House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB2169
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2169”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1787
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1787”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1833
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1833”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1868
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1868”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2003
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2003”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2047
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2047”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2118
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2118”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2207
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2207”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB166
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB166”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB300
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB300”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB512
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB512”
|
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 Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:00
to cut off testimony, but I'm going to see if we can't move along pretty briefly here and pretty quickly, but I want to make sure we get testimony out, but we've got to move some of these bills out of
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
0:14
committee. So, Mr. Walker, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:19
have one question, I have, I want it clear that I'm I'm sorry, I said 1869, it's
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
0:24
House Bill 2169. I'm sorry, I apologize, House Bill 2169. I understand. I have, since I have one question, I want it clear that I'm not an advocate of the bill-bunding industry, but we do have an appendix that they have provided, which
contemplates, and it's provided by the state of Arkansas, and it contemplates that there will be partial payments, and I want to show this to Mr. Mayberry and ask how he relates to this as to whether this is the present law
as it has been in
practice for years. it's it's the it's the well just a moment no no mr. Walker you have speaking
the mic so we can hear what you're saying the circled area says it's it's something that's prepared by the state it has owned their amount paid and and balance do. So my question is, isn't it contemplated already that when people are arrested that they will be afforded an opportunity to have some time in which to pay their bond after
Speaker 15
1:49
they have been released from jail i haven't
Speaker 17
2:00
reviewed this and i'm not entirely familiar with what it is but it would be my understanding that this is from the licensing board the bail bonds board and it's their opinion and i think it's understood that they disagree with the advice of their counsel from our office that it's permissible this does reflect their view. It doesn't reflect the view that we take when we litigate whether
this is permissible in the law. So, I mean, this reflects sort of the joint issue that Mr. Cassidy has spoken to, the disagreement about what the current law is.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
2:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker, I didn't mean to completely insinuate you only had one question. I don't want to cut you off. Do you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:45
have another question? Yes, I do. Go right ahead. What will be, this is to Mr. Former Prosecutor and now Judge Hirschberger. Is that it?
Hirschfield. Hirschfield. Do you have any idea of the number of people in Saline County who would be arrested who could not make the 10% bail bond on the day of arrest and would have to stay in jail for a period of time? Do you have any idea of what that number is?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
3:23
I'm also a former criminal defense attorney. All right. Now, if you don't, that means that the jails would have to be enlarged
and the number of people who would be kept in jail would be increased substantially to an extent that you all are not prepared to discuss.
Andy Gill
Unverified
3:46
Isn't that correct? No. Okay. Thank you. Well, what you're saying is not
Speaker 29
3:50
correct in that no one gets a bond hearing immediately on their day of arrest. You know very well that people don't have bond hearings on a daily basis. They're constitutionally obliged to have a bond hearing within 72 hours of their arrest.
And whether they make bond or not, that's not the law. What the law is is that people are entitled to a
Speaker 30
4:13
reasonable bond, and reasonable bonds are set by judges, not bondsmen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Hammer, are you recognized? Thank
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
4:23
you, Mr. Chair. I have about three questions, but they're going to
Speaker 34
4:28
move at a fairly fast pace, I think. Is that all right? Thank you so much, Mr. Hammer. Thank you,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
4:36
Mr. Chairman. In simplistic term, leading up to a question,
to anyone on the end of the table that would like to ask this, In fact, I'm going to ask Judge Hertzfield,
Speaker 38
4:43
if you don't mind, why does a person have to have a bond in
Speaker 41
4:48
the first place? Well, as I said at the very beginning of my testimony, the law provides that if we can ensure that they're coming back to court
Speaker 42
4:55
without a bond, that that's what we should do. Basically, they sign something or they are ordered to come back to court. And if we can do that based on their roots in the community, based on what they're charged with as far as how serious it is and what incentive they may have not to come back to court, that's what we try to do.
We're ordered to do that under the law. A bond is there to ensure appearance in court. It is not to be punitive. It is not to make sure they stay in jail until they come to court. That's not what we want. We want folks who are in the system to show up to court so we can decide whether they are guilty or not guilty,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:36
and that's what a bond is for. And a person is not before your bench until they have been charged with reasonable reason, either arrested or charged,
and that's the whole reason why they're in your court in
Speaker 41
5:50
the first place. Yes, there has to be a probable cause determination, and that is made. I'm
Speaker 42
5:54
in circuit court, so a lot of folks come through district court first, but the judge at their first appearance after their arrest within 72 hours has to make a finding of probable cause, and if he does not find that, they are released. If he finds probable cause, then he has to set a reasonable bond or tell them to come back on their
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:13
own recognizance. Okay, and you as a judge, therefore,
based on your history maybe of the person who is charged, the circumstances,
the evidence that's presented for you, you are the one who has the controlling determination as to how much that bond is set on the basis of how you measure that against everything that's presented. Yes. One last thought. We have heard more about bonds and bail bondsmen in this committee this year, although I haven't been here before, but we've heard a lot. Let me restate that. Can you as a judge, and if you want to defer to anybody on the end, Can you as a judge determine if a bond company has a poor history of delivering,
can you as a judge determine whether or not a bond company
Speaker 38
7:02
can issue a bond or not on the basis of their history to deliver, or is that outside your jurisdiction?
Speaker 42
7:08
That's a complicated question. Some judges do believe that they have the authority and have tried and have been successful in certain cases. The short
Speaker 24
7:17
answer is probably so. Okay. It's much more complicated than that. All right. And one last question.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
7:28
Based on your years on the bench, and I would also direct this to the prosecutor and attorney general to answer together, if you'd like, What kind of history is there, would you say, for bondsmen not to – let me withdraw
that question. It's a long day. Let me withdraw that question. I thank
you for the answers. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr. Gillum, you recognized?
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
7:59
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question goes to whoever wants to take it. I'm not going to be selective on this. We've been given a couple of different documents to look at here. One is the impact statement from the Sentencing Commission. The other was a proposed fiscal impact that I believe somebody stated earlier may have been given by the association. I guess there's some confusion here, and my friend Representative Walker asked some questions that also alluded to this.
But I guess my question, my first question here is how did we kind of arrive at the difference between these figures and estimates on who's going to be affected by this bill and this piece of legislation? The impact summary that we have here from the sentencing commission says that we're talking that it's a minimal impact affecting fewer than 10 offenders per year. And then in this fiscal, we're talking dozens and potentially hundreds, and then some of the alluded statements from Representative Walker.
And I'm just curious, how did we arrive at such a
Speaker 29
9:11
about the impacts of the criminal repercussions of the bill, like if a bondsman is going to violate the law and commit a misdemeanor and then violate the law and commit a felony, again, as the law would state, If you're talking about the repercussions of people going to possibly being incarcerated, I think their finding is correct. That's going to be pretty minimal for this crime because once a bondsman, if a bondsman commits what will be the crime of credit bonding and gets a class A misdemeanor,
I don't know what their repercussions will be on their board, but they shouldn't be able to commit the crime a second time. If they get a felony at that time, again, it's going to be a very low-scored felony. They would probably receive probation. There would be no impact with regard to going to prison, and the person would be a convicted felon and probably, I would assume, not be able to bond anymore. So that impact is minimal. The other impact you're talking about, the fees and that situation, there are several fees that bondsmen collect that the law orders them to collect.
This will not stop any of that. Bondsmen will still write professional bonds. This law is just telling them to comply with the law. What you have is a section of bondsmen out there, not all bondsmen, that are not complying with this law. And the bondsmen that are complying have to collect all the same fees the people that aren't complying have to collect. But they try to do right and take the full 10%. But there's a section of bondsmen not doing that, and therefore they're competing, and there's a race to the bottom with the bondsmen that are trying to follow the law and collect 10 percent and all the fees that are required to collect.
The professional bonds will still be written. Judges and sheriffs will still manage the population of their jail. Therefore, professional bonds will still be written, and those fees will all still be collected. Thank you for
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
11:10
the clarification. And some of that may have been we may have discussed already, but with the gap in the day Thank you one fresh, but mr.. Chairman if I'm not one more question you're going in okay We've we've heard as representative hammer mentioned a lot of Bell bonds bills over this session so far and in some of that
discussion previously There was some mention of some of the funds maybe the association collected through this that they sent towards battered women's shelters and some other things like that. And your estimation, would this bill impact that in any way? I mean, are we potentially putting at risk battered women's shelters? They collect the same fees
Speaker 29
11:53
that I just referred to. Those are the same fees that they'll collect. Professional bonds will still be written.
Those fees will still go there. And when you say that there's been a lot of, you've heard a lot about bondsmen, One of the first bills you heard was them trying to legalize credit bonding, the exact opposite of what we're trying to do here. If they thought it was legal, they wouldn't have wanted to submit a bill to say, we need to be able
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
12:23
to do this. Very true. All right. Thank
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
12:27
you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gillum. One minute.
Yes, sir. Mr. Rice, for your question?
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
12:38
Mr. Chairman, if I missed this earlier in the day with a lot of stuff going on, the green sheet and many of the things that were supplied has where it comes from. The white sheet that we have, is that supposed to have where it comes from or can we have a statement where that came from? I wasn't here when that was
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
12:57
handed out, so I will ask staff. I'm not sure. Okay. He's on the sign-up sheet? Okay. Well, let's.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. Yes, sir.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
13:11
Mr. Steele, you got a question? Go right ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. This question is for the Attorney General's Office. You tell me that we've talked a lot about
whether or not this is legal or not legal. You tell me that this has actually been ruled on by
Speaker 17
13:28
federal judges. Is that correct? No, sir. We've litigated it in federal court. I'm here just to explain the litigation position we've taken in federal court and the agency advice we've given.
The federal court did dismiss the lawsuit against Mr. Cassidy and others in Saline County, and in that litigation, we took the position that we've taken also in state court, but it was unnecessary for the federal courts to reach the merits of state law to dismiss the lawsuit. And it's currently on appeal in the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and we've taken the same litigation position in that case, in a case involving a bond revocation. That case has just been briefed, not decided.
And it may also be true in that case that it will not be necessary for the court to
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:14
breach the joint litigation question. So our statute has not been interpreted by the
courts yet? No. Okay. This question is for Judge Hertzfield. Judge, in making determinations of indigency for defendants, do you consider the bond that the defendant has posted? if I could clarify.
Speaker 42
14:38
Yes, I actually have not done that. I've not ever had to. I don't set that many bonds, frankly. Most of them are set in district court. I know that many jurisdictions will not appoint a public defender if somebody makes a bond. But that's not by any means a hard and fast rule. That's not something I would do, frankly. I would want to make sure that if someone needs an attorney and they can't afford one, they're going to get it because they might have spent all of their money on a bond anyway to get out. That's a case-by-case basis. I've not faced that decision because far and away most of the
public defender questions are answered by Judge Robinson and our district court. And as far as I know, he's very accommodating to folks who think need them. So I think although those issues can be related because of the financial ability to pay, they're not tied and they should not be tied in my mind. But that's the question that is answered differently across the state. Okay. Would you
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
15:36
tell me a little bit about what you consider when you do set bonds? Are you trying to determine what 10 percent of that bond up front? I'm sure you're assuming
they're going to follow what you perceive to be the law. Are you trying to determine what 10 percent of that bond would
Speaker 42
15:54
be up front when you're setting a bond? Absolutely. And as I went through a while ago for the folks who may not have been here, We have to consider everything and start off from the position that they don't need a bond, that they're going to show up if they are a, you know, have strong ties to the community that they work here, they've been employed here for a long, you know, they've been involved. We start from that position. And then we consider all these different factors that are set out in the criminal rules of
criminal procedure, including their, you know, all those things, but also including the charges they're faced with. And the more significant the charge, obviously, even if they have ties to the community, the more pressure there might be to skip town. And so we have to take all that into account, including their ability to pay. And certainly they can bring all this up, too. It's not just me going off of whether I know them or not. There's a hearing on this. And so you take all these factors, and in coming into that decision, we all make, and also, and Mr. Cassidy's
written a note, there is also, it's required in the law that we look at the evidence as presented in the affidavit and the likelihood of conviction in making a bond. And so, you know, it's obvious that if somebody's caught red-handed standing in a pool of blood on video camera, they are more likely to be convicted in most circumstances. They know that they're most more likely to be convicted, so they have a higher likelihood of wanting to leave. So you have to take all those things into consideration because I'm maybe jumping too far
Speaker 82
17:29
ahead. I'm just curious to know if you're assuming
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
17:31
that they're going to be posting 10 percent
up front and you're making your determination based
Speaker 41
17:37
on that. Yes. I am. In Saline County, we have been working on some of these related issues. Obviously, it
Speaker 42
17:43
wound us up in federal court where we prevailed, but we've been talking about this for a long time. The bail bonds folks in our county have been given information that this is how we interpret it. We, being the four circuit judges and two district judges, we interpret this law to mean shall pay 10 percent now. I don't know, frankly, what we can do to them if they don't because it's real.
And we haven't crossed that bridge yet as far as whether we have the ability to hold them in contempt or not. You know, there was a question asked earlier about whether or not we could exclude them from riding bonds. That has been done in other counties. We've tried to manage working day to day with everybody understands this is what we want, and hopefully we won't have to punish anybody. I don't want any bail bondsman to be convicted of a misdemeanor if this passes. I want everybody to do the same thing, and I think that would be better. But we expect that they're going to be paying 10 percent.
We take that calculation in. If somebody is not doing that, then it is – that means that my decision or Judge Robinson's decision or Judge Phillips or Judge Arnold, those decisions have not been based on
Speaker 86
18:51
good information, and that's never good. One more
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
18:56
question, if I might. Mr. Chairman, you said you consider everything in setting the bond. If this did have an effect of fewer people being bonded out, would you be inclined to just start lowering the bond amounts? Well,
Speaker 42
19:08
I'll tell you, economically, that's what does happen.
And that's happened in Saline. I can speak to that from experience in Saline County. Before I became prosecutor, we had a jail that held 45 people. And the bonds then were much lower than they are now because they could only hold. And, in fact, at a certain point, the county jail was under orders, you know, a circuit court order saying you can't hold anybody besides that, and the bonds were lower. And that's, I'm sure, what happens in other counties and will happen if there's an economic pressure and physical pressure.
If the jails are overcrowded, then they will, you know, we do it with the state. We do it with the jails. It happens every day across the country. If the beds are not there and you need to put more violent, more dangerous, more experienced criminals behind bars, then the people who aren't as dangerous or habitual offenders, they're going to be let out. And there's a mechanism that's going to be put into place that uses common sense, hopefully, to make that happen. And one way to do that is to
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
20:13
lower bonds. So essentially, if this has an effect, at least in your district, the effect would be more on the –
Speaker 90
20:20
There's a release valve, and the judges will issue lower bonds.
Speaker 62
20:26
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:29
Hammer, you want another question? If I may, please. Sure. When you sentence somebody, Judge, isn't there a grid or a standard you go by to
determine the length of time? It seems like I've heard that
Speaker 42
20:42
mentioned in our mini-meeting. Yes, there's a sentencing grid, and most 95% or higher of the sentences that I give are agreements because they're pleading guilty and they're accepting the sentence.
So, yes, there is a grid that is often used and should be used
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:56
as much as we can. Okay, and I'm asking that because based on what Representative Steele just said and some questions asked a while ago, is there a grid or a standard for bond amounts based on the severity, removing, no offense, personal judgment, but was there a grid or a standard in place that says if you do
Speaker 25
21:16
this, there's an associated amount? There is not a statewide grid like that. There are jurisdictions who have a
Speaker 42
21:21
bond schedule that lays it out so it's more consistent and it's not, you know,
one person doesn't get it in similar circumstances, doesn't get a dramatically different bond in the same jurisdiction. There's not a statewide grid that I'm aware of, and I would think that I would be. But each individual jurisdiction often has a bond schedule that kind of gives people a guideline, at least they'll know what to expect. So there are some
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:45
checks and balances in place that would prevent you as a judge from singling out somebody and saying, I'm going to set it for this just because I don't like you. Absolutely. Okay.
Speaker 97
21:54
And you would be wrong to do that as a judge.
Speaker 42
21:58
I understand you would. And you would be potentially sanctioned. It depends on what happens. But there is definitely checks and balances. And appeal is one. and anybody that was wrong and bad enough to do that would face consequences, I think. Okay,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:15
final question then. That grid, that standard, what we just talked about in the last two or three questions, do you or the Attorney General know that whenever that was started, whenever that was started way back when, was that done, the standard, the grid,
everything we just talked about, was that done under the interpretation of the law that says that bonding will not be financed. Maybe I wasn't clear.
Speaker 25
22:40
There's not a statewide. Well, I understand. You said
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:45
there. You mean a bonding grid or a
Speaker 29
22:48
sentencing grid? A bonding standard. What people, what folks have, what jurisdictions have, bond is at the discretion of the judge that sets bond in the circuit or the district court. Now, sometimes judges will provide a bond schedule,
So if people come in at 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, they don't have to call the judge and wake them up to see if this person qualifies for bond. They'll say certain people with certain low-grade offenses can bond out for this amount and don't have to wait until Monday to come before the court. But even then, the judge expects the order of 10% to be collected on a professional bond. They expect, even if it's by
Speaker 54
23:28
bond schedule, that the bondsman will obey the law.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:32
Okay. And that expectation was set whenever way back when. I know it
Speaker 101
23:36
was set in Saline County because I wrote it. And I think eight
Andy Gill
Unverified
23:40
years ago, all circuit judges, or I believe circuit judges depend on the law, and they look to the face of the law to see
Speaker 29
23:47
that 10 percent shall be collected. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Speaker 90
23:52
Seeing the – Just one more, please. Please, just one, Mr. Walker.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
23:59
Yes, sir. Okay. When you fan people in your court after you convict them, do you keep them in jail until they pay their fan,
or do you give them time in which to pay their
Speaker 29
24:15
assessed fan? I see judges, if the people often have a fine and have spent time in jail, they often get credit for time served and don't have to pay that fine. One thing that folks would have more money to do is pay their fines and restitution if they weren't paying their bondsman the credit bond
Speaker 54
24:31
amount, and then as soon as they missed the payment, the bondsman would stick them back in jail.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
24:38
Thank you. Seeing no other questions, we're going to go into the audience, but I'm going to recognize Vice Chair Wilkins for a motion. His motion is to limit debate
to two minutes per side. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. That's a proper motion. Now, we're going to keep time here. We've got to go pretty quick. I think we've heard two minutes per side. We've heard a number of bail bond bills this year. I think we know more about the industry than we
might want to know. So we're going to tell you, signed up to speak against the bill is David Ville.
Also signed up to speak against the bill is, let's see, John Muldoon. and L.E. Peters. I'm going to give you all 30 seconds to figure out who wants to speak or how you want to do it, but we do have a question for Mr. Vealy. We want to know, this won't count against your time, go to the table
and answer the question for Representative Rice, who you are and where this information came from, and then we're going to start the clock running
for the against side. I don't have anyone sign up to speak for. I see Bob
McMahon who will sign up to speak for. All right, so Mr. Vealy, could you tell us
Speaker 113
25:54
where where this information came from and who you represent. Yes, sir. First, thank you for allowing me the opportunity. I speak for one of the two bail bond associations, the bail bond professionals. We are, the numbers came from basically my own experience as a bond company owner and the accumulated data from a number of company owners that I queried, and if anybody has any specific questions, I'm more than happy
to address them. This is the reality of this bill. This is not pulled out of the sky. Right now, credit bonding, and I don't want to get into a statement because I'm going to yield my time to Mr. Peters, but this is the reality of what the
Speaker 115
26:36
effect of this bill will be. That's good, Mr. Ville. I think that answers our question, unless
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:42
Mr. Rice has a question to follow up. He has no question. Your time is starting. For those who are speaking against, go right ahead. Two minutes per side. I'm
Speaker 116
26:52
L.A. Peters, Executive Director of the Professional Bail Bond Licensing Board.
Speaker 118
26:56
A comment was made that you all have learned more about the bail bond business than you've cared to. I would like to point out that many of those bills that you heard about were to address problems within the industry and where the bail bond board is tightening things up. So I do want to address that. On this particular bill, from a regulatory standpoint, I don't see how it's enforceable. It would put the bail bond industry or the bail bond board
Speaker 116
27:26
in the appraisal business because the law specifically says the premium or compensation for giving bond
or depositing money or property as bail on any bond shall be 10%. So does that mean that we as
Speaker 118
27:39
a regulatory board have to go out and start appraising property, whether it be used TVs or whatever, to justify whether that's 10% up? That's a point. And I know we're very limited on time. I think this is prejudicial to the poor people. We keep hearing about, well, if they pay the bondsman, they can't do this.
I'm kind of confused on that. If you allow credit bonding, they've got more money on a weekly basis if they're paying $20 a week on their bond as opposed to if they have to pay the full $2,000 before they get out. Most important point that I think is really important is very seldom does a defendant pay a bond. A defendant, when he gets locked up, doesn't have any money. He's in a jail. He has to get somebody to come up and bond him out.
And the normal situation is he gets somebody to call a bondsman, they work out a transaction for that person to bring them a deposit on that 10 percent long enough to get the individual out where he might go home and get the money. Thank you, Mr. Peters. Your
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:51
time is up. Members, you can ask questions. It doesn't count for or against the side. I have Mr. Gillum who has a question. Thank
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
28:59
you, Mr. Chairman. Just kind of a clarification real quick. You made the statement that you didn't think that this bill was enforceable.
Yes, sir. Okay. If it's not enforceable, then these numbers would not come true. Is that correct? What numbers are that, sir? I'm sorry, the numbers that were provided to us.
Speaker 118
29:14
I have never seen those numbers. I don't have to clue what you're talking about. About how it's
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
29:20
not enforceable, is that what you're asking me? Yeah, I mean, I guess my train of thought here is that if we couldn't, if this bill is unenforceable, then these numbers would not become a reality. And maybe my logic is flawed there, but I was wondering if I was correcting that train of thought.
Speaker 118
29:36
Yeah, I don't know. I can't answer that question. But let me define it. Can I tell you why it's not enforceable? Yes, sir. Okay, going back to the property situation. Are we putting people in a position where they have to be able to appraise things? I've got a little show and tell about that very thing. one of these items right here they look very similar I brought this from my home if I can hold them up two skeleton keys one of them is probably not worth a penny the other one is worth 5,000 bucks folks
how are you going to appraise stuff that's put up for
Speaker 115
30:18
bonds I'll take them both I've got no problem trying to figure
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
30:23
that out later thank you sir, appreciate it Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peters, is it a custom of your
industry to take skeleton keys for collateral for a bond? I'm not
a bondsman. Make sure you understand that. So you'll understand. I understand that, but is that what is – I'm very serious.
Does that happen? No, whatever type of property. You know,
Speaker 116
30:42
is a flat-screen TV worth $25 and this one worth $2,000? Sure. Okay. No problem. Mr. Hammer, you have
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
30:47
a question? Yes. Yes, and I want to clarify something. I made
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
30:51
the statement that you referenced a while ago. That was no way intended to slam or cast a negative view on the bonding industry. It is vital service. It is a good service, and we thank you for your service. So I want to make sure, and I didn't think you did, but for the record. But I have a question. I'm not a bondsman, sir. That's great.
Well, I didn't mean that negatively either, for that matter.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
31:17
It's late. That's all right. Go right ahead. That's sort of like not being a
Speaker 133
31:21
lawyer. I might need to be bonded out after this one. How
Speaker 116
31:25
did you know that key is worth $5,000? You want to really know the truth behind that key? That key, and I'm very
Speaker 130
31:30
proud of this, my father was in World War II. Let me cut this line of questions. Why don't you ask him that
Speaker 134
31:36
after we get out of here? You got a question on the bill?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
31:41
May I ask it? Yes, I do. Is that on the bill? You must have something that is appraised to show that that key is worth $5,000, and you should be able to bring that to the bondsman and say, here's proof that this is worth $5,000. I
Speaker 116
31:54
happen to have a letter from the IRS on that particular key so that we can donate
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
31:59
to the Smithsonian. Right. So you don't have to be in the appraisal business, and you just need to bring with you proof that that's $5,000. That's right. And that would relieve the bondsman of having to be in the appraisal business, just like a piece of property.
So the four people can start paying appraisers. Or they can bring their income tax statement or anything else, a receipt for how much it is. That's all I wanted to point out with that question.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steele, you recognize for
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
32:26
one question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you be opposed to a bill that disallowed bondsmen to accept cash or anything of value after bonding them out, after bonding out the defendant? It seems like that's the concern that Mr. Cassidy has is this ongoing collection, and then if it's not paid, they pick them up and bring them back into jail.
Well, assume that a bondsman, out of the goodness
of his heart, wants to accept 5% in order to
Speaker 118
32:53
bond somebody out. Well, again, I'm not a bondsman, but from a perception standpoint, I see a huge problem in that. And that's the misconception is we keep talking about this 10%. A bondsman doesn't just get the 10%. A typical situation, and I'm going to try to make it very brief, a person is arrested for murder. Maybe he's got a $100,000 bond. He puts up $10,000 or they work it out where that $10,000 fee is paid to get him out in one form or another.
A good bondsman continues to secure that bond up until the day that goes to trial by getting more property, more things. Because if the guy does FTA, the bondsman has to pay the whole $100,000. So you can't secure maybe $100,000 or a $200,000 or a $300,000 bond in a day or two. So a process is once a bondsman gets an individual out, they can continue to solidify the security of that bond up to the amount of exposure that they have.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
33:55
That's what a good businessman does. Thank you, Mr. Peters. That concludes the questions and the time for the against side. We're going to recognize Bob McMahon to speak for the bill. Mr. McMahon, you have two minutes to speak
Speaker 142
34:10
for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. this will be very, very brief. This is not a prosecutor association bill, but our association does support the bill, and we certainly agree with the Attorney General's interpretation of the status of current law. That's all my statements. Thank you.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
34:22
Thank you, Mr. McMahon. Any questions for Mr. McMahon? Seeing none, anyone else in the audience
who wants to speak for the bill, you've got about a minute and 49 seconds. Seeing no one else in the audience who wants to speak for the bill, your time has expired as well as the time has expired to be against
the bill. Mr. Mayberry, I'm going to suggest your close be really quick. I'm close for my bill. That's very good. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Members, what's the pleasure of the committee? Mr. Hammer? That's a proper motion.
Any question or discussion? Mr. Mayberry, question for you before we accept that motion. No. Your bill has not been amended today, has it? No, it has not. Okay. So the motion before the committee is passage, a motion for due pass
on House Bill 2169. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
Seeing that we have only, what, 12 members present, I don't think that we have a passage there. We need 11 members. Yes, sir, Mr. Hammer. roll call. I'll second that with you just to be sure. We'll go right ahead and have a roll call.
Mr. Hammer's hand and my hand is up for a roll call. We'll get a sheet out and roll call in just one minute.
Speaker 148
36:01
Representative Baker. Representative Baker. Representative Powers, Representative Rice, Representative Nichols, Representative Rogers, Representative Slinkard, Representative Steele.
Representative Wright. Representative Wright. Representative Vines. Representative Shepard. Representative Deffenbaugh. Representative Hammer. Representative Eubanks
Representative Eubanks Representative Branscombe Representative Ratliff Representative Gillum Representative Walker The bill fails with
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
37:42
only five votes for the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Mayberry. Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
37:50
to Senate Bill 300. Is that correct, Mr. Edwards? Senate Bill 300 for Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman, members of the committee, there's an amendment to this bill that I'd like to offer at this time. We're going to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
38:07
pass that out right now for you, Representative Edwards.
Senate Bill 300. This is an amendment by Representative Powers. Representative Powers, you move for a motion. Members, let's
see if we can get this amendment on the bill. Representative Powers has a motion to amend Senate Bill 300. All in favor,
aye. Opposed, no. Bill has been amended. Representative Edwards, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 300 once it's passed out as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, members of the committee. I think this is a very important bill because while I don't see any indigence on this committee at this time, there's nothing to say in our lives that anyone in this room could not find themselves being an indigent. And the purpose of this bill is as follows. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in an opinion on March the 3rd, ruled that in keeping with the state statute, that the only two exceptions, there are two exceptions of who corporations can represent in-house legal counsel.
They deal with title companies, and they deal with corporations that have their own attorneys that handle their own internal affairs and represent them in court. The challenge this brought up is that we have entities across the state, Central Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Services of Arkansas, that represent indigent people. I should have said the Center for Arkansas Legal Services. They represent indigent people. They are a nonprofit corporation.
With this Supreme Court ruling, they could be in violation of the law of their ability to be able to represent indigent. So what this bill does and what the amendment, the reason for the amendment, it was to clarify that nonprofit entities or voluntary associations where attorneys that are properly licensed within the state of Arkansas represent indigent people, that they have the right to do so and provide that representation. There is an emergency clause on this bill in order to bring the clarity we're trying to achieve.
And I think I've explained it and won't
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
40:59
take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Can I have one question for you? This is a case that you referred
to. Can you explain the holding of
that case one more time for me? I apologize. Yes, sir. The name of the case was Or just what it is. Mid-South Plumbing versus Kelton, and what the case found was that there are two exceptions
for corporations to be able to represent. There are attorneys for corporations, and one was corporations that have their in-house attorneys that deal with title examinations, and the other is corporations that have their in-house counsel to represent them on their legal matters and in court. Again, our nonprofit legal services entities, they provide a wide variety of services. In many cases, the records we have, you know, 20-some-odd thousand people a year,
and we're just wanting to make sure that we have the statute amended so they can have the clarity needed so we don't have any disqualifications of those attorneys in those
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
42:05
cases. Okay, I understand now. So this
just makes it clear that since the pro bono legal services are allowed to represent them. MR. That
are pro bono legal services are always allowed, but if we have attorneys that are working with these corporations to make sure the statute is amended. Yes, sir.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
42:25
MR. All right. I understand. Questions from
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
42:28
the members? Mr. Walker. Briefly, certain organizations like the Arkansas Education Association
or the NAACP and others which are nonprofit organizations that routinely represented people in this category. There's a case called Shelton v. Fulbis going way back that authorized this kind of representation. But since it's now a problem because of the Supreme Court decision, you are here in part because you want to clear that problem up
and make sure that people have a right to be represented by counsel in corporations without
Speaker 169
43:00
a problem. Yes, sir. That's exactly right. Nonprofit corporations. Non-profit corporations or voluntary associations. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any additional questions, members? Seeing none,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
43:08
anyone in the audience who wants to speak for
or against this bill? Seeing no one, Mr. Edwards, would you like to close for your bill? Sir,
I'm closed. Mr. Powers has a motion of due pass on Senate Bill 300 as amended. Any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Edwards. You've got a
record today of the fastest bill getting out of here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased. Mr. Smith, you want to
run House Bill 1787, is that correct? You are recognized to present House Bill 1787, Mr.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
43:51
Smith. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. This bill is something that was brought to me by a constituent,
and it's an act to authorize circuit courts to order mental health services for children of incarcerated adults and other purposes. You can read. What this amounts to is it's an attempt to help cut off the valve, if you would, for the influx of additional persons in our prison systems. When Johnny sees his dad hauled off by a man in blue uniform, he sees that someone took away his dad and it makes him angry, and he becomes, in some cases, not in all, but in some cases, a person that might be an offender in later life. This is something that probably because of the members of this committee
having their capabilities and experience in the legal world, and I'm not one of those legal experts, this might should be taken to an interim study for us to further discuss this because Department of Human Services has approached me about this saying, well, you know, we'll probably be the one that you'll hand this off to and who's going to pay the bill, and that's a good question, and how do we monitor this, and that's a good question, but I think it's something that we should bring to our attention because as you all are aware and we've been very careful to try to help solve this problem of overcrowding of our prison systems,
I think this is one way that we can help stop that flow. And I'll be glad to take questions or whatever you wish. Well, let me ask you first,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
45:09
we'll start taking questions. Mr. Smith, are you suggesting that you're going to send this to interim study? That's where I would like to take it.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
45:16
Well, we're going to let you do that. I thought you would, and I believe it's the right thing to do because it's hard to get all the information we need in such a short time. And you gentlemen have been a very group. No problem. I will assign this to one of the
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
45:27
subcommittees for interim study. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Mr. King, would you like to run your bill?
What's your bill number, Mr. King? 1833. Members, we're on House Bill 1833. Mr. King, you are recognized to present House Bill 1833. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
46:00
a lien has been satisfied or waived, the practitioner, nurse, or hospital or ambulance service provider that established or waived it,
the lien shall, and you can see the stricken language, on written demand and at the expense of the patient or the person with whom the patient was injured or by the insurer obligated by the reason of the jury, give the new languages to file with the county clerk with the lien, where the lien was filed, and a written lien release duly acknowledged before Justice of the Peace, in the United Republic and
forward a copy of the written lien released by certified mail to the last known address of the responsible party listed in the account. This issue was brought to me by a friend of mine that's an attorney in Benton County.
And I think from talking to some of the other attorneys around the state that this may be just a local issue. But anyway, I'll take any questions. Any questions
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
46:54
for Mr. King? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 18? Seeing none, Mr. King, would you like to close for your bill? You're closed. Mr. Wright has a motion of due pass. All in
favor of any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing House Bill 1833 indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. King. You may just have beaten Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Vines, you want to run Senate Bill 512. Is that correct? We're on a roll here. All right, members, Senate Bill 512. You are
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
47:39
recognized, Mr. Vines. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee. I will be extremely brief. This Senate Bill 512 is Senator David Johnson's bill,
and all it does is add language to the no-contact order provision of the Arkansas Code annotated. It just clarifies the current language. Senator Johnson tells me that the Administrative Office of Court has no issue with this language and there's no changes to substantive issues of law. I'd be happy to take any questions.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
48:18
Thank you, Mr. Vines. Members, any questions for Mr. Vines on Senate Bill 512?
Seeing none, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 512? Senate Bill 512. Mr. Vines, are you closing your bill? What's the pleasure
of the committee? Proper motion of do pass. Anyone have any question or discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the committee is due pass, Senate Bill 512. All in favor, aye. All opposed, no.
All right. Senate Bill 512 passes. Congratulations. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and Committee. We may have another record here. Mr.
Shepard, Senate Bill 166. Senate Bill 166. Mr. Shepard is going to run Senate Bill 166 for Representative Senator Luker.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
49:21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I was asked to run Senate Bill 166 that Senator Luker is the sponsor on. With me I have Terry Hayes, who is the Chief Administrative Law Judge of DHS. This bill simply would provide that in an administrative matter a subpoena may be served in a manner is now provided for by statute of rule with regard to certified mail return receipt requested.
Presently, I believe the Administrative Procedures Act requires some type of personal service, which might be by sheriff or process server. Would your guest like to add anything
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
50:10
to your testimony, Mr. Shepard? I think she's fine with that. She's fine.
Okay. Mr. Steele, you got a question for Mr. Shepard? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
50:21
Just briefly, do you know of any other states that do it this way?
Speaker 192
50:30
I'm sorry, Terri Hayes with the Office of Appeals and Hearings.
Speaker 194
50:33
I don't know if other states do. I've not checked into
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
50:40
that. Do you know of any reason why our current law allows for service of summons and things like that
Speaker 197
50:46
by certified mail but not subpoenas? Well, the current law defers back to Rule 45, which is just the standard law for the issuance of subpoenas, and it requires that unless you're an attorney of record that the subpoena would be by personal service or telephone service by the sheriff's office.
But in an administrative hearing setting, it's just not affordable. In my office, we do 73 different kinds of hearings, and most of those involve public services such as Medicaid or food stamps, and a $50 fee is just not affordable. The majority of the clients of the department are well below the poverty level. The department is below the poverty level, so this is just something that will help everybody be able to present all of the evidence that they have at these administrative hearings.
That's good enough for me. motion at the proper time. MR. Thank you. Ms. Hayes, could you tell me again
Speaker 194
51:49
who you're with? MS. I'm with the Office of Appeals and Hearings. This
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
51:52
is the office that does the administrative hearings for the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
51:57
Department of Human Services. MR. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nichols has a question. Go ahead, Ms. Nichols. MR. Yes. I think I have a problem with the language here because you're mailing it to somebody and you're asking for a return receipt, but the person that you're mailing may not be the person who signed for it.
It doesn't say restricted
delivery here. So I have a problem with that, Mr. Shepherd, because I think that could lead to some service that really did not get to the person intended and they would satisfy it if, am I looking Okay. Yeah, I see it there now.
Okay. I still have problems from
a standpoint that the post office routinely does not get the right signature on there, but if I just kept on reading I would have seen that you had restricted delivery to the addressee or agent of the addressee, so I think that would take care of my concern as far as your language goes, but I think overall most attorneys have problems with the return receipt type of service.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
53:19
the misunderstanding. MR. No problem. Any additional
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:23
questions, members? Mr. Walker, you have a question? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In many cases which the DHS has, when you serve these subpoenas, you are serving clients of you serving clients, is there any provision for giving the attorney who represents the client notice of the fact
that you've served a subpoena? I mean, I'm concerned about the situation where you may subpoena a client without notice to his attorney, and his attorney may not be available, and neither shows up, and then you have a situation where a person is there, the lawyer is not there, and justice is somewhat further delayed. Well,
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
54:10
presently the law does not require service of an attorney, and all this bill attempts to do is allow an alternative means to serve that individual.
I'm not, some of the other lawyers on the committee, I'm not aware of any requirement with regard to a subpoena of an individual to notify their attorney. but I'm not as familiar in the administrative context. But I would just simply point out that present law does not deal with serving an attorney. This bill does not deal with that. It simply allows an alternative. And to me, it's beneficial from the standpoint of an attorney who has handled some administrative appeals
in that this is a method by which I can save my client money by serving a subpoena by certified mail-restricted delivery as opposed to having to pay an additional fee for the sheriff or to have a process server personally serve. So I see this as being beneficial both to the state and also to individuals who have matters being handled administratively. But I guess I would just say the bill does not, it leaves the law as is with regard to an attorney is not served.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:25
That's my understanding. MR. The second question goes to the
TAM. If you subpoena someone, normally that person has a certain amount of TAM in which to respond. Does this system afford the person the TAM authorized by law in which to respond to a subpoena, or could it be a response required the next day
Speaker 194
55:53
after receipt? MS. This doesn't change anything other than
Speaker 197
55:57
the service of the subpoena.
So anything that's not addressed here would revert back to the standards, such as two days service or three days service, depending on what's going on in that case. So that's not going to have an impact on the amount of time they would have
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
56:18
to respond. MR. Thank you. MR. Any additional questions, members? The Chair has one question, Mrs. Hayes.
Ms. Hayes, following up on Mr. Walker's question about serving a subpoena on a client or a
subject, I guess, a client, I assume that the attorney rules would still comply, and
if you know a person is represented, you'd have to contact that person's attorney and not the subject of the subpoena. MS.
Speaker 197
56:41
We have this makes no changes to Rules 4 or Rules 5 or even 45 of the Rules of civil procedure other than to allow that in administrative hearings the service can be affected by restricted delivery mail. MR. Okay. MR. Well, just a moment.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:55
That gives me another question. MR. Yes, sir, Mr. Dwyer.
MR. Well, if we are dealing with the
rules of civil procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, is that what we're talking about?
MS. Yes, sir. MR. Why would we temper with the rules of the Supreme Court based on other considerations we've had? In other words, I mean. MR. Well, actually,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:17
we're talking about the Rules of the Administrative Procedures Act, Ms. Hayes, is that which has a different… MS. Yes, yes, yes. This bill only addresses
Speaker 194
57:24
the Administrative Procedures Act. MR. And not the Rules of Civil Procedure,
Speaker 181
57:28
correct? MR. All right then. MR. Okay. All right. I think
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:31
within the APA, there's also a requirement that if the person is represented, you'd have
to contact – if they're a subject of the subpoena, you'd have to contact their attorney and not them directly, as I should have made that clear. Am I correct on that, Ms.
Hayes? MS. Yes, sir. MR. Okay. Any additional questions? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 166? Seeing none, Mr. Shepard,
are you closed for your bill? I am closed. Mr. Shepard is closed for his bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? There's a motion by the entire committee. Do pass Senate Bill 166.
All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Shepard. You have passed Senate Bill
Speaker 215
58:18
166. Members, okay, members, without objection, I would
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
58:22
like to take House Bill 2227 off of the deferred list. It's Mr. Powers' bill.
We'd like to move it off the deferred list and move it to a subcommittee of this committee for interim study.
Without objection, we're going to do that. Any objection? Great. Without objections, Mr. Powers, your bill will be sent to interim study. 22-27 will be sent to interim study. Did staff get that? Okay, great. Mr. Wright would like to
run House Bill 2207. I'm sorry. Hello, Mr. Wright. I apologize. I promised Mr. Hammer a long time
ago. I apologize. Speak up, Mr. Hammer. You're exactly right. Oh, I see your note here.
Speaker 154
59:09
I'm sorry. No problem. We're on a roll here.
Speaker 134
59:20
We're just going. I apologize. You're going to do 2003? House Bill
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
59:24
2003, is that correct? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to do 2003. And
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
59:28
2118? 2118, please. All right. Members, we're on House Bill 2003 by Representative Hammer. Again, Mr. Hammer,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
59:35
I apologize. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Committee, may I let the
two guests, even though they've been here,
already, can I have them introduce themselves for
Speaker 120
59:44
the record, please? Please have them introduce themselves
Speaker 220
59:49
and let us know who they're with. Thank you. My name is Andy
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
59:57
Gill with the Slingon County Prosecutor's Office. Kim Cassidy, the Slingon
County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. You're recognized. Thank you. House Bill 2003, the reason it was initiated that I would bring this bill to you is in In response to a request of a lieutenant on the Benton Police Department and in working in conjunction with my local prosecutor's office, has helped draft the bill, and this
bill is actually one to help put terminology in the proper place, if it's all right. I'll let the prosecuting attorney's office give a brief explanation
why this bill is necessary and why we need to address it, if that's all right,
Speaker 219
1:00:37
with the chair. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee. This bill essentially does two things, and it's mostly technical in nature. It is making the domestic and non-domestic statutes regarding aggravated assault and
battery in the second degree consistent with each other, and it's also making them internally consistent. In 2009, there was some language added to aggravated assault that made essentially strangulation. the language is in the bill there, an aggravated assault. That language was not also added to the domestic aggravated assault. And so that's caused some confusion amongst officers, and it also changes things for the prosecutor's office in that we often have domestic situations
that we have to charge as regular aggravated assaults because that language was not mirrored in the domestic statutes. also this bill would move it just because it fits more with the the rest of the statute instead of that strangulation language being in the aggravated assault statutes which aggravated assaults are generally non-touching offenses you're pointing a gun at somebody swerving a car at somebody would move it into domestic battery second and battery second because those statutes involve
touching and injuries to people. So it does those two things. The other thing it does is there was language in the regular aggravated assault that was not in domestic ag assault. That specifically talked about pointing a firearm at someone, and that language has also been added to the domestic aggravated assault. The main reasons for doing this is just it's consistent for officers making the charging decisions. It's more consistent for the prosecutors. And also, there are all kinds of federal grants that prosecutors' offices, sheriff's departments, and police departments
get that involve domestic violence. And part of the way we justify getting that grant money is showing what offenses that we have charged and successfully prosecuted. And with this language the way it is now, we have all kinds of things that could qualify and could help us prove that we need those grants that don't because we have to charge the aggravated assault that doesn't have the domestic element. So this would correct those problems. Also the only, I guess, substantive change would be by moving the language from aggravated
assault to the battery statute, it doesn't make any change in terms of classification of the offense in the non-domestic statutes. But domestic battery in the second has already been designated a Class C felony. So by moving it from aggravated assault to the domestic battery second, it would move it from a D to a C felony. So anyway, that's what this bill does. MR. Thank you, Mr. Gill, and,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:03:30
members, there is an impact study here just in case you hadn't
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:03:35
seen that. MR. Well, I have, Mr.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:03:40
Chairman. MR. Well, we've got other folks in front of you there, Mr. Walker, if you've
Speaker 95
1:03:47
got questions. Let's make sure Mr. Hammer has completed his presentation. MR. Completed the presentation at
this time, ready to take questions. MR. Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, oh,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:03:59
I guess this, not that I'm not supportive of this, I just have kind of a philosophical question. How did you charge domestic battery prior to adding this choking violation in there?
I'm not sure I understand. Well, what I'm saying is there are a lot of domestic batteries, people getting choked prior to this language being put in. Was the statute not broad enough to handle this or, I mean, specifically why are we adding something? It would seem to me, and I may be mistaken, that we probably had broad enough language to cover that to begin with. Well, part of
Speaker 219
1:04:34
the problem was apparently it wasn't broad enough because that's why it was added to the aggravated assault statute two years ago.
I mean, there's been a push nationwide to look at strangulation as a more serious injury and a more serious attack than it had been in the past. Part of the problem with some batteries are you have to prove this physical injury where what most officers are looking for are, you know, red marks, bruises, cuts, scrapes, those kinds of things. Strangulation, sometimes you're not going to have that, but it is still a very serious and violent impact. Well, I understand it's serious, and
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:05:11
frankly, I asked the same question two years ago when it went in,
and I'm not sure that I understand it any better now,
but I'm not going to wrangle with you on your bill. I'm probably okay with
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:05:27
Powers. Mr. Walker, you recognize? Well, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The last part of this bill says data does not reflect the number of persons previously charged for this conduct under aggravated assault, and then it reiterates what's on the first page, that you cannot determine the impact upon the correctional facilities.
It will have some impact, will it not?
Speaker 219
1:05:51
Well, it could. But as this states, this behavior of, you know, if you're strangling somebody to the point that you're cutting off circulation or respiration, it could and sometimes is charged as an attempted murder. Therefore, because prosecutors do have some other sorts of things, it really allows maybe there's a case that we see that, you know, we might be able to reach a little bit and say this is an attempted murder. I think that this person's intent when he had his hands around this woman's neck was to kill her.
And so we could charge it that way. But with this being added to the domestic battery in the second degree, it's actually lower than what we could possibly charge it. But so it is hard to determine what the impact would be because there are many offenses in these assaults and batteries that could potentially be charged in any instance. And I think maybe just to address the last question, And I was handed a note here during the last session when this language was added to the aggravated assault section, code revision actually wanted it moved to the battery section.
And so that's part of what this does is it moves it and makes it more consistent with
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:07:02
the battery statute. Thank you, Mr. Gill. We do remember that from last session. This was a part of Representative Creekmore's package of bills. Any additional questions, members? Seeing no one, I only have members to speak for it who are at the table. Anyone in the audience who wants to speak against House Bill 2003? Seeing none, Mr. Hammer, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed, sir. Thank you. What's the pleasure of the committee?
Well, don't everybody speak at one time. All right. Mr. Branson has a motion of due pass on House Bill 2003. Are you all in favor to indicate by saying aye? Aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Hammer, House Bill 2003 passes. Congratulations. Now we're at House Bill 2118. Just a second, if you don't mind. 2118, you may have noticed on the
Speaker 232
1:07:51
list for a long time. You have an impact
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:56
study, correct? I do have one with me. I don't know if they got it to you all.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:08:03
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hammer, is this
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:08:21
a bill you've been working on that's been agreed to with part of the May I speak? Sure. And I'll explain that. Originally, when the season started, I had filed a bill to deal with the scrap metal
theft of property, et cetera. And as I got into it deeper, realized that there were really two issues. And so I have just, the first bill have deferred off the list or I'm not pursuing that first bill. And actually I'm bringing two bills. I'm bringing this one today and there'll be a follow-up bill that'll come next week. What this bill does, and I might add, and I don't know where John went, he may speak to it in just a little bit, but have been in ongoing meetings with several entities related to scrap metal.
And as of last word on this bill, from the scrap buyers and everyone else that was at the table in discussions, that would be AT&T, Little Rock Police Department, et cetera, they do not have a problem with this bill as far as increasing the felony status. So it does come with that recommendation or acknowledgement. And what I'm asking to do in this bill is to just increase the felony status for certain thefts of property involving copper and a couple other items that are mentioned on there.
Well, actually, it's more copper. If you look at the back side, it gives a restricted list of items that are on the back. And part of the reason why I'm asking for this is because the ongoing problem that you probably even have recently seen in the news in the last week, there still consists of a problem. There's a great bill that was introduced two years ago, and we are tweaking that a little bit. But this is a separate item related from that to raise the felony status for theft of restricted items.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:10:23
And I'll be glad to take any questions. MR. Mr. Nichols has a question. MR. Yes, and I may need the Chair's help on this. I was running my expungement bill down in the Senate yesterday and some of the discussion drifted off into your big bill that you passed yesterday about and I think they said that The felony limit there was $1,000 or some change in that regard.
And so how does and now we're using the $500 figure here. Would that be an issue with the
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:11:08
No, sir, Mr. Nichols. The bill we did we just passed yesterday, Senate Bill
750, did raise the theft statutes, amounts for certain classification of crimes, but we kept most of the enhanced or special cases in there and left them at the same amount.
So for example, you know, stealing a cowl at $200 would still qualify for whatever crime that would qualify before the bill was passed. So this would really – these provisions are I guess probably A through F are probably not covered under there they're left the same under the Senate bill 750 okay thank you mr.
chairman any additional question members any one of the
audience wants to speak for against House bill 2118 seeing no one mr. hammer are you close your bill I'm close for my bill thank you sir mr. rice has a motion of do pass all in favor indicate by saying aye opposed no congratulations First, Mr. Hammer, you have passed your bill. Now, Mr. Wright, we will let you run your bill. Tell us again
what bill it is. 2207. What's the other bill? 1868.
Member, this is House Bill 2207, and we have an amendment that is Mr. Wright's own amendment. Without objection, we're going to ask that Mr. Wright's motion to amend his own bill. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Wright, you're recognized to present House
Bill 2207 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see what
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:12:54
we can do about beating Representative Vines' record for this evening.
This really is a simple bill. Right now, basically what the bill does is right now counties across the state are responsible for the cost of facilities, equipment, supplies, office space of the public defender's office, as you can see in the bill. Basically what this bill does is it specifies where the county, from where they can pay this money. Lines 26 through 31 say, you know, county's general fund, public defender fund, indigent defense fund, public defender investigator fund,
as well as making us have a line item request from the quorum court. Provides greater accountability, makes it clear where the funds can come from. I'll have to take any questions. Seeing
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:13:51
no questions from the membership, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:14:01
bill? Mr. Vines has a question Thank you Mr. Chair Seriously, Representative Wright does this change any current payment structure
Speaker 245
1:14:08
No, basically Representative Vines, right now the statute just says that the county is responsible for our expenses,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:14:14
public defender expenses this specifies from where those funds can be paid and makes us do it line by line itemized where those expenses are, whereas opposed to now They're not required for a line item. So no new costs or
Speaker 246
1:14:25
anything to the county? None. Okay. None. Thank you. Mr. Wright, you close your
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:14:33
bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion of due pass by Representative Branscombe. Any question or discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of passing House Bill 2207 indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Wright. You've passed your bill. Now we're going to House Bill 1868. members. We have one more bill after that and we'll be done. House Bill 1868 Mr. Wright you're recognized
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:15:00
Thank you Mr. Chairman I also have Gary Isom here with the Arkansas Real Estate Commission that will help me present and field any questions This is House Bill 1868 What House Bill 1868
does is when somebody in the state of Arkansas is applying for a real estate license or real estate broker's license this bill requires them to disclose if they have had a conviction, even if it has been sealed or expunged. Now, when this bill was first presented to me, I told the Real Estate Commission that I was opposed to this.
I felt that, I usually do feel that if somebody's had their record sealed or expunged, That's exactly what it means, and they shouldn't have to disclose that. However, after meeting with the Real Estate Commission, a couple things changed my mind and convinced me that I needed to sponsor this. One was the fact that we're dealing with real estate agents and brokers that are in people's homes, not just empty homes, but homes that a lot of times, most of the time, people are still living in.
They still have their medications, personal items, personal effects in the homes. Another thing that really changed my mind is after meeting with the Real Estate Commission, they informed me about Arkansas Code 1742-315 regarding the criminal background checks. And y'all are just going to have to trust me on this one. But there are some exceptions that the Real Estate Commission can and does consider upon the request of somebody requesting the license
or somebody that has been affected by the license. And the things which the Real Estate Commission can consider are the age at which the crime was committed, the circumstances surrounding the crime, the length of time since the crime, subsequent work history, employment references, character references, and any other evidence demonstrating the applicant does not pose a threat to the public. The Real Estate Commission assured me that they do everything they can to issue licenses. And for those reasons, I decided to support this bill.
and I have Mr. Isom here to answer any questions as well
Speaker 249
1:17:21
about how the Real Estate Commission
Speaker 160
1:17:26
handles that. Mr. Isom, would you like to make any statements? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, please. Members
Speaker 250
1:17:31
of the committee, Mr. Chair, thank you. Just a little bit about our application process. We do state and federal background checks on all applicants. Now, we are not asking that the applicant on the application disclosed if they have an expunged record on the application, because we know there is a statute that says they don't have to.
However, when we do the state and federal background checks, these expunged records often show up on the FBI check. Now, currently, we have about five AG's opinions that support us in going ahead and asking the applicant for those expunged records. But what we are attempting to do is, by statute, get authority to go ahead and get those records. When the records are expunged, I'm sure you all know that we can't access the records through the courts.
The applicant has to provide those records to us. Like I said, we currently do that in IAG's opinion. And just a couple things. As a consumer advocate, we are a consumer protection agency. I feel like consumers would like to know that the Real Estate Commission is screening applicants, and I think that would include exposed records. The other thing that I will mention is we try to maintain consistency. It's important for a regulatory agency in its disciplinary actions.
We want to be consistent across the board. We want to be consistent with entry-level requirements as well. We get hits from all over the country on the background checks. And as you know, the expunged records laws may not be the same in one state as they are in another state. And anyway, we would just like to maintain consistency in the entry level. There are some people who can't afford to have their records expunged.
There are those who can. I don't want one person who can't afford it to be at a disadvantage to the person who can. Thank you, members
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:19:42
of the committee. MR. Mr. Rice, and Mr. Wright, question for the Chair, from the Chair. Don't
you all currently access these records through your relationship with the Attorney General's Office? Yes, sir. So you actually can get this information without you having statutory authority to do it because your counsel, the AG's Office, can get this for you.
Speaker 136
1:20:04
Is that correct? They have advised us that we can request these records. My understanding is
Speaker 250
1:20:09
that there are five AG's opinions, but those opinions are for state agencies. There's not a specific opinion for the attorney for the real estate commission. And if we got challenged on this, we would have to ask the AG to give us an opinion specifically for us. Okay. But your practice right now
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:20:29
is when you want this information, you ask the Attorney General's Office and they provide it for you. Yes.
Is that correct? Yes, sir. see Braddock or Zorda here,
but you recognize we limit who has access to ACIC for real reasons. I mean, it's even within the AG's office, not everyone in the AG's office has access to ACIC, just very limited people. Is that correct? Or actually, Mr. Raup may know more about that. Since Mr. Raup, you're sitting back there, why don't you join the conversation and tell us about that? It's my understanding that just a few folks in the AG's office, for example, I was a Chief
Deputy AG years ago, I didn't have access to ACIC. Isn't it correct that just a limited number of folks in your office has access to
Speaker 253
1:21:17
ACIC? MR. I know that I don't have access, and I didn't when you
Speaker 16
1:21:23
were chief. So neither the Chief Deputy or the Head of Criminal Appeals had access. MR. You have to be a certified operator from
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:21:30
ACIC, and I'm sorry I'm not prepared to say who those folks are in our office. MR. Sure.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:21:36
But it's not every Assistant Attorney General? MR. No. has a question as well.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Wright and I believe
the real estate commission agency person said listed some factors that you look at and it sounded to me like they may be the same factors that a judge would look at to determine whether expungement should be offered. And I believe in second chances and why should we just say, okay, the judge made that determination but
now we want to look at the same things and make a similar determination.
I do have a problem with that. I think we know what an expungement is and what it means, and the
judge has already made a determination based upon some of the same factors you're considering. So what are your thoughts on that analogy, Mr. Wright? Representative Nichols,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:22:35
that is a great question. And a lot of times, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and a lot of times a judge will make that determination already.
However, pursuant to the First Offenders Act, most of the time, as a matter of fact, I say all the time, a judge doesn't even look at that. Your record gets expunged automatically, so a judge will not have to go through those factors, the determinations made pursuant to the First Offenders Act. And so there are going to be some
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:23:06
circumstances where a judge has not made that determination.
But the only certain crimes qualify under the First Offenders Act. Is that right? That's correct. So it's not going to be some of the more heinous types of crimes that would qualify.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:23:19
That's correct. But some of the crimes, you know, could be death, possession, things like that. And when you have access to somebody's house, those are my concerns.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:23:30
It's a great question, but that's where I come from. Well, in balancing this, I haven't reached your level of it. I
think the expungement, that's why we have it there. and we should not be closing off avenues of employment by piecemealing