House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1020
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1020”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1114
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1114”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1012
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1012”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1042
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1042”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB12
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB12”
|
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 5, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
Without objection, we're going to go a little out of order here and call House Bill 1114, Representative Hickerson. Representative Hickerson, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it very much.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
0:34
This bill, House Bill 1114, is basically a bill that's going to exempt certified law enforcement officers from jury duty. And I just will say right at the outset here, this is not, we do love our law enforcement officers, but it's not to single out any occupation for any reason other than law enforcement officers take time off from their duties to go in if they're called for voir dire, did I pronounce that right?
And they spend a lot of time there off the job, which is particularly harmful to smaller departments. and that 99.9% of the time, they are not going to be called for jury service because of the fact that they're law enforcement officers. I don't know of any other occupation that has these same circumstances where they would not be called because of what they do. I have with me today Saline County Circuit Clerk Dennis Milligan,
and he's going to testify for the bill. Circuit Clark Milligan is the person that brought this idea to me, and he's going to talk a little bit about that, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. And also I have the head of the Sheriff's Association, Mr. Baldwin. And, Mr. Baldwin, is there a seat for another person to testify? And there are quite a few law enforcement officers here, and I will let Mr. Milligan recognize those, if that's okay.
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
2:24
That's fine. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing us this time. My name is Dennis Milligan. I am the Saline County Circuit Clerk. I do have with me today a number of different law enforcement officials, as well as city mayors. I'd like to recognize Sheriff Bruce Pennington from Saline County. his Chief Deputy Bill Field, Mayor Jeff Airy from Haskell, his Chief Mike Volt, I've got the Chief of Police of Bryant, Arkansas, Mark Kaiser, and his Chief Mr. Croson, Detective
Croson, along with a host of other supporters of this bill. As I addressed Prissy with this concern, one of the things that I recognized in two years was we would call all these law enforcement officials for jury duty and about 99.9 percent of the time they never got called. No other occupation has those kind of astounding numbers. Let me say also that this bill is already federal precedented.
If you are called to a federal jury as a law enforcement officer, certified law enforcement officer, you are exempt. So there is federal precedent. I don't agree with the federal government that often, but this is one law that they've gotten right. Again, it's a win-win situation as we digest this and as we looked at it. We saw that we have to pay, the counties have to pay when we call you for jury duty. And it's not all about, it's $25, which in the scheme of things is not that much money.
But when we started adding it up and thinking about countywide, the number of law enforcement officials that were called in, they spent all day and then were struck, it kind of caught our eye. So we started addressing and talking to law enforcement officials and talking to some other individuals about this and got an agreement that if this is happening in our county, just think of the 74 other counties that this is occurring in. And so the more that we tossed this around and then got to check and found out that it
was a federal law, we thought that this would be a good law, would be win-win. Law enforcement has the highest divorce rate just about in any occupation. That's another thing because the police officers spend so much time in court and for them to come and sit all day only to be struck, it just didn't make common sense. And again, when we add it all up throughout the state of Arkansas, we feel quite frankly that this is just very much a common sense bill.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
5:19
Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Baldwin be recognized? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair
Speaker 19
5:35
and committee members. I come to you representing the Sheriff's Association, and not the entire voice of law enforcement, but I do see one of my sheriffs sitting out here. The Sheriff's Association is wholeheartedly behind this bill. Mr. Paul, let me interrupt you.
If you'll just remind everybody who you
Speaker 19
5:52
are and introduce yourself right there. Okay. Excuse me. I'm Ronnie Baldwin, Executive Director of the Sheriff's Association, also a retired sheriff to Cross County. Having been a sheriff for 10 years in Cross County, there's been a number of times that I've had some of my deputies call for jury duty only to have them, like the gentleman said, just stand around all day and then actually get denied. I've had to, in fact, had to pull people off shift and then replace them with someone else on
shift so they could go fulfill their duties. This puts an extreme, extreme hardship, not Not necessarily just the monetary thing, but the manpower standpoint on the smaller departments. So for those reasons, the Sheriff's Association is 100% entirely behind this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
6:50
Just in closing for this bill and- I think there may be some people, Representative Hickerson, that
may want to speak or give us some info. J.D. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich, you're recognized.
Speaker 33
7:21
Sorry about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm J.D. Gingrich with the Administrative Office of the Courts, and this morning was asked to provide some information on behalf of the Arkansas Judicial Council, which is all of the circuit judges in the state of Arkansas. Arkansas, up until 1991, had a specific statutory exemption that exempted law enforcement officers from serving on juries. The problem was that there were also 17 other specific statutory exemptions based upon one's
occupation from serving on a jury. So with all due respect that there might not be others in similar circumstances, the medical board came and made the case that physicians were of a similar circumstance and their schedules were such that they needed to be exempted, nurses were exempted, optometrists were exempted, And as I said, there were a total of 17. There were so many exemptions that it was difficult to find juries, folks that could serve on a jury. And so the General Assembly in 1991 adopted legislation that was proposed by the Judicial
Council to eliminate every single one of the statutory exemptions based upon one's occupation, but to provide discretion on the part of the judge to exempt all of those folks if they needed to or wanted to. If you look at the first sentence of the current law that's being amended, it says clearly that a person may be excused for such period of time as the court deems necessary. That gives the circuit judge the ability to exempt law enforcement officers. In fact, they can exempt it on the front end, but once one receives a summons, it's possible
to contact the court, and you don't ever have to show up for the first jury orientation or for any proceeding. You can be exempted without having to do that. The fear that existed on the part of many folks in many professions was that judges would not be reasonable in how they were carrying out their responsibilities. And so the commitment that we made as an agency and as the judges' organization was that when problems were identified, we would go and try to work with those folks or with those judges in those areas to try to make sure that that could get worked through.
