House Judiciary Committee Part 3
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB666
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB666”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB810
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB810”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB18
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ght thank you mrs hopper you are recognized to proceed with senate bill 18. thank”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB410
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB410”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB834
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB834”
|
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
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
0:03
unfortunate, unfortunate number. I am so sorry about
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
0:07
that. The devil's in the
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
0:09
details, as they say. Go right ahead, Representative Hickerson. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. To my left, I have Bob McMahon, who's the prosecutor coordinator for the state of Arkansas. And members, I appreciate you letting us be here today to present this bill.
The unfortunately titled SB 666 is a bill that was brought to Senator Harrelson and me by our prosecuting attorney, Carlton Jones, and it will simply allow prosecuting attorneys, if they wish, to increase the fees they collect for hot checks. These fees have not been increased since 2003, And over the past few years, fees collected by prosecutors operating hot check programs have steadily declined. The prevalent use of debit and credit cards and insta-check systems by the larger retailers has greatly reduced the number of hot checks written.
And I guess that's a good thing, but the hot check programs are funded solely by the fees collected from the hot checks. The programs serve private citizens and small and large businesses in the state who have been victimized by those that acquire property from them and pay for it with worthless paper. The hot checks programs right now are in danger of going away. While prosecutors will still pursue hot check riders, these cases might just go into the mass of cases currently investigated by law enforcement.
Some jurisdictions have resorted to asking their county quorum courts to fund these programs, but as we know, county governments are already in a tough position with funding even the most basic of services, and this option places more of a burden on the law-abiding taxpayer to support a system made necessary by those who violate the law. If the hot check programs across the state do not remain viable, the small businesses and private citizens who come upon a bad check right or will suffer.
To them, the lack of any means to collect restitution for a bad check could be the difference between ending a month in the black or finishing the month in the red. This bill is supported by the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association, and I would appreciate a good vote, and I'll be glad to take questions and possibly, if I can't answer
them, Mr. McMahon here can. Thank you all
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
2:39
so much. Thank you, Mrs. Hickerson. Representative Hammer, you have a question? Yes,
Speaker 11
2:43
sir. You're recognized. Two questions, if I may.
This sheet of paper seems to be warmer than any other sheet in our file. Does that have anything to do with the number? Well, it just might. It just might. I want a point of clarification, if you don't mind, please. Now, this is not related to the fees that the banks charge. Is this related to the fees once it goes beyond all efforts to collect at the private level and it's turned over to the prosecutor, these are the fees that they're going to
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
3:14
charge? That is correct. That is correct. Thank you.
Mr. McMahon, did you have anything to say? And the fees that the prosecuting attorneys collect are used to pay for their staff and any processing fees that they have, you know, writing checks to the victims, those
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
3:36
type things. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr. Walker,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
3:39
question? Well, I want to not ask any questions because Ms. Hickerson is such a nice lady and because this comes from Carlton Jones,
who happens to be the only black prosecutor in the state
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
3:54
But I want her to understand that I'm an equal opportunity questioner. and I have a few questions. These proprietors, I understand we're in a business climate, these proprietors could take a little bit more time and be a little bit more careful in
taking checks from people if they chose to, couldn't they?
Well, yes, sir, I suppose they could. I see. Now, the system that Mr. Jones defends necessarily, and necessarily requires that people be charged for high checks so that he can
pay for his staff or so that prosecutors can pay for their staffs. Isn't that correct? Because without
people writing high checks, then the staffs that they have go unpaid. Well, Representative Walker, if it's okay, I'm going
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
4:46
to let Mr. McMahon address that question. All right. Representative Walker, if I understand your question,
Speaker 28
4:53
I mean, they do not pay for their staffs in the sense of deputy prosecutors or anything like that. They are allowed to use this money to pay, for example, a hot check coordinator who works in that office that it's solely their sole responsibility is to deal with the hot checks. But they do not supplement the deputies or hire deputies based on this money. It's only for individuals that serve and work in the hot check collection area. Well, but in order, I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:23
mean, if a prosecutor wants to hire somebody,
all he has to do is use his prosecutorial discretion, and that's what he is because there are only men prosecutors in Arkansas who elect it. So he would use his prosecutorial discretion to prosecute more
people who write more hot checks. Then he can get more staff. Well, I mean,
Speaker 28
5:46
if individuals write hot checks and go into the system and the prosecutor handles those, they would bring in fees that, yes, would allow them to hire staff for the hot check collection.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:57
Now, this does create a socioeconomic bias, doesn't it? Because middle class people buy check protection, don't they? I don't know You understand what I mean by check protection The banks give them Afford them the opportunity To To They give them the opportunity Not to really have their checks made hot
Because they cover them Up to a certain point And then they may charge a fee for that Of course Yes, sir. That's possible, yes. While lower-income people who are marginal in income, $8, $9, $10 wage earners, are not able to get that check protection. Yes, sir. That's possible also. Why is it that everything that we seem to have coming from the
prosecutors impacts the people least able to pay? I understand people have to pay for what they have,
but it seems like the only people being adversely affected here by the cost and fees here are the poorest people in all due respect to my colleagues, not the business people. Why is that?
Speaker 28
7:13
Representative Walker, I'm not sure I agree with that, simply because in order for an individual to be subjected to these fees, they have to write a hot check. Also, in many situations, by the time this type of a case gets to the prosecutor to be handled in our system, a lot of times the individual has ignored other collection efforts by the merchants or by the private businesses.
So by the time it gets to the prosecutor, they usually have had the opportunity to take care of these. But, again, if an individual doesn't write a hot check and doesn't get this far along in the process, they're never subjected to these fees at all. So it doesn't matter who they are. If they've written a check and they ignore other collection efforts
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
7:57
and they get to the prosecutor, they're subjected to these fees. Well, isn't it true that the law doesn't require private collection activity, nor does it really require that you all write a warrant,
which will cost in many cases much more than the check involved. A $5 check may
result in the system spending $500 or $600 and the person being in jail for as much as a
year or two. Yes, sir, that's correct. I'm sorry. Yes, sir,
Speaker 28
8:25
that's correct. This bill doesn't change any of that. That's already the law now. This does increase the fee, but it doesn't change any of the fees that are already out there in terms of warrants or how
Speaker 27
8:36
those are issued or anything of that nature. So it's up to the prosecutor to determine what the fee is going to be?
Speaker 28
8:43
No, so the fee is, if I understand your question, the fee is set in this statute. So if a prosecutor collects the hot check pursuant to this law, Now, that amount of the fee is incorporated into the collection efforts that the prosecutor does when he's collecting the cost of the check for the merchant, the bank charges, and also the bank fees that they collect for the merchants as well. So this is just added to those amounts that the prosecutor collects. I mean, if a prosecutor chose to waive these fees, he could.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
9:13
So it's all prosecutorial discretion again, and he can use it as he sees fit to favor anyone he wants to, irrespective of the socioeconomic class or race. It's the prosecutor's discretion, yes, sir. I'm
Speaker 28
9:27
considers, but it's the prosecutor's discretion, yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:35
Walker. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this bill. Don't see anyone.
Members, what's the pleasure of the committee? Mr. Radley? Do pass. Proper motion. Any question or discussion? I'm sorry, Ms. Hickerson, I didn't allow you to
close your bill. Are you closed? Thank you. All in favor of passing House Senate Bill 666, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Congratulations, Ms. Hickerson. A lightning or anything coming down
on us? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you. Ms. Hopper, you've been waiting patiently.
We appreciate it. I'm so sorry. We're here for Senate Bill 810. Is that correct? Now, Ms. Hopper, correct me if I'm wrong. This is the bill that had a simple grammatical mistake. It's an or that should be of. Is that correct?
Speaker 46
10:35
Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct. And we
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
10:37
don't have to take care of that because it is a what's called it's going be taking care of an ascriber's amendment
so members where you see when we talked about last time this bill had an or that should have been an of that's a simple grammatical mistake that we
can take care of an ascriber's amendment uh so just act like you see of instead of or and we'll be fine we'll take care of this if this bill passes out all right thank you mrs hopper you are recognized to proceed with senate bill 18. thank
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
11:04
you and actually if you pull that bill down it's already um that change has been made and i appreciate the chair's assistance i'm sorry you fixed that well great yeah thank you I was amazed yeah but anyway I appreciate your assistance in that process last week you and I both learned a lot didn't we sir in
Speaker 51
11:23
any of the sheriff taught us some rules of the house we appreciate
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
11:26
that sure in any event we are back and again I appreciate your help with that we had when we left this on the table last week we had two matters we've just discussed the first one that we have taken care of the other was the impact statement that you have before you and with that I would with your permission I'd like to bring Sheriff Montgomery back. Sheriff you recognized, go
Speaker 56
11:51
ahead. Thank you John Montgomery, Sheriff of Baxter County. First of all I want to extend my sincere appreciation for the courtesy and the respect that Mr. Chairman and
this committee has extended to me being from North Arkansas. It's a hefty drive and I appreciate what you all have allowed me to do. Real quickly, not to take a lot of time, this bill, right now, if a sex offender moves from out of state, they're required to submit a DNA sample and pay a $250 fee, DNA fee. Well, the crime lab is having to currently process that DNA, but they're not being paid for processing that fee because we are unable to collect the $250.
There's no mechanism in that law that allows us to collect it as law enforcement. This bill is very simple. It simply says that when they move in from out of state, they have 90 days in which to pay it. If they don't pay it, then they're cited into court. And when they're cited into court, the judge
Speaker 58
12:48
can then either set payments, or if he rules they're indigent, the judge can rule that as well. But it
Speaker 56
12:55
will generate, depending on the year, anywhere from $75,000 to some numbers have gone up as high as $200,000 towards the DNA fund for the crime lab.
So the impact statement, there was a question by Representative Walker that asked if they didn't pay that, would they be sent back to prison? And in the middle of that impact statement, the DCC says traditionally that is not done. They don't do that. So with that, I again would appreciate y'all's consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Sheriff Montgomery. Representative Harper, would you like
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:22
to add anything before we go to questions? No, sir. Thank you. Open for questions.
Speaker 46
13:28
Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:30
anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill
810? Absolutely. Come right on up. Harris? I'm sorry. I didn't look at my sheet. Tammy Harris with the Public Defenders. You are recognized. Please state your name
Speaker 61
13:50
and let's go. And actually, Mr. Chairman, I'm here impersonating Jeff Rosen-Swag. Okay. All right. I'm his evil twin at this moment. All right. directed by Mr. Rosen-Swag to inform the committee that passage of Senate Bill 810 would be unconstitutional in violation of Bearden v. Georgia, a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court of the
United States has held that to impose such a failure to pay on a fee would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. And the way this bill is currently structured, there is a strict liability statute, there would be no statutory defense, and in certain cases, defendants that have something
Speaker 64
14:33
like a mental disease or defect where someone could have a mental
disease, like I said, or something like that, the way the bill is, there's no finding of indigency. It's a failure to pay is a class A misdemeanor. There's nothing here that allows otherwise. So Mr. Rosenswag's instructions to me to ask the committee would
Speaker 61
14:57
be that you would be setting up the state for a possible suit under the 14th Amendment. Ms. Harris,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:03
will you accept questions on Ms. Rosenswag's? I will do my
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:10
Sure. And I just don't do much criminal law.
Let me ask you, if that's correct, isn't it not true that before a person will be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, wouldn't they have to go before the judge? Yes, sir. And you think this bill prevents the judge from having discretion to not to impose the fee? The way
Speaker 61
15:36
could impose, I mean, a defendant would have to be found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:43
And he would have to be. The judge couldn't decide that the defendant doesn't have to pay. Is that what your testimony is? That's what Mr.
Speaker 61
15:55
Rosenzweig said. The way he reads this is that it's a strict liability. It would become a strict liability
Speaker 64
16:02
statute, and that would be in violation of this Bearden v. Georgia case. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
16:08
Members, Mr. Walker, do you have a question you recognize?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:13
I want to be faithful to what I said to the prosecutor. I told him I wouldn't ask him any questions, and I hadn't planned to, and I won't ask him any, But I will ask you, the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause does require that before a person is found guilty of an offense, a misdemeanor, anything, that the person be afforded a trial. Yes, sir. Notice and an opportunity to be heard. Yes, sir. And a right to be represented by counsel. Yes, sir. And this provision does not do that, does it?
Speaker 71
16:44
That's how Mr. Rosenzweig interpreted it. Well, how do you?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:46
You're a public defender. How do you read
Speaker 64
16:49
it? I read it that it just says failure to pay is a class
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:53
A misdemeanor. It doesn't say it's a charge. It just said failure to pay, so it's a fait accompli. If you don't pay, you're automatically guilty. Yes. And that's in violation of the due process clause? Yes, sir. And equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Mr. Rice, you're recognized.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
17:14
This was for the chair. I just, she's testifying for someone else. Did we, is that not something we said
Speaker 78
17:21
the other day that couldn't do? Well, she can't testify. She was quoting Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, she was. That's true.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
17:28
And she'd have to answer those questions based on her knowledge. Since we can't question Mr. Rosenzweig, she can refer to her source. But you're right. But you're willing to take questions based on what you know. Is that not correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman. based on your knowledge and what Mr. Rosen-Swagg told you?
Yes. Because he's right. You can't read from testimony from someone else who's not here that we can't question. Yes, sir. All right. Mr. Chair.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:58
Yes, sir. No, you represent the Public Defending Commission. Mr. Walker, I apologize.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
18:02
We've got Mr. Hammer in front of you, then we'll come back to you. Mr. Hammer,
Speaker 11
18:09
you recognize. Thank you. Would you just make sure I'm not misinterpreting something? Is this bill directed toward people who have been convicted of a sex crime already outside the state of Arkansas
and are moving into the state of Arkansas? That is correct. So when they come into the state of Arkansas, they're not being charged by a court in the state of Arkansas. They've already been found guilty somewhere else. That is correct. And now they're moving into the state, and what this would do is require that they would submit a DNA sample, if it's not already on record somewhere else. That is correct. Would you please explain to me what purpose having the DNA sample,
I think I know the answer, but just for the records, would you make sure that I'm thinking straight, having the DNA records is going to achieve what? Already established that this person has been found guilty somewhere else and they just want to establish residency in the state of Arkansas. Well, as
Speaker 56
19:05
I understand, the current law requires anyone convicted of a sex crime. It has to submit a DNA sample, okay, just like anyone convicted of a felony in Arkansas. So the current law states that if you move in and you're a sex offender, that you also have to submit it.
It goes into a database. They're creating a database, basically, that's going to be held not only with the state, but it's accessible through CODIS from anywhere in the U.S. Did that answer your question? It does. May I follow up, please? so all we're asking is that
Speaker 11
19:36
if you're going to move in our state that you bear the due cost of moving into our state because of the crime you committed somewhere else so that it doesn't become a financial burden to not that we're depriving you residency we're not that's a whole separate issue we're just saying that our laws say that if you move here you need to know
that before you move here and this is what you can expect
Speaker 56
19:55
that that is correct it's it's almost like an unfunded mandate at this point in other words we're telling the crime you've got to submit You've got to test these, and, of course, there's a cost involved to the crime lab, but we're not providing you with the funding in order to do that. And that's the way it's been for years. I don't know of anyone that's been able to collect this fee, even though it's been on the law books for many years, because there's no mechanism for law enforcement to be able to collect it when they come in and register.
Speaker 11
20:23
One last question, then. On the basis of what you just said, I would like to hear the public defender's position on why that violates the 14th, being that this person's already been charged somewhere else. What's the connection between all that being said and this law? And I just would be willing to
Speaker 61
20:42
listen, and I thank you. It's the way the statute is written, the last lines 33 and 34, failure to pay the fee required under this subdivision is a class A misdemeanor. So if you don't pay, it is a class A misdemeanor.
And so that, I mean, not paying in and of itself is like a strict
Speaker 64
21:01
liability statute. It doesn't afford an opportunity for the hearing or anything of that nature. Okay. And I yield
Speaker 10
21:08
to the wisdom of the rest of the committee, but it
Speaker 11
21:11
seems like we've heard other things that have come through here that have had fees associated with it that if you don't pay, there's a punishment associated with it. I don't understand what the difference between some of those other things that have come through unless I'm missing it and this. And so is this just exclusive to registered sex offenders, that that applies, or is it across the board to everything?
Speaker 61
21:35
With this bill, it would just be, in this particular case, it would just be not paying this particular DNA testing fee. Okay. Thank you. Ms.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
21:49
Radliff has a question, and Mr. Walker. Help me understand, because I don't do criminal work, how this works. Let's say someone's charged with the crime of failure to pay this fee. I assume they will have an opportunity to have a day in court.
The fee is not just summarily imposed. You don't pay. We just slap a fee on you. Is that not correct? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, would you? Wouldn't the person charged with failing to pay have an opportunity to have a
Speaker 61
22:23
proceeding before a judge? I would hope so, but it was our understanding, the way we read this, that if you don't pay, it is a class A misdemeanor. I mean, and I haven't looked all the way through the code section to see if there is a procedure that's set out.
And who charges you with that class A misdemeanor? I would assume it's local law enforcement in whose jurisdiction that you would reside at the time
Speaker 51
22:52
you, in this particular instance, when you move into the state. So only
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
22:56
a prosecutor could bring an action, right? We don't have any cases where a prosecutor brings a charge
Speaker 61
23:02
and you're just guilty because a prosecutor brought the charge. I think it can be law enforcement who determines your failure
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
23:08
to comply or the prosecutor's office. So you think under this
law enforcement can say you failed to pay, you're guilty, I can put you in jail up to a year?
Speaker 61
23:16
You think that? No, I think they would have to, I think law enforcement would have to go to the prosecutor and ask the prosecutor to bring the charge. And the prosecutor would bring
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
23:24
a charge, and then you'd have a day in court. So
you'd have an opportunity to go to court under this bill. I would hope that would be. Okay, and because in a lot of bills we say, earlier today we said abuse of a corpse
is a class D felony. Someone has to prosecute you, you go before court, you have your day in court. Is the problem with the bill the fact that you think that it limits the judge's discretion
because either you paid or didn't pay? That's a class-A felony? Yes. Is that the problem with what you see with the bill? And, okay, if that's the case, do you think if the judge finds you did not pay, do you think the judge has discretion in sentencing to say you do no time, you pay no fine, no – does the judge have that discretion you believe? I don't know. I'm not being devil's advocate. And I'm trying to understand the rationale behind, because I don't have the Bearden v. Georgia case here.
Speaker 61
24:18
In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court failed that you can't sentence someone for strictly failure to pay when someone owed fines. They held it unconstitutional. It was a due process violation to give someone time for just strictly failing to pay. Is that because a person, for example, a person
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
24:37
is indigent and cannot pay, the judge would not have to subject them to
a Class A misdemeanor under this statute, or do you think the judge would still be required to subject an indigent to a Class A misdemeanor
Speaker 61
24:52
under this proposed statute? In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court said that if someone is unable to pay, that it would be a violation of equal protection due process. Now the Supreme Court said if there were other factors that they just didn't try, that was something else to look at. But if someone is, you know, indigent, is not able to pay, then that's a violation of due process. And that's why I said, you know,
Speaker 64
25:16
in this, the way it's written without looking at indigency or something of that matter, that this could be a Bearden v. Georgia.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
25:22
So you think because this doesn't refer to indigency that that limits the judge's discretion? Right. You think this needs to refer to the fact that somebody might be indigent? Right. And is that what we do in other statutes? I don't know. I think there are a number of criminal laws we have in the books where we don't refer to someone's ability or inability to pay. We leave that to the judge's discretion. I may be wrong. If you don't know the answer, I'm happy that any of my colleagues who do a lot more criminal law to help me here
Speaker 61
25:48
because I'm just trying to get understanding. Well, I just think that it says just failure to pay without some sort of language there.
Just, you know, failure to pay just makes it an automatic class A misdemeanor without referring to some sort of, you know. Okay. MR. Well, let's see. Mr. Ratliff,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:00
I think, has a question as well. MR. It's been asked and answered. Thank you. MR. Thank
you, Mr. Ratliff. Mr. Walker, you have a question?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:31
Apparently, this law is automatically and self-executing because if the
amount has not been paid into a fund by somebody within 90 days, the person is if so facto guilty, according to this statute. Would you not agree? Yes, sir. And then, I mean, if the person is ipso facto guilty, then that person is ipso facto subject to further punishment without a trial.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
27:05
Thank you. John, I'm sorry to ask a question of you. You may know more than I do here. How can a person be subject to further sanctions without
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:23
a trial? Help me on that. Mr. Williams, you've been working in securities, and you know about fans and things like that before the Securities and Exchange Commission. This happens in Arkansas all too frequently.
People are sentenced without being heard. I wouldn't say it's too frequent, and it does happen. Let me put it this way. It's not supposed to happen. Arkansas criminal law clearly provides that any criminal accused be given notice of the charge, an opportunity to be heard, a day in court, and if jail time is involved, an opportunity to be represented by counsel.
And if the person cannot afford counsel, the state is obliged to pay
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:09
for it. Right. Okay. All right. I appreciate it. Mr. Ratliff has a question, then Mr. Wright. These sex offenders do choose to
Speaker 98
28:16
come here, right? Yes, sir. Okay, then if the law is that, then they choose to pay that or not come. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Wright, you have a
Speaker 105
28:30
question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a question for Ms. Harris. Ms. Harris, do you think that the way the law is written now, it negates any requirement for criminal intent
and somebody would be found guilty having no criminal intent whatsoever? Yes, sir. So
Speaker 104
28:48
you would agree with me that somebody is going to be found guilty of a crime and having absolutely zero criminal intent whatsoever?
Speaker 107
29:01
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Powers, you recognize? Who's the record keeper on this money?
Speaker 58
29:09
Well, whoever they register with. So, in other words, if a sex offender, it depends. Not all sheriff's office,
Speaker 56
29:15
it depends on how it's set up. For example, in my county, the city of Mountain Home registers their own sex offenders. They live inside the city. We actually take care of everyone else outside of Mountain Home. So it varies from county to county. When they come in, we're responsible for collecting that DNA sample. We would also be responsible for collecting that fee and submitting it to this fund.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
29:37
Okay. What are some of the other counties like?
You mentioned they're not all alike. Some counties, the
Speaker 58
29:43
county takes care of all sex offenders, no matter where they live. Some counties, each individual city takes care of those that live in the city, and then the county takes care of the rest. So it does vary from place to place. And who files the complaint? Well, in this case, assuming this was law, what would happen if someone came in and
Speaker 56
30:05
they registered? And the procedure, when they walk in the door from out of state, They walk in, and they have to do that within three days, and they say,
I'm here, I'm registering as a sex offender because I'm required by law to do so. They fill out the paperwork. At that time, we would tell them, you have 90 days in which to pay this $250. We also need to collect a DNA sample from you. If they have not done so, we would then take that to the prosecutor because the prosecutor is going to be the one to have to file the
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
30:32
charges. So you would take that complaint to a prosecutor, and then there would be a warrant issued for the
Speaker 112
30:39
arrest? Yes, sir. Well, if he agreed, we would take the information to him.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
30:43
I understand if the prosecutor understand that. And this is for out-of-state sex offenders. Yes, sir, and if I
Speaker 56
30:51
might say so, the Senate just passed House Bill 1407 last night. It's on its way to the governor's desk. And that removed the hardship clause from a sex offender fee. And so that actually removed that word hardship out. So basically, House Bill 1407 is saying if you live in-state, we're going to make you pay it.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
31:16
And what is the fee in-state? $250. I mean, this mirrors the current law
Speaker 56
31:24
of those living in-state. Yes, sir. And I want to just be clear. We're not adding $250. No, we're not creating this number. This number has been
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:33
in law for several years. We just have
Speaker 114
31:39
not had a way to collect it. Thank you.
Speaker 115
31:41
Thank you, Mr. Powers. Mr. Shepard, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that this proposed change in the law applies to sex offenders who are required to register from –
their requirement is from outside of Arkansas. Right now, for a person who is required to register under Arkansas law for an offense committed in Arkansas, what happens if they don't register? is there a similar criminal offense or is it a violation or is it just part of their sentence as a sex offender? I'm trying to see compared to what
Speaker 116
32:13
we do to the people that we ultimately convict here in the state. Well, they're
Speaker 58
32:18
required, if they're convicted in the state, there is a fee assessed at the time of conviction.
Speaker 56
32:24
Okay, so if they don't pay that, then they would be cited back to court to answer to not paying those fees. That's currently in Arkansas. The problem is, and what we're hoping to address here, is the fact that if they were adjudicated in another state, the current law today says they have to pay $250 when they move into the state. So it mirrors in a way of what in-state does. It's just in-state has a way to bring them back to court if they don't pay.
Speaker 114
32:57
Coming in from out of state, we don't have
Speaker 115
33:05
court if it's in-state? It's a contempt of court, a warrant issued. But it's not a misdemeanor. It's
Speaker 56
33:13
not in and of itself a criminal offense. Well, I would argue that a contempt of court is a criminal offense. It would
Speaker 115
33:19
be violation, not of a law necessarily, but violation of what a court has conditioned, that the court has placed on that person.
Speaker 114
33:30
Okay. I guess I share some of the concerns with regard to I think it's somewhat unusual
Speaker 115
33:37
to create a criminal offense for a failure to pay an administrative fee, if you will. I mean, I understand that their offenses have been committed. I guess right now, presently, if someone doesn't register, I would imagine that under most state laws, this would be something that they could be cited for in the state in which they were sentenced.
I would assume that would be correct. Similar contempt of court, if you will. Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Wright, you recognize?
Speaker 105
34:17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like the idea of the bill. We've got to have some teeth there to collect
Speaker 104
34:25
this, but a civil suit could be filed, correct? But who would file that civil suit, the crime lab, the state of Arkansas? State of Arkansas. I guess that's possible. I mean, they do it for civil forfeitures, isn't that correct, Sheriff?
Speaker 105
34:39
Yes, that is correct. Now, like I said, I like the intent of this. I would like to possibly see, I don't know if we have time, to alter it up somehow. You know, it's a Senate bill, so I think we could probably still possibly get it out if it were changed a little bit. I'm just not – there is an enforcement mechanism there. It's just difficult. Is that not correct and costly?
Speaker 56
34:59
It would be costly, and I'm not sure the cost would even – I'm not sure it wouldn't cost more than $250 to do. Now, and if I might say just – Mr. Chairman, if I might just add one more thing.
Again, part of the issue that's been raised has to do with indigency. in the two things. Number one, law enforcement cannot find anyone guilty of anything. We can cite them into court or the prosecutor can cite them into court. The judge is going to have to be the one that finds them guilty. If they can't pay, they can present, just like if they were in prison and ordered to pay fines and they get out and they have an ability to go to the front of the judge and say, I'm indigent, I can't make those payments, you've already ordered me to pay.
That's what that judge has the ability to do. And so in this case, with all due respect, I think it does allow the judge to hear that case and make a determination whether or not they're indigent or not. And at the same time, they may not be indigent, but they may just need to make payments. In other words, they may not have $250. The judge might look at it and say, well, you can pay $10 a month or $50 a month until this is paid. That judge would have the authority to do that. Thank you. Mr. Reitz, I conclude your questioning.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:12
That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, anyone else in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 810? Seeing no one, Ms. Hopper, would you like to close
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
36:27
for your bill? Again, Mr. Chairman and Committee, we thank you for your patience with us and your questioning, and of course we
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:35
would ask for a good vote, please. Thank you, Ms. Hopper. Mr.
Ratliff, you recognize? I move we do pass. Proper motion. Any question or discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of passing Senate Bill 810 to indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Ayes
have it. Congratulations. Two hands. Yes, sir. It takes a roll call. Would you like a roll call? Yes. Anyone else like a roll call? Seeing none, please, your bill passes. 834?
Members, our last bill for today is Senate Bill 834. Representative, I'm sorry, Senator Dismang is here to run Senate Bill 834. We have an amendment, is that not correct? We're not going to run the amendment. We're not? Okay. We're not. No amendment. Then Senate Bill
Speaker 125
37:38
834, you're recognized. I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. And I'll try to be brief so we can get back into session up there. But what this bill does is it increases the hot check fee that's allowed to be collected by a business owner by $5.
And I understand that you guys had just heard one of these bills. And I'm also going to say that this is a very good bill to have because of what you did just pass out. This $30 fee is a negotiation piece, in my opinion, between the individual that wrote the hot check and broke the contract with that merchant and with the merchant. And so, in my opinion, what this allows to be done is it allows those two parties to resolve the issue without having to take it to a prosecutor's office.
And this also allows that merchant to recoup the fees that they had to pay from their bank and also the time that they had to use to go back through and recollect and process the check and the additional payment or new payment. With that, I think it would just be best for time's sake to take any questions. And very quickly, the last time that this fee was changed was in 2001. If we were to do indexing, that would have been $18 is what the $25 fee would be. And so this just really is to bring it up for inflation
and also create a little bit of incentive for that merchant not to turn the individual that wrote the hot check over directly to the prosecuting attorney where they would receive a misdemeanor. And in some cases, I believe you can receive a felony depending on how many hot checks you've written.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
39:16
I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Senator Dismayne. Representative Shepard, any questions? I mean,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
39:22
any additional testimony? No? Seeing none, any Mr.
Walker question? You recognize? Does this require an institution to give notice to a check writer that he or she has written a high check
and that there will be an opportunity for payment before referral to a prosecutor? Well, I mean, an institution, by that,
Speaker 125
39:39
do you mean the merchant or do you mean a bank? The merchant. Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, absolutely. I mean, they would be able to contact that individual. Of course, their big deal is to try to collect their money. So in a sense, this
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
39:53
is a consumer protection bill because it says, look, you didn't pay me. Maybe it was
by error. Maybe it was intent. At any rate, we're going to give you an opportunity to fix it.
That's right. And if you fix it, then we won't refer it. But if you don't, we will. Absolutely. So that's the intent of this. That's correct. Well, that should basically be the intent of all the laws, isn't it? I'd afford people an opportunity where they may have made. Mr. Walker, would you speak into your mic
Speaker 125
40:19
a little bit more? Oh, I'm sorry. I think I've... I was going to have him come down here
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
40:24
and speak for the bill, I think. It's a better
Speaker 125
40:27
bill than the others. But like I said, it does help create an incentive for that to be between those two parties and not go to a prosecutor. Sure.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
40:34
Mr. Rice, you recognize for a question? Real quickly, besides the incentive for that, to be fair to those, it is a law, my understanding,
Speaker 86
40:44
that it is posted at each business what the hot check fee is. So it's not surprising to them. That's
Speaker 125
40:49
correct. And it's also, I mean, and further than that, that is what they're allowed to collect. But if they wanted to negotiate with that individual to collect their
Speaker 86
40:57
lower fee, to just cover whatever their cost may be, they have the right to do that as a merchant. Mr. Chairman, motion at the proper time.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
41:05
Thank you. Any additional questions, members? Seeing none, anyone in the audience want to speak for or against Senate Bill, I'm sorry, 834? Seeing no one, Mr. Shepard, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. You're closed. What's the pleasure of the committee? Due passed. Mr. Still has a motion of, Mr. Adler has a motion, I think of, oh no, Mr. Rice made
the motion. I apologize, it's due passed. It's late. All in favor of passing Senate Bill 834, any case by saying aye?
Speaker 134
41:36
Aye. Opposed, no? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
41:41
members. Appreciate your time. Mr. Vines, I know you had a couple of bills here, but I promise these guys three bills. Can we do, would that, was that going to cause you to do hardship if we do that Thursday? What would the, what's the pleasure of the committee? Oh, committee says let's do it. Man, if I'd known that, I'd have said a whole lot more bills. You guys usually don't want to meet. Well, Senator Bismane, what's the bill number, Mr. Vines?
Senate Bill 410. Remember Senate Bill 410. You're on a roll here, Senator Desmaine. Let's see if we can get this one out, too. Okay, all right. You're going to trust him? You know his record down here? Mr. Vines, you're recognized for Senate Bill 410. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
42:35
I've got to try to end on a good note today after the shellacking earlier.
Senate Bill 410 is, again, Senator Dismayne's bill, and it simply amends the criteria for an affidavit when you're suing on an account. What this does is this bill corrects what constitutes an account and also defines what's needed in the affidavit that goes along with that account when you sue under the account. I'd be happy to take any questions. The bill is pretty self-explanatory. It just attempts to clarify and explain what's needed on that affidavit that you have to attach. I'd be happy to take any questions.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
43:13
Thank you, Mr. Vines. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience wants
to speak for or against Senate Bill 410? Seeing no one, what's the pleasure of the committee? Do it. It's a proper motion from Mr. Eubanks. Senate Bill, Ms. Eubanks made a motion of passing Senate Bill 410, all in favor indicate by saying aye Opposed, no Congratulations, Mr. Vine, you have passed your bill Members, that's it, we will see you on Thursday It'll be a long day Thursday, we'll probably have a lot of Senate bills transmitted
So be prepared to stay for a while And have lunch Oh, and it'll be pretty much like this one Thank you
Agenda
Call to Order
SB666
SB810
SB834
SB410
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 22
Speaker 28
Speaker 27
Speaker 46
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 51
Speaker 56
Speaker 58
Speaker 61
Speaker 64
Speaker 66
Speaker 71
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 78
Speaker 10
Speaker 88
Speaker 98
Speaker 105
Speaker 104
Speaker 107
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 114
Speaker 115
Speaker 116
Speaker 108
Speaker 125
Speaker 86
Speaker 134
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified