know, fair market bargain here. You mentioned stocks or, you know, high-frequency trading, which is also a computer program. It's regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I think it's the same thing. I'm not talking about just a supply and demand, who buys it, how they buy it, who can sell it.
We're talking about computer programs that basically undercut the entire market. So you're not, nobody's negotiating at arm's length. It's not just a matter of who can buy and who can sell. It's a matter of eliminating a serious risk that we also see in the stock market and other areas. I think we have, you know, general public policy concerns over that. We want to make sure computer programs aren't buying the tickets, that people are buying the tickets. So is there anything we can do that you can think of that could eliminate that problem but still allow people to be able to sell the tickets at whatever price they want to sell them at.
Can you imagine some solution that we might
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
35:56
be able to come to? Well, I think this is the solution. Stay out of the market. There is no one that has to go to a Justin Bieber concert. If they want to pay the price to Ticketmaster or Verizon or on eBay, that's their business. They don't have to do that. They're not making a living doing that. If they don't want to pay the price, they don't have to. If they want to pay the price, they can. If the seller wants to sell her tickets, she can. If she doesn't want to sell them, she can.
She doesn't have to. So I think it's an arm's length transaction absolutely in the purest sense of the world. If you want to go to the concert, you pay the going rate if somebody has tickets to sell and they want to sell them. Don't put somebody in jail
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:43
for doing it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify something that Representative Steele said. Actually, when the Hannah-Montana situation came about, we really didn't have legislation. The AG's office issued a cease and desist order to the folks involved, and this bill was not a result of that.
So that was a little incorrect. In that instance, we did stop the selling of tickets before you had them. I believe that's correct. And while I hate to call on Justin Allen since he's no longer there, if somebody wanted more information, And the former chief deputy who handled it is over there who, if we got into that situation, she can tell you a little bit more about that. But what Representative House is working on is not exactly what happened when we had the Hannah-Montana incident. I just wanted to get some clarification. Thank you,
Speaker 94
37:28
Representative Williams. Representative Wagner, you're recognized for a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the concerns I have, Mr. House, Representative House, you've compared this maybe to selling stocks and stock options. And as Representative Steele alluded to, there are some barriers in place to insider trading laws and to keep someone from just the corruption of it and buying and selling at an unfair advantage. And while I understand you're trying to help some teenagers to go to concerts
and if they can't go sell their ticket for what they want, I think the result of this bill would be, for lack of better examples, insider trading where you just have computer programs buying and selling tickets. And I think the end result would be that the people who actually would like to go to these concerts and save their allowance up for months at a time to go will not have the benefit of doing that. And I just
Speaker 103
38:33
want to get your opinion on whether you think that's a good example or not.
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
38:39
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. It's a close example. They have something called a secondary market. A lot of times an entertainer, let's just say that the arena holds 15,000 people, and an entertainer may set aside 2,000 tickets or 14,000 tickets to give to various people, to give to their fan clubs or to sell to their fan clubs. Now, I want to use a little bit of an analogy. If you want to spend $500 or $1,000 and join the Razorback club, you can get tickets on the 50-yard line at a Razorback game.
But the point being that we're not talking about college events. But what that seller of ticket, Verizon, and we'll keep using them since they're the closest, or Robinson Auditorium or Barton Coliseum, they sell their tickets under the terms and conditions they want to sell them. And sometimes they'll sell them to a secondary market, such as Ticketmaster, and they will turn around and they'll jack the price up and make a profit. They can also find themselves holding a whole bunch of tickets and lose a lot of money.
Nobody says anything about that. So it's a free arm's length transaction, except for where the state intervenes and says, if you jack the price of your tickets up, you've committed a crime. And that's my concern. Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I have two questions. One, do we have any information on the number of arrests or convictions related to the provision that your bill would delete?
Speaker 114
40:15
No, sir, only anecdotally, I pulled another case
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
40:19
up, and it was a case of King versus State of Arkansas. It actually involved LSU-Arkansas 2006 football game. And here's what we see. Shortly before the kickoff of the November 24, 2006 Arkansas-LSU game, King was arrested by the Little Rock Police Department advice squad on West Market near War Memorial Stadium. After the arrest, he was charged with two counts of ticket scalping.
It's going on. The police resources also are being used besides the court resources and the prosecutor's resources and the sheriff's resources and running the jail. And that's one of my concerns is how much resources are we spending messing with this. I suppose over and I know that I was directed when I was the two tickets I talked about needing to sell at Verizon was directed by a police officer that I needed to move away from the arena to a certain location
if I wanted to sell my tickets for less than what they were selling them at the box office. hey, it's their property, they own it, I'll do what they say. So,
yes, sir, I do know that there are resources
being expended. And then, I guess, two other questions. Would it be your contention that Verizon Arena, Ticketmaster, or whoever else could put limitations on the tickets themselves to prohibit the resale of those tickets?
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
41:51
Yes, sir. I absolutely know that to be a fact because I had limitations put on me. I had to produce the driver's license and the credit
card in order to gain admission to the event. And then my final question is, do
you have any of the major venues or promoters weighed in on this issue? I mean, Altel Arena, Robinson Auditorium, do any of the individuals that are involved in the industry have any position that you're aware of on this issue?
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
42:22
I've only been contacted by one lobbyist who wants to make the law a little bit harder for their people to sell their tickets secondarily. I said, I'm not making anything a crime to sell somebody's property. I'm sorry, I won't support that. Representative Vines, you recognize?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
42:41
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and if I heard you right, were you making the allegation earlier that professional wrestling was not real? No,
Speaker 130
42:50
I said one of the two. Wrestling or wrestling is not real.
All right, all kidding aside, and I apologize, Representative House. I couldn't
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
42:59
let that pass without commenting. We've all been to larger markets, Dallas, Atlanta, New York, when you get there and you want to go see the Cowboys or the Falcons or whatever, and you wind up either on the Internet or the secondary 800 numbers. I guess where I'm at on this, when we talk about policy arguments on it, is this really good policy for the state to get into, or is this more of an answer looking for a problem? Because I'm afraid here we're going to empower the secondary market
that I don't know that the state really has that
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
43:37
much of an interest in, to be quite honest with you. Well, actually, this makes the secondary market not a crime. New York, of all places, and I hate to ever say, well, here's what they do up north, because I really usually don't care. But anyway, New York actually deregulated their secondary market. They said, why are we regulating a secondary market when we don't regulate the primary market?
And I've seen pictures on TV. I've never experienced it, but I do know what you're talking about in Dallas. If you want to go to a Broadway show, you wait until the day of, you go down the back alley, and they'll sell you a couple of tickets to whatever it is you want to see.
That's been totally deregulated by the state of New York. Any other questions
from the committee? All right, looks like we have Dan Greenberg, who's signed up to give us some information. Mr. Greenberg, you're recognized.
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
44:35
MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Greenberg with the Advance Arkansas Institute.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
44:44
I try to avoid speaking in favor or against particular bills, but I would like, if I may, to speak in favor of the general policy of deregulation that this bill carries out. And I'd like to say, in particular, if a policy like this passes, I think we're all going to be better off. And in particular, I think it's going to be easier to get the tickets we want.
Now, admittedly, one has to take measures to make sure that a Hannah-Montana-type situation doesn't happen. But I want to say something general about the market in tickets, primary and secondary markets. Speaking generally, it's a mistake to say that you've got a demand that outweighs the supply. That simply can't be true as a general matter, because what's going to happen is that the primary market is going to raise prices generally. The situation we have now, we have, I'd say, a situation that's characterized by two problems.
One is fairly incredible waste, because it encourages people to stand in long lines. Second, we have an underground market, which I think is in some ways dangerous, in some ways susceptible to cheating behavior. And if you have a different situation where people can buy and sell their tickets, you're going instead of encouraging line standing, you're going to encourage productive trade between people. And what would most likely happen in Arkansas would be the same thing that has happened
in other states, which is that different firms come in and resell tickets. And what has happened in other states when you have different firms coming in and competing with each other for the resale of tickets is that the average price of tickets has actually gone down, according to a study that I just looked at. That's what I'd predict in general, and I'm sure if you like, I could produce the study that I'm looking at and summarize it. But I think in general, economics suggests that average price is going to go down and that this would be a good outcome for the people of Arkansas.
With that, I'd be happy to take any questions. MR. Representative Steele, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask you, I guess, the same question I asked the sponsor, and that is you understand that we understand that deregulation in general is a positive thing in a lot of ways. You understand that we have regulation, SEC regulation on high-frequency trade and computer programs. And my concern is the same thing. It's computer programs, and I don't think that is an arm's-length transaction. So could you just speak to that?
How is that not a danger to the market in general to allow computer programs to determine? I think that's
a very fair point, and I think that you have to take measures to make sure that nothing like insider trading happens in this situation. But it's going to be in the interest of the primary ticket vendors, you know, the arena or whatever, to make sure that that doesn't happen because they're going to want to make sure, you know, that they can sell their tickets at the best price they can get to as competitive a market as possible. So in general, it's going to be very unlikely that they're going to provide inside information to some particular buyer absent some kind of corruption.
It's a good idea to have those kinds of laws, but I'm not sure – in fact, I don't think that you're going to – even if the legislature were only to pass this, I still think that would be a step ahead. But, yeah, I think it would be a good idea to have something like the analog of insider trading protections to make sure that a particular buyer doesn't take advantage of the situation. But it seems like there's going to be an automatic guard against that just because the ticket seller is not going to want to sell all his tickets to the same person or his or her tickets to the same person.
Rather, the original ticket seller is going to want to get the
best prices. So would it be, if I might, Mr. Chairman, would it be your point that some kind of
regulation is good, but our current law is too much regulation? Is that what you're telling us?
Speaker 140
48:40
Well, something like that. I mean, I have to say I'm not sure that the sort of thing that we're talking about with the analog, the
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
48:48
insider trading, I'm really not sure that that's necessary because that really is kind of a self-correcting thing because, as I said before, I think that there are going to be measures from the original sellers,
that the original sellers are going to take to make sure that they get the best price for the original ticket. But I certainly wouldn't have any objection to it, and I could see that
Chair
Unverified
49:05
it's a good idea. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Neal,
you're recognized. And I would just say that they're not going to want to sell to one person and not have people in the arena. They're going to want to get the best price. They're going to want to get the best price, but they also need those people to be in the arena to buy the Cokes and the popcorn and the t-shirts and the CDs and all that other
stuff. So they'll make it to where they've got to have people in those seats. Agreed. All right. No further questions for Mr.
Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg, thank you. All right. There's nobody else that's been signed up to speak for
or against Representative House. Do you want to close for your bill? Thank you very much. any questions. Thank
Speaker 146
49:55
you, Mr. Chairman. All right, everybody. What's the pleasure of the committee?
Representative Neal, you recognize. Got a motion for Representative Neal. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. No's have it. Sorry. Your bill
has failed. Thank you. All right. We got two for a roll call. Representative Williams
Williams is I Representative Nichols
Speaker 151
50:53
Nichols is I Representative Slinkert Aye Slinkert is aye Representative Steele No Steele is nay Representative Shepard Aye Shepard is aye Representative Gillum Aye Gillum is aye Representative Walker Representative Walker
Representative Scott Aye Scott is aye Representative McElroy. McElroy is no. Representative Kazay. Representative McGee. McGee is no. Kazay is no. Representative Fite. Aye. Fite is aye. Representative Ballinger. Aye. Ballinger is aye.
Representative Bain. Aye. Bain is aye. Representative Wagner. No. Wagner is no. Representative Neal? Aye. Neal is aye. Representative Broadway? No. Broadway is no. Representative Hodges? Aye. Hodges is aye. Representative Vines? Yes.
Chair
Unverified
52:21
Okay. One, two, three. The ayes have it. Representative House, you've passed your bill. Congratulations. Representative Bain, do you want to present your bill? Representative Bain, you're recognized.
Representative Bain, you're recognized. Representative Bain, you're recognized. present House Bill 1349.
Representative John Baine
Unverified
52:53
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. At this time, I'd
like to invite a witness to participate. That's fine. This witness is a special agent of Florida Orwell with the Department of Treasury, Treasury Inspector General's Office for Tax Administration. I've also provided a handout of the current statute And the part of the statute that will
be impacted by this change would actually be Section G on the second page of the handout.
And I want to go ahead, if I can at this time, I'd like to go ahead and let our witness testify a little bit about why we're looking to change this bill, a little bit about what's going on when it comes to the naming and name changes when
Special Agent
Unverified
53:53
it comes to various federal agencies. Good morning. My name is Special Agent Floyd Oral. I'm with the Department of Treasury. I'm a Special Agent with Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
I would like to point out in the bill that, correction, in the law that's in place right now, there are several agencies, including my own, that was named in that law. However, several of these agencies in the past several years have changed their names. Several agencies have been enacted since 9-11, which I think changed a lot for a lot of people and a lot for our government.
My particular agency prior to 1998 was known as the Internal Revenue Services Office Inspection. inspection, which is named in the current law. However, after 1998, with the tax reform laws that was passed, our agency was separated from the Internal Revenue Service.
So to make our investigations a little bit clearer and make sure that they were not tainted had been the same, part of the same agency as we were investigating. Several of the agencies that have done the same thing and then also several after 9-11 such as TSA and its officers, even though they have few officers, law enforcement officers
attached. Most of their agents are regulatory in manner. However, there are law enforcement officers that they do have underneath them such as the Federal Air Marshal Service. TSA also has an Office Inspector General which investigates waste, fraud, and abuse within Social Security Administration, Office of Inspector General, Federal Protection Service,
which is basically the agency that oversees the protection of all the different federal buildings within the United States and the federal properties. The United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, which is relatively new. There is Homeland Security Investigation, which was formerly known as ICE, or Immigration Customs Enforcement,
which was named in the prior law before the agencies actually combined under a different name. Have Health and Human Services, OIG, our Office of Inspector General, which also does waste, fraud, and abuse, investigates different waste, fraud, and abuse within the medical profession. Have Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General.
Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General. HUD, Office of Inspector General. and then VA Office Inspector General, VA Police, and then the VA also has special agents assigned to the hospital itself. Some of the reasons that a number of us were wanting to get this changed is also, even for like my agency,
which was named in the prior law, is basically the clarification because of the name changes. And since agencies such as ICE, who was named in the law under citizenship and immigration, and also under the customs and border protection, they were named in two different places. but since they've combined, they've changed their name twice since then.
And that is one of the reasons that while discussing this bill with Representative Bain was that it may be a little less confusing just by going with the language of any federal law enforcement officer, seeing how some of the agencies changed names and having to come back and forth.
Speaker 173
58:51
Some of the reasons that we were looking to make
Special Agent
Unverified
58:56
the clarification and also the intent
to give the peace officer authority for the state peace officer authority is many times during our investigations, we may come upon state crimes or crimes that may not meet the particular threshold of what the U.S. Attorney's Office is going to be willing to prosecute. However, local prosecutor would be very willing to prosecute. Also, we have the instances where
a federal agent may be come upon a situation where there's a threat of some type of danger or injury or the threat of death to someone that they could better take action with better protection. So in summary, our goal here is to
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:00:03
clean up the language As agencies change their names, as new agencies are developed under different Cabinet-level
departments and other agencies, we want to make sure that they have the authority through the State of Arkansas to conduct their business. We run this by the Sheriff's Association, Arkansas State Police, and the Attorney General's Office and had no objections to it. And at this time,
we appreciate a good vote. Well, can you jump in?
Chair
Unverified
1:00:29
And any questions? I have some questions. Representative Shepard,
you're recognized for a question. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll preface my questions by saying I have a great deal of respect for all the men and women who serve these various federal agencies.
My father has been a member of the federal courts for over 20 years, and some of these agencies have developed relationships with some of the agents. And not only that, the Marshal Service obviously provides protection for our federal judiciary and very much appreciate that. I do, however, have a few questions here, and I spoke with Representative Bain about a few of these earlier. If
the concern is that getting away from naming specific agencies,
would not one alternative just be to amend the law to say identify the agencies or any successor thereto? I mean, is that
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:01:26
not one option? It most certainly is. Although
my concern is once we adjourn Sonny Dye in May, we may, Congress may enact a new name change or may enact a new Office of Inspector General for some various department. And
so we'll be in this constant catch-up mode if we have
that situation. And my second question is, presently, what happens with these agencies that
have not been given specific authority
under Arkansas law to make arrest? I mean, what practically happens now?
Speaker 170
1:02:01
one of these agents on that. Currently, the way the situation is handled is we will have
Special Agent
Unverified
1:02:08
to, depending on where the particular crime is at, we generally have to go contact one of the local agencies, which causes them to expend resources on investigations that pretty much we've already done.
Generally, most of us enjoy working with all the local agencies because they know their areas. However, a lot of times this causes them to expend resources and time on working on investigations that we've already been able to determine the criminal infraction. And I guess
Speaker 176
1:02:49
another question I have is, I guess I
just wasn't aware of this,
but do these various federal agencies actually take the position that the state of Arkansas can regulate who they can arrest
Speaker 173
1:03:08
and what kind of business they can conduct? Now, this is
Special Agent
Unverified
1:03:14
strictly pertaining to any of the state criminal statutes, which we may come upon during one of our investigations, or one of the times that we generally defer a particular situation for criminal prosecution
prosecution under state statute is when there is an infraction at the U.S. Attorney's Office, it may not meet their threshold to go ahead and prosecute it. So we will generally approach the prosecutor at that point or in the local jurisdiction to prosecute that particular theft, if it's a type of fraud, or if it's an assault or some type of battery.
And I guess my final question, and this may be more for Representative Bain, is there not some value to the state of Arkansas or for us
as legislators to know what federal agencies are operating or are potentially going to make arrests a violation of state law within our borders? I think that that is
Speaker 183
1:04:29
a fair point. My only response to that would
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:04:32
be that we should already know that due to the relationship with our state police
and other state law enforcement has that direct relationship. We may not know on a day-to-day who's operating here, but honestly, as long as they maintain a relationship with our state and local law
Speaker 184
1:04:53
enforcement, that's where I would think that relationship would need to
be fostered. Thank you. I guess I would prefer this bill more if it just merely identified the list and, as I asked earlier, maybe amended it to state that any successor agency or successor title would
enjoy the same benefits. But anyway,
Chair
Unverified
1:05:18
thank you. Any other questions from the
committee? Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Let's say I'm on a federal property and
I'm speeding, and a federal police officer gives me a ticket, does that mean I go to a federal magistrate, or do I go to the local
district court, or does the arresting officer have an option
Special Agent
Unverified
1:06:00
the fine? Generally, it's my understanding that's not really in my arena. However, I do have relationships with agencies such as the National Park Service or the U.S. Forest Service that might issue such a citation, generally if it's on federal property, that
goes to federal court. And it's whenever the citation is being issued, it's explained to whoever is being issued the
citation. Let's say that I work for a VA hospital and someone steals something from the hospital, say an employee steals something. And the VA police take that issue to the U.S. attorney, and then the U.S. attorney refuses to prosecute.
And then they go to the local prosecuting attorney, and a local prosecuting attorney prosecutes for that theft of federal property. Is that the way it would work? Yes, sir. Okay. So stealing federal property is also a violation of the state penal code, I guess. That's what they'd be charged
with, or would they be charged with something under Title 18?
Special Agent
Unverified
1:07:31
Well, if they were being charged with state statute, it would be just theft of government property, I believe, is the verbiage in that particular statute.
Okay. It doesn't really distinguish or just under a regular theft charge under the theft statute. It's not really specific to federal or state property or individual property. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Representative Boucher, you're recognized for a
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:08:06
question. Thank you. I appreciate you being here and your service, frankly, to our country and the efforts you
have. One of the things I wanted to ask about is, was it your agency in particular that was involved in the Mountain Pure Water raid that happened here? I think it was in Little Rock, I believe.
Speaker 182
1:08:22
Was it here in Arkansas? No, sir. It wasn't. Not that I'm aware of. I'm unfamiliar
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:08:26
with it. You know, I'm familiar with it. Well, from my understanding, and I'm not an expert in it, but there was a situation where it was a federal raid, and it had to do with the IRS, so that's why I was thinking they were looking for some records. And it really turned out to be pretty much a disaster in how it was carried out. And what I've heard is it was really a lack of communication between the federal agency
and the state officials that caused it. And so just like Matt's concerned, I'm a little bit concerned with doing anything that may hinder that and allow for that to be separated any more than it already is. You know, I like the idea, actually, of a federal agency coming and communicating with local law enforcement before they carry out actions within their jurisdiction. It just seems like that would be best practices. And so that would be kind of my concern with doing this, is are we pushing that off to make it even less likely that kind of thing happens?
I mean, do you think so,
Special Agent
Unverified
1:09:29
my concern? To be honest with you, I can't speak specifically to that incident. I can explain why that possibly something like that may have occurred, especially with the Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Service, its employees have many regulations. and policy and laws that govern what they can disclose to anybody outside the Internal Revenue Service,
just basically for the privacy law for federal tax information. And the reason I'm saying this is for my particular agency, there's only two of us in the state. And my particular agency has kind of a two-fold job. One aspect of our job is we are the internal affairs for the IRS,
so we investigate the IRS and its agents and the employees for both administrative and criminal wrongdoing. We also investigate criminal acts against the IRS, such as impersonations, bribes, assaults, threats, those type. We do not particularly investigate tax fraud or tax evasion unless it's some type of being conducted by an employee.
It's the only time we'd get involved. The regular IRS agents handle that. However, a lot of times the IRS agents themselves, again, I'm totally unfamiliar with that particular incident, but a lot of the privacy laws concerning tax information in regards anything that involves that tax information, Their names, a lot of the different incidences until it's made into public information is considered a violation of federal law for an employee to disclose any tax information.
And that can be pretty broad as far as the individual's name. So the agents sometimes are a little leery when it's discussing that. And I'm not sure that's what caused that. Like I said, I'm familiar, but a lot of times when they are conducting some type of operation, they will let the local authorities know just prior to the incident, once everything's signed off and is by a magistrate.
Sometimes they don't, depending on the legality. They're concerned for making any type of infraction and, quite honestly, having me investigate them. All right. Any other questions
Speaker 172
1:12:27
from the committee? All right. Seeing none, nobody's signed up to speak for or against.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:36
Do you want to close for your bill, Representative Batting? Committee, again, thank
you for your time and consideration. that the
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:12:47
goal here is simply to clean up to allow organizations that have merged their names
or changed their – we've had so much since 9-11, since we've talked about so many organizations have either moved to other departments, merged their names, changed their names, or new ones have cropped up as we try to identify niche areas that need special law enforcement attention. At
this time, I appreciate a good vote, and I make a motion to do pass. All right, committee, we've
got a motion to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. All right, the no's have it.
Maybe I got this one right. Sorry, your bill's failed. Representative Talley, are you ready? Representative Talley, you
recognize to present House Bill 1360. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee members.
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
1:13:54
It's great to be here with you today and to present House Bill 1360. The intent of this bill is to update and amend the functions of the State Crime Lab by adding language in the Arkansas Code to include among the lab's functions in providing the equipment and personnel to conduct DNA analysis, DNA database administration, computer forensic analysis. Other actions in the bill update the wording of the subsections to keep it uniform. I have Dr. Channel here with me today, the Executive Director of the State Crime Lab, to help address
any questions we might have with this legislation. Are there any
questions? Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, nobody has signed to speak for or against the bill. You want to close? Representative McElroy has a question. Okay. You want to close your bill, Representative Talley? Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Okay. Committee, Representative McElroy has a motion. Representative McElroy, what's that motion? Do pass. Got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, ayes have it.
Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Representative Catlett, are you here to present your bill? Okay. Is there anybody else here to present their bill? Can you have it somewhere? Yeah. What you got, 1326.
Speaker 5
1:15:46
Representative Wright, welcome to House Judiciary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here is the
here with the parole board to answer any questions.
What this bill does is it clarifies and specifies that when somebody is facing a revocation of their parole, violating the parole, they're allowed a hearing, unless they waive that hearing. The bill, you all helped me get out here the other day. This allows the parole
hearing officers that go out across this state to have these hearings, if they have been trained and if they have a concealed carry handgun license,
this authorizes them to be one of the people that can carry their concealed permit with them to the hearings. As you can imagine, these hearings sometimes you could have pretty strong feelings at these hearings. and we think it's necessary for their protection. I'd be happy to answer any questions,
Speaker 200
1:17:14
and I'm sure Mr. Feltz would. Any questions
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:17:17
from the committee? Representative Williams. Chairman Wright, are these hearings held and usually held inside a state prison facility?
No, they're not? They're not. They're
Speaker 123
1:17:27
usually outside a facility. All right. So where are they typically held,
Speaker 201
1:17:37
Feltz explain kind of the different areas. Representative Williams, they generally are held at local parole offices, sometimes at sheriff's departments, and, again, as indicated, they do travel alone. Right. So that is our main concern
Speaker 105
1:17:49
there. Okay. Thank you. Representative Neal. All right.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:17:55
Any further questions from the committee? I don't have anyone signed up from the audience. If there's anyone to speak for or against this, please state so at this time. Seeing none, Representative Wright, would you wish to close for your bill? Closed for my bill. Appreciate a good vote. All right. Mr. Representative Neal? All right. There's a motion to do pass Representative Wright's bill. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Congratulations, Representative Wright. The bill's passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Is there anyone else present to run a bill?
Hearing none, we'll take that as a motion to adjourn. We'll be adjourned until next Tuesday.
Agenda
HB1192
HB1394
HB1404
HB1349
HB1360
HB1326
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Wes Wagner Chair
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
Speaker 14
Representative Sue Scott Chair
Unverified
Speaker 22
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 28
Gil Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 35
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 19
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 66
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 78
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 91
Speaker 87
Speaker 94
Speaker 95
Speaker 103
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 130
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 146
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 151
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Special Agent
Unverified
Speaker 173
Speaker 178
Speaker 170
Speaker 176
Speaker 183
Speaker 184
Speaker 182
Speaker 172
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 193
Speaker 200
Speaker 123
Speaker 201
Speaker 105