because judges, as elected officials, also have an interest in making sure that things are working well and that large groups of employees in their jurisdictions aren't unhappy with how that works. On the other hand, we all have a responsibility to make sure that we have a right to a jury. So that's really the position of the circuit judges, that as a matter of policy, it would be their preference that we not go back down the track of creating specific exemptions based upon one's occupation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Gingrich. Is there anybody else out there that
I've missed wanting to speak for
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
10:19
or against the bill? Anybody for or against? Representative Hickerson, you want to close? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the comments. Just to clarify, this bill is not intended to exempt a certain occupation, law enforcement, from jury service, because it causes a hardship for them, although, you know, it may,
but it is to exempt them because they are almost never called to service. So it's just a waste of time. And other than judges, I really can't think of any other occupation who are routinely rejected just because of what they do. federal statutes Mr. Milligan mentioned federal statutes there are also 12 states
that currently exempt law enforcement officers I think this is a good bill I think it will help law enforcement I think it will help our smaller cities and counties and I would appreciate a good vote thank you very much thank you Representative Fickerson what's the pleasure
of the committee I don't have any. Committee? Representative
Williams, recognize your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
11:36
Hickerson, I appreciate what you're doing here in the intent, but let me ask a couple of questions.
You say the purpose is to exempt law enforcement officials because they're never called, and I think that's probably right. But there are also others who are very seldom ever called, and I
just wonder where do we stop? I mean, for example, lawyers are very seldom ever called to be on a jury. Insurance agents are very seldom ever called because often it involves an insurance issue. I just wonder, where do you think we should draw the line? I support what you're trying to do here, but where do you draw the line outside of just law enforcement officials?
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
12:13
Well, I appreciate that question, and that's a really good question. I think that each, you know, as these bills arise for exemptions, you're going to have to take every single occupation and look at it. I just think for law enforcement, it's just a certainty that they're not going to be selected, and they're wasting time when they have to take time off from public service, from a job,
pulling away an officer, pulling them off duty to go in, they're not going to be called. It's just sort of a waste
Speaker 11
12:55
of time. Thank you, Representative Williams. Representative McElroy. As I've served
as a county judge for several years, I've seen that happen with our small police department. They work all night because they have to work overtime and then they call them for jury duty And then when they get there, you know, like you say, 99 and 9 tenths percent, they don't want them on the jury because, you know, they're just too involved in all that that's going on.
So I realize that it is a hardship on especially the small departments, and it was a hardship on us. So just to comment on that. Thank you.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:45
Representative Shepard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate Representative Hickerson for bringing this bill. Usually us South Arkansans stick together, but I think I have to disagree on this one.
I do have a question, though, and my initial question was along the lines of Representative Williams, where do we draw the line? And the response was kind of a case-by-case situation. To me, that's already what a judge is given at this point Is the discretion to make that determination And is there any concern that if we eliminate law enforcement That that will only expand the list of occupations
That are not, as a matter of practice Normally called to serve on juries In other words, right now law enforcement may be those that the attorneys choose to strike with their automatic challenges. But if they're not part of the jury pool, then does it become more prevalent that attorneys and insurance agents and doctors and the list goes on and on? Is there not a
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
14:53
can't answer that question. I think you as an attorney, you would have better insight for that.
All I can say is it could be a case-by-case basis. as legislation is brought for exemptions. You know, I mentioned that 12 other states exempt law enforcement officers, and in doing the research for this, I found that many, many states also exempt legislators.
Speaker 51
15:19
Just food for thought. And if I could just
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:22
a follow-up question. Mr. Milligan, do you have the site for the federal statute? I was trying to find the site where they were exempted.
Speaker 53
15:34
Do you all have that? Okay. Christy found
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:39
it. I just would like to make sure I know that the next time I go into federal court. And that was – I'm wondering if it's not grand juries, and that's one of my concerns is that this bill applies not only to grand juries, which I can understand that. I mean, that is a grand jury convened to look into criminal allegations. But as I read it, it applies not only to grand juries, it applies to normal criminal juries,
and it also would apply to civil jury trials, which I think could, you know, I don't know that it's necessarily a certainty that law enforcement officers wouldn't serve on a civil jury. So those are some of my concerns. I appreciate you
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
16:23
bringing this up. Yes. Representative Sheppard, if I could address a couple of things, and also Representative Williams. One of the things that prompted me to propose this was sheer numbers. We talk about attorneys.
We talk about firemen. We talk about EMTs. We talk about legislators. It's down to sheer numbers. If you come into Saline County, you've got a 99.9% chance there's a law enforcement officer not serving. Nowhere near to any of our other numbers as far as attorneys, insurance agents, firemen, EMTs come close. So it's really that's I believe in numbers, and that's how we came to the conclusion that it was really just a waste of time for these officers to come in.
My judges, I have four circuit judges in Saline County, and they make them come to jury orientation and then after jury orientation. But let me tell you something. These law enforcement officers are very dedicated individuals. Not many of us strap on a pistol each day and go to work with the chance that we're going to come back in a horizontal position. So they're not very inclined to back off from their proposed public service
because they're already very public-servicely committed. Now, with that being said, we also realize the fact that when they go in and the attorneys start interviewing and asking what they do for a living, we've just seen time after time after time where they get struck. And it gets down to an economic situation, too. Again, I stated earlier, if we just consider Saline County, that's one thing.
But if we take the whole state and we take these smaller departments that's been stated and we inconvenience them and we put the public safety's welfare on the line in some cases, I don't think that is good government. I don't think that's what the public wants us to do. So again, in my favor for this bill, I think it's a win-win, and I think when you come at it at a number of different angles, but when you get down to the bare numbers, the numbers bear out that law enforcement is going to be struck and the other entities, the other
occupations, the numbers don't even come close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Milligan, Representative Hickerson, I've got a couple questions. Law enforcement, there's no question in the state that they're wonderful people and put
their lives on the line every day, but they're also smart, hardworking, and dedicated, why do you want to dilute the jury pool to
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
19:17
do something that judges can already do anyway? Well, again, my judges in Saline County, they, even though the police officers have an opportunity
to go stand before them and ask to be exempted, we find that's just not a common occurrence, again, for the reasons I stated earlier. Well,
do you think it could be that judge who's sitting up there on the bench saying, this is a good, honest, hard-working person. We need
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
19:39
folks like him on the jury. Well, and I think that there's some credence to that. But we also are not trying to exclude police officers. If they want to attempt to try to serve on that jury, we more than want them. We're not trying to give them an automatic exemption. We're trying to give them the option on a summons that says that they can choose to be exempted.
But if they want to serve and they want to make the attempt, we certainly don't want to block their opportunity to be able to serve on a jury. Thank
Representative John Baine
Unverified
20:11
you. Representative Bain, did you have a question? You're reckoning. Thank you very much. I come from a county background. I spent 12 years in county government
before I came here. And my question is, at what point do we start exempting others, EMS workers, all the other kind of essential services that we have? I mean, I'm thinking we're getting on a slippery slope if we do this and we're going to have, you know, every month we'll be back here until Sessions is out exempting another group.
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
20:32
Well, I just stated earlier, it all comes down to numbers, and I don't have those kind of numbers on EMTs. I don't have those kind of numbers on firemen. I don't have those kind. Only on, if you're a fireman, you've got a great opportunity, and we have selected a number of firemen to serve. It's law enforcement, so, and again, it is a federal precedent. The federal government has said this is we want to exempt law enforcement, certified law enforcement from serving. So it's just something you have to get back down to the bare numbers, and the numbers bear it out, sir.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
21:08
Thank you. Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues here have asked most of the questions to address most of my concerns, but I've just got one question. I know that circuit judges have a good deal of discretion in how they conduct Fort Iyer. Have you bothered just contacting your local circuit judges and asked that they call these kind of folks up first and maybe limit the time that the folks take up when they're waiting to be selected for jury duty or anything like that to
maybe expedite the process for these certain individuals that are likely to be struck?
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
21:39
Well, I have talked to my circuit judges, and, again, the issue that I come up with, sir, is the fact that police officers are a very proud group, and they are not ones to, if someone's got to stand up for them because they already proved day to day that they're willing to put their life on the line for us. And so they're just a proud group that's just not going to stand up and ask to be exempt from something like this. So I think our judges would be more than willing to work with them,
but they also don't want to embarrass or deny these police officers their due rights. I appreciate your concern on that.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
22:18
It just seems like it's something that could be done on a local level.
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
22:23
I think, again, that if a police officer, again, it just, I think it creates a grave embarrassment for them to stand in line to go before the judge. And there's no doubt in my mind that probably 10 out of 10 they're going to get exempted. But I think we're just bringing in some emotions that we have to deal with.
And law enforcement is a proud group, and they're just not ones to ask for something like this. And they depend on public officials with common sense, common direction, and numbers
Speaker 11
22:53
to back up and to fight their fight for them in this case. I'm sure that prosecutors would prefer to have officers on the jury
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
23:00
if they could have them that way. If they get a jury full of 12 officers, I'm sure they'd like it that way. But that's just automatic strike for the defense. Right. Well, that was one question I had. You've only got a limited number of strikes,
so it seems like it would also taint to a certain degree the number that each side gets in striking potential jurors. You know, if you have a whole lot of insurance agents on a jury, then a defense, you know, business defense lawyers are going to use as many as they can, but they've only got so many strikes. If you get a whole lot of officers on a jury, defense lawyers are going to use as many strikes as they can. So are we not, in a sense, tainting the jury pool to allow for free strikes for some particular lawyers in some particular cases?
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
23:48
I think that it would be just such a small percentage that you're talking about. Again, the prosecutors, and I've visited with a number of prosecutors, and they're really kind of neutral on this bill. they do there have been some comments about the fact that they make the defense attorney use a strike but I think day in and day out it's such a small percentage that I think it could be termed irrelevant
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
24:17
I'm inclined to support any of Representative Hickerson's
bill because she does a good job this is one thing the only thing that's scarier than a trial by jury is a trial by a jury full of people who have better things to do than be on a jury So I hope that we can make sure that people, we
Speaker 65
24:36
get more qualified jurors. And it sounds like, as our chairman pointed out, this is all the more reason to
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
24:42
keep them on a jury. Mr. Representative, I've traveled all around the state. I've done a number of radio programs. I mean, it's not something we just brought before you just to kill time. And, again, overwhelmingly, the call-ins, the positives have been overwhelming as far as the proposal of this bill.
Speaker 65
24:58
The negatives have been very few. Thank you. I
appreciate you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. I think Representative McElroy
has something. Let's get this wrapped up. I just had one question. In the states that do
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
25:13
exempt them, do they exempt other professionals or just them exclusively? It just varies. Some of them, it's just law enforcement officers, officers of the court and law enforcement officers. some states it's just certain law enforcement officers such as sheriffs, magistrates
you know, it just depends some of them have lots of exemptions and as I stated there are several states that exempt legislators so we don't want to go there I believe that Sheriff Ball and
Mr. Chairman would like to speak again before we get through if that's okay he has a comment,
is that okay? Representative Hickerson, we're past that. What's the pleasure of the committee?
Does anybody have a motion? Okay. Dyes for lack of a motion. Thank
you, Representative Hickerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. All right, next for House Bill 1020, Representative Jett, I believe, showed up.
Speaker 78
26:34
There he is. Do what? You need to expunge the vote.
All right, y'all, before we get to Representative Jett, he was here on this bill last week. We need a motion to expunge the previous vote. Do I have a motion? Representative Wagner, do you have to make a motion to expunge previous vote? All in
Chair
Unverified
27:01
favor? Aye. All opposed? Ayes have it. Representative Jett, you're recognized. Present your bill. Thank you,
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
27:05
Mr. Chairman. My bill is House Bill 1020, and it pertains to limited liability protection for landowners who provides their airstrips for private use, for recreational use. I'm not adding any language to the bill other than the fact we're adding the words aviation
and aircraft to the bills. With that, I'll be glad to entertain. Any questions?
Anybody wishing to speak for or against? Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Just motion at the proper time, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nichols, you're recognized.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
27:49
Since Representative Judd had such an easy go of it last time, you should at least receive some questions from some of our more senior members on this committee. What if there's a private airplane that's
carrying four or five duck hunters and they're getting paid for it?
How does this bill affect them if they're landing on your private field and they run into a four-wheeler that you've left in the wrong spot? Well,
Chair
Unverified
28:35
first of all, Representative Nichols, I appreciate the question, and you shouldn't have been
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
28:41
sleeping last meeting. You got your question in, but any time commerce is affected with this, this bill strictly uses recreational use only.
So if money is involved, then it's outside the recreational use according to state statutes. Representative Williams. I
Speaker 89
29:05
just want him to get a question. I think he's
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
29:08
going to let him go. Y'all's lawyers, is there something like double jeopardy
or statute of limitations or something? Representative McElroy, you recognize. Representative Jet, myself, I've dabbled with airplanes and things.
What if an armadillo, for instance, was to dig a hole in that airstrip, and I called you and you said, you know, as far as you know, the runway's good, And I come in and I hit that armadillo hole, and it really messes me up. Now, do you think that absolves all your liability, or do we have to
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
29:50
seek the armadillo? Well, I appreciate your question, Representative McElroy, and I will pay you back. But this bill states that you're seeking permission to come onto somebody's property,
but once you come on somebody's property the safety is not we're not guaranteeing your safety as it is if you come on to hunt, fish, camp or anything else. The only thing we're saying is we're giving you permission to come on to my property free of charge. No commerce is involved and once you come on to my property it's up to you to safeguard your own safety. Thank you, Representative McElroy. What's the pleasure of
the committee? Got a motion to do passed. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed?
Congratulations, your bill has passed Again, thank you Alright, next is House Bill 1012 Representative Altus
Representative Altus Representative Altus Next, House Bill 1042 Representative Bell Representative
Bell Alright, next, Senate Bill 12 Senator Irvin.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
31:05
Senator Irvin, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate your time and allowing me to bring this bill before you.
Senate Bill 12 was brought to me and requested by the Arkansas State Parks, with whom I'm joined here today. Having a great amount of respect for our Arkansas State Parks, I was honored they would bring this issue to me. I will let them go ahead and introduce themselves at
Speaker 104
32:00
this time. Richard Davies, Director of the Department of
Speaker 106
32:04
Parks and Tourism. Greg Butts, Director of Arkansas State
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
32:08
Parks. I also have Representative David Branscombe here with me, who will be hopefully leading us on the House end.
This bill prevents a Level 3 and Level 4 sex offender from being in a designated swimming area or playground within a state park. It would not prevent the offender from entering or enjoying a state park in other areas of the park, a federal park, or any other areas in the state managed by the Corps of Engineers. In 2011, the 88th General Assembly passed Act 816, which gave this ability to municipal swimming areas and parks. In some areas of our state, the state park swimming areas or playgrounds serve as a local community swimming pool and playground,
such as the Crater of Diamonds State Park. So this bill provides consistency with what this legislature in 2011 has already voted into law. According to the Sex Offender Assessment Committee Guidelines and Procedures of 2007 report, they have indicated what a Level 3 and Level 4 definition is. I also have it from the Cleveland County Sheriff's website as to a Level 4 is a sexually violent predator
and a Level 3 is a high-risk sex offender. And so these are the two levels that this bill is pertaining to, not to Level 1 or Level 2. And I can read those if you want more information on those levels. I will take any questions and ask if I can close for the bill and
ask if the state parks could make some comments. Is Drain Bay wishing to speak against the bill?
Lynn Gilmore, she here, signed up. Ms. Gilmore, would you like to speak against the bill? Okay, you're recognized. Please go to the end of the table and introduce yourself to everybody.
Lynn Gilmore
Unverified
34:22
Oh, she's up there, okay. Go ahead. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman Wright and members of the committee for allowing me to speak before
you today. My name is Lynn Gilmore, and I am the CEO of SOSEN, which is short for Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network. This is a web-based national group of advocates for sex offender legislation reform. I am also a member of Arkansas Time After Time, which is the state affiliate group for reformed sex offender laws. I understand this bill was drafted because, quote, a registered sex offender was found to be hanging around a playground.
Last week, when I asked if this one offender had committed any crime or if he had a legitimate reason for being there, no one had an answer for me. If my questions weren't relevant, then why was it relevant to mention this one incident when considering the proposal of this bill? one potential incident truly necessitate this bill. This law would greatly affect families and children of sex offenders because they will not be able to go to these swimming areas and playgrounds with their sex offender parents.
A right every child should be afforded regardless of their parents' class or status. You may not care about these specific children, but any time a law is passed that infringes on the rights of any innocent children, family members, and American citizens, the law is unconstitutional. You can be assured that if this law is passed, this law will be challenged and lawsuits will result. If your concern is for potential victims, then may I suggest you word the law so that
these offenders cannot go to these places alone. That one word would make it possible for these offenders to enjoy these places together with their friends and family. Most of our registered sex offenders are married and do have children. When are we going to stop punishing these innocent family members? I have never once seen a case where a registered sex offender visited a state park with their family and or friends and snatched a kid for the purpose of committing a sexual crime in
in the presence of their own family or friends. I challenge anyone out there to find me such a case to justify this law the way it is currently written. It just does not happen. The Department of Justice says that only about 5 percent of all registered sex offenders ever reoffend. Also, stranger danger is extremely rare as a majority of sex crimes happen with a family member or with some of the victim knows. I would prefer to see a law prohibiting parents
from dumping off their children at swimming areas and playgrounds. If our children were not left unattended, then there is no way a stranger will have access to them to cause harm. We need to be responsible parents and not rely on some ridiculous law to protect our kids. Their best protection is by having good parents. Since 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by someone who is not on the public registry, SB 12 will not protect children
at all. But attentive parents will. I have never and would never leave my children unattended at a playground or a swimming area, pool or beach. I am responsible for their safety. And I do not put my faith in others, or worse, some ridiculous law, to protect my kids. In almost every abduction case out there, as rare as they are, the child was almost always left alone and vulnerable.
Senator Irvin stated last week that most Level 3 and 4 offenders are repeat offenders. This is simply not true. Where is the data to back this up? When I look over the ACIC website list of offenders, I see all kinds of sex crimes under these categories. For example, I found for a level three, crimes from indecent exposure all the way to rape. Indecent exposure could be something as simple as walking from the bathroom to the bedroom
after a shower and a soon-to-be ex-wife decides to use that as a sex crime so that she can gain custody of her children. think this type of scenario doesn't happen. In Senator Irvin's closing statements last week, she shared a story about how her daughter's best friend was molested by someone at school. The man had committed sex crimes against family members before and was never prosecuted. So when the school did a background check on him, they did not discover his crimes and he went on to molest children at school. He was not a registered sex offender. The registry
did not and would not have helped save this child from this crime. Once again, the sex offender registry proved itself as being useless. While this is definitely a sad, sad story, I failed to see the connection between her story and the need for this law in state parks. Where is that connection? There are so many problems with this law. For example, what is the definition of a beach? Is it where the water meets the shore? Does it include the sandy area of the shore?
Does it include the surrounding picnic tables and restroom facilities? What if a sex offender is out on the lake water skiing and he is suddenly whipped into a swimming area by accident? Wouldn't this be considered a crime? What about intertubing or canoeing? I've been canoeing many, many times with my family. By the way, I am married to a sex offender. We always pull up to a sandy beach for breaks to eat sandwiches and apply more sunblock. Other families pull up to the same area,
and they almost always have kids. The kids swim in the area. Would this not constitute a, quote, swimming area? Sometimes there are even signs posted, swim at your own risk. This is a clear indication that the area is frequently used for swimming. I would like to know how they plan to enforce this law, and how much would it cost to enforce this law? Shouldn't these things be considered? This law is nothing but a floppy, feel-good law that will protect no one and only punish families further.
Children with sex offenders do deserve the right to go to these parks with their sex offender parents. There is absolutely no proof that exists whatsoever that prohibiting an offender from visiting a water feature or a playground at a state park will prevent any crimes. So I ask you, please vote no on SB 12. Thank you very much. Ms. Kilmer, thank you. Anybody have any questions? None. Thank you, Ms. Kilmer.
Anybody for the bill? I'm sorry. I have a motion at the proper time.
Anybody for? Anybody against? Senator Irvin, you want
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
41:33
to close your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to address you can look on the CleburneCountySheriff.com website for the definitions of a sex offender they're publicly noticed there for the public level 4 and I can read those but I won't go on but level 4
is a sexually violent predator these are individuals with impaired judgment or control who have sexual or violent compulsions that they lack the ability to control Level 3 is a high risk. These individuals usually have histories of repeat sexual offending and are strong antisocial, violent, or predatory personality characteristics. I believe
this is a consistent bill with legislation that we passed in 2011. It is a bill to help our Arkansas State Parks maintain an impeccable reputation of providing a safe, fun, and affordable family vacation
to not only families within our borders, but families from other states and even countries. The Arkansas State Parks has gone to extraordinary lengths to build and maintain this reputation, and I appreciate their concern on this very serious issue and for the protection of our children from the highest-risk sex offenders. And I go off the information that is provided to me by local law enforcement and by committees and commissions from the state of Arkansas. And I would ask if Mr. Davies could just make a closing remark.
And I would appreciate your vote for this bill. I think this is a bill for our Arkansas State Parks and for the protection of all of our children. Senator
Irvin, we already passed time for fors and against. I believe the questions for the committee now. Mr. Gilliam, do
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
43:12
you have some questions? Yes, Mr. Chairman. You recognize? Senator Irvin, and this, I may, I've been looking here, and I may have just missed it, and if I am, you can help me guide where this is at. But there was a couple things that we, in discussing this before committee that came up,
One was the enforcement. This was mentioned earlier in the testimony as well. And also, is there a fiscal impact statement with this bill? And I've tried clicking it on my computer, and I can't get it to pull up, so I just. I think it should be attached, Representative Gilliam. Well, I keep clicking it.
Speaker 121
43:42
Look at the tree on the left side. It should be right
below SB12. It says fiscal impact. I just don't get anything to come up whenever I press that.
I did. I'm getting a blank screen. All right. Give us one
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
44:11
second. Does anybody else have any questions? Representative Kutseo. One quick question. Pardon my
ignorance, but if one is labeled a level three or level four sex offender, are they labeled that forever, or after 20 years
or so, do they get reassessed? I'm just curious to know. I don't know the answer to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
44:26
that question. Thank you, Representative Steele. I appreciate the question.
My information comes from the Sex Offender Assessment Committee guidelines and procedures from 2007. There is the Sex Offender Sexual Registry. There is a process through this organization, SOSRA, to make the determination, and there is a process for appeal. Yes. And this report is very in-depth, and I can give you a copy of this report, but there is a process for appeal.
This is a unit within the Department of Corrections that goes through and reports that. But they're the ones that created the assessment to label what level the sex offender is. And so I have here attached the forms and the applications and
the different types of things if you'd like to see all of that. I was just
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
45:19
curious to know, I know this is, obviously, it's a process that's dealt with in several other areas of the law. I was just curious to know, if someone's banned from these particular areas now,
if 30 years from now they're still banned from the same areas
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
45:36
and they still have the same label. I was just... Adult offenders may request reassessment five years after the date of the most recent assessment. Reassessments will include a polygraph, voice stress analysis, a... Sorry, I can't pronounce that word. Please, so, McGrath, which is a measure of sexual interest examination, as deemed appropriate by the SOSRA, and all of that's within the Department
of Corrections. That answers my question.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
46:02
Thank you. Representative Gillum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, sorry about the technical difficulties there. That question got answered. On the enforcement side of this, though, would you mind explaining to the committee a little bit on how this would actually be enforced? Is this going towards Game and Fish, State Police? Just kind of walk us
Speaker 104
46:24
through a little bit of that, if you don't mind. Yes, sir. I'm Richard Davies, Director of Department of Parks and
Speaker 132
46:30
Tourism. The state parks have approximately 100 certified law enforcement officers scattered throughout the state in the different parks.
That would be the primary enforcement. There is a lot of cooperation with county sheriffs, local state troopers, back and forth on those sorts of things. The enforcement would have to be if somebody had knowledge that someone was a sex offender. And I think the sex offender would have to be, I think with signing, which would be our responsibility, we'd have to make it clear where the areas were, you know, playground area, swimming beach, you know, signed, so people would know it. But the enforcement, generally, and the way we like to do enforcement is the lowest level of enforcement that handles the problem is what we ought to do.
So if it's something simply that you need to move on, then that solves the problem. If it's somebody who refuses, then you stab it up. Okay.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
47:23
May I have a follow-up, Mr. Chairman? No. Okay. Yeah. Thank
you. So from what you said, the response time would actually, if someone was notified, if there's, I mean, do
you have one per state park? At least, yes, sir. What you've got in state parks is
Speaker 132
47:39
many of the, and the reason for this is many of the state parks are in rural areas.
It might be 30, 45 minutes before the deputy can get there or the trooper. And so most of our park superintendents, the actual manager, have been sent to the academy and are actually officially certified law enforcement officers. In a larger park, you have what we call rangers, which are full-time enforcement people. So at a place like DeGray, you may have three or four commissioned officers at a smaller part, maybe just
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
48:06
one. Okay. So, but basically it comes down to, from what I'm understanding a little bit, this is really going to be kind of a little bit on the honor system, that the actual sex offender is going to see the sign and obey the sign.
Speaker 106
48:19
Is that really the crux of this? That's generally the way most park
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
48:25
rules and regulations are. Okay. But if I might, one last question, and I promise I'll yield the floor, Mr. Chair. Senator Irvin, you
and Luke, reading the level four earlier, would you mind reading that again? Because I think there was a phrase in there that I'm kind of getting a hang-up here on this honor system with the definition of a level four. Okay. If you could help us walk
us through that one more time. Something about impaired judgment, did I hear that right?
Speaker 107
48:51
Do you want me to read both level three and level four or just
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
48:55
level four? I think level four was where I heard the impaired judgment portion
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
49:01
at. It's in both. Okay, well, one will work. Level four is a sexually violent predator,
refers to a person who has been adjudicated guilty of a sex offense or acquitted on the grounds of mental disease or defect of a sex offense that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sex offenses. The designation indicates that the highest and most visible means of community notification is required.
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
49:28
you, Mr. Chairman. Rep. Scott, you're recognized. First of all, I'd like to say to Lynn Gilmore, I'm very sorry about your situation. I know that's tough every day. I can only imagine. But think about this. I have eight grandchildren, and we love to visit the parks in Arkansas. In fact, we've just about visited every park in Arkansas. If this bill is allowed, if this bill passes, I will never, ever look at another park the same way
because I will be afraid that I will be taking my grandchildren to a park where there are sex offenders allowed to be there. Thank you. Representative McElroy?
Jen? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If it failed, I am so sorry. If the bill failed. Any other questions?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
50:29
Representative Williams, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Irvin, I appreciate you bringing this bill and appreciate the dozens that we had last session on this issue. It seems like it would be easier to tell a sex offender where they can go as opposed to where they can't go because we seem to be piling on here. Let me ask you just a couple of questions. Studies have shown that sex offenders' likelihood of reoffense is, you know, very minimal, 5 percent.
And that's not even children. The 5 percent includes all sex offenders. That includes everyone, so not just children. What do you think about the rationale that if someone has committed a sex offense, instead of driving them to the shadows, you want to shine the light on them. You want them to be seen. You don't want to push them to the far ends and restrict too much where they go, where they can live, where they interact, because you actually want to see them. You want to know them. You want to be aware of who they are. And it's in the shadows where these things occur.
What do you think about that argument that we really should be shining the light on them? And
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
51:37
then I have a couple of follow-up
questions after that. MS. Thank you, Representative Williams, for your question. Right during the campaign season, I was in a public place, and I was approached by an individual to have their picture made with me. And I made that picture with
them, and then they posted it on Facebook. And then immediately about an hour later, I got a text message from a friend that said,
you have just taken your picture, and the sexual offender has posted your picture with him on his Facebook page. The reason they know that is because if you look at the Cleveland County Sheriff's Office here, they will locate all the sex offenders where they live with their picture, and that's also an indication of the level of sex offender. So although I do appreciate your argument, I can tell you from my own personal experience that this does occur in public places and that this is not pushed into the shadow
because of what I personally experienced. I know that the lady that testified referred to a story that I shared during the Senate committee And it's a real story about a child that was offended, sexually molested By an individual who was a stranger Who took the time to groom the child Who took the time to manipulate the child and the parent
And to say that this is a parent that was irresponsible Is absolutely offensive Because this parent is a friend of mine
So there are behaviors, and there is an assessment in place, and there is a procedure in place, and the Department of Corrections does take this seriously. They're the ones that label the sex offenders, not me. But I just want to say that story to say that this does happen in broad daylight. It happened to me, and I don't want us to be reactionary. I don't want there to be a Michaela's Law because of one person.
And we react very often. Our legislature will react to a horrible incident that has occurred. I don't want that to happen. I think this bill is consistent with what we've passed before. And I understand there's fatigue, but I'm quite frankly, I'm tired of Medicaid discussions. But it doesn't mean that we as a legislature decide not to pursue policy on those issues. because there are some very, very strong concerns here, and I appreciate that.
And I appreciate that we have to take these serious considerations and provide the level of notification that's really actually consistent with this assessment for a level four sex offender, that the highest level of community notification is recommended. And I think that's exactly what the state parks has brought here, is just the highest level of community notification. Well, it seems like this is more than notification. This
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
54:29
is a ban on them being in particular areas. This is not just notice. We have notice because we have the registration.
I guess I don't understand the crime of you taking a picture with a sex offender. Was that a crime? I don't
Speaker 146
54:42
quite understand that. It's not a crime, but it made me extremely uncomfortable. So,
Speaker 147
54:47
okay. I mean, just if you're a fan. Are we going to ban sex offenders everywhere we're
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
54:52
uncomfortable? Is that? No. My story refers to your story, your question
about pushing them into the shadows, but my story indicates that they're not pushed into the shadows, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's a good thing. We don't want to push them into the shadows. I don't want to push anyone into the shadows,
but I do think that it's important that we notify the community of the level of sex offenders and that we do take precautions to protect the safety of
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
55:17
our children. And explain to me how your bill notifies the community that a sex offender is at the sitting hole. I don't understand the notice provision. It prevents them from coming to the – it doesn't notify them. It
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
55:29
prevents them from coming there, right? It doesn't notify them. I think Representative Scott articulated
that when she talked about parks being safe because
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
55:37
that notice is there. Well, considering that only 5% reoffend, that means 95% of the times they don't.
And so that means more often than not, a sex offender is going to be somewhere who's never offended before. So you have a greater chance to be offended by someone who's brand new as opposed to being offended by someone being re-offended. So that argument, why it sounds good, it's emotional, just like a lot of our testimony and a lot of our legislation here. But it doesn't hold weight when you start talking about evidence-based principles, which I'm really fond of in Act 5.7, as you probably remember. Because more likely than not, you're offended by someone who's not on the registry. And I don't know how we stop them.
And listen, I don't want to become the sex offender champion. That's not the political position I'm trying to advocate, but I'm trying to advocate rational, smart policy. And I guess for Mr. Davies, help me understand the sign
posting. So is your posting going to say no sex offenders allowed in these swimming holes? What does your
Speaker 104
56:33
sign actually say? No, sir. It's like when we rarely have signs that indicate all the park rules. But I think it
Speaker 132
56:39
would be our responsibility to make it clear that this is an official playground or this is an official swimming area or beach.
Have you ever been to Lake Catherine, for instance? We've got an area that's the swimming area. We don't allow swimming in front of the campgrounds and all that because you've got boats going back and forth and lucky 13s hanging on stumps and things. And so I think it would be our responsibility to make it clear this is the official park swimming area or this is the official
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:07
park. Okay. How would you handle the case where my buddies and I are on the lake, or I shouldn't say my buddies, I hope I don't think I have any buddies or sex offenders on the lake,
and they stop to dock for a second? I mean, that's a real
Speaker 104
57:22
possible situation. Well, they're not going to be docking in a swimming area because we don't allow boats in swimming areas.
Speaker 132
57:29
Okay. You know, they might, and actually I don't think the Corps of Engineers does in any of their parks either. Swimming areas are usually, if it's on a lake, are buoyed off, they're identified. The swimming pool is pretty obvious.
Speaker 136
57:44
Here again, I don't see the conflict of by accident getting into these areas.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:50
All right. Senator, I appreciate what you're trying to do, and please don't take it wrong that I'm trying to promote sex offenders. I just think we've got to be rational in what we do, And I don't want to give anyone a false sense of security that now that three and four sex offenders are not allowed in the park, now they're safe, because more than likely you're going to be offended by someone who's never, ever been registered. So you're actually not any safer than you were, in my mind, having passed this. But I appreciate what you're trying to do, and it is obviously a very emotional charge issue.
I just want to ask the committee to give serious thought and be rational about
what we're doing here. Thank you,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
58:34
Representative Williams. Representative Shepard, do you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Irvin, there's been some discussion about notice and repeat offenders, and I just kind of want to make sure that I'm clear on this. It's my understanding, this bill, one, it only applies to level three and four sex offenders, which those are offenders that have been assessed
and it's been determined that they are in certainly their conduct and their conduct is such that they're graded a greater threat to society going forward. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And then secondly, really the point of this bill, it's not so much, it's not about notice, it's not about these other things. It's the fact that the state parks is trying to create an environment that is family friendly. And secondly, this bill serves as somewhat of a deterrent to level three and four sex offenders going to these areas,
which are being promoted by the state as being a family-friendly environment. I mean, is that what this
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
59:45
bill really gets at? Yes, and I'll refer back to my closing comment that it does help our Arkansas State Parks maintain that impeccable reputation of providing a safe,
family-fun atmosphere. The Arkansas State Parks markets their state parks to the whole entire country. In fact, we have people from
foreign countries that attend these state parks, and they spend millions of dollars in advertising and marketing.
And it's something that we are
very, very proud of, and we should be proud of here in Arkansas for our state parks because some of the accommodations at our state parks and the facilities that they offer are honestly second to none to some of the great resorts that we have in our country. So, yes, to your point, Representative
Shepard, this does help maintain that very important reputation that they have, that they need to have places that are safe, that are family-friendly, and I think this just goes to a good common-sense way of them being able to maintain that.
Thank you. Representative Scott. And I think Representative Gillum, and I
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:00:50
think we're going to wrap it up. Representative Scott. You know, we started out with the motto for Arkansas being the natural state. And if we do not pass this bill, I think we would be saying welcome to the most unnatural state. And I'm sorry that there are so many sex offenders out there, but I don't think it's right to take away my right to go to the parks of Arkansas
and have to be worried about the person sitting next to one of my grandchildren. I believe this would take away my right. Thank you, Representative. It looks like we've got Representative Gilliam. I just want
to remind everybody, let's stay focused on the bill. We all love our parks. We all want our
parks to be safe, but let's stay focused on the bill. Representative Gilliam, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:01:41
still trying to get my head kind of wrapped around some of the nuances of this and and if you'll allow me this one final question here have we had any in
the last let's just say short period two years have we had any recorded incidences of any offenses actually taking place within our state parks I know that you referenced or you referenced the bill that we passed out of this committee a couple years ago and there was some data behind that at the time, which is, I think, part of the reason that it managed to get through. So I think that might help the committee if we saw some of the data that could show the necessity of this bill here.
Speaker 132
1:02:22
We have not had a sexual offense that's actually been an act in the State Park in the last
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:02:29
two years. Have you had anybody that has contacted one of your rangers and said, hey, you actually have one of these on the
Speaker 103
1:02:38
premises right now? Yes, and that's what actually brought this up. It was a sex
Speaker 132
1:02:44
offender that was registered. It was hanging around the children's playground for days. And one of the rangers, you know, small communities, everybody knows everybody,
Speaker 97
1:02:54
you know, calls Little Rock, says, is there anything we can do about this?
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:02:58
And that's what started all this. I think that's important for the committee to know that this has actually occurred, and this was an abstract. So thank you. Thank you, Senator. What's
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:03:10
in bounds? Are you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I really understand Representative Williams' position, and I'm actually, you know, I think that we've got to take into consideration these folks, if we're letting them out of prison, need to be able to find jobs, need to be able to have a place to work,
and we don't want to push them in the shadows. But at the same time, I think we need to take into consideration we're not dealing with even people who just made one little stupid mistake. You know, these are registered level three and level four. they did something and I think that's pretty egregious and that's what we're doing here is just trying to take into account that they have done this, that they wouldn't be level 3 or 4 if they weren't considered to be likely re-offenders and so now we're just trying to take steps and so people sometimes yield up some of their rights when they take
certain actions and I think this group of people would probably fall in that category. Thank you. Thank you
Representative Ballinger. Was there anything else from the committee? All right, nothing else from the committee. Representative Shepard, you have a motion? I move, do pass. All right, Representative Shepard has a motion, do pass. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? No. Ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator. You passed your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My left is not the middle corner. I know. Sad. Alright y'all, that's it For today's I'm going to have a motion to adjourn All in favor All opposed Motion to adjourn
Agenda
HB1114
HB1020
HB1012
HB1042
SB12
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Dennis Milligan
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Mark D. McElroy Chair
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 51
Speaker 53
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 78
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 89
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 106
Lynn Gilmore
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 132
Speaker 107
Speaker 119
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Speaker 136
Speaker 103
Speaker 97
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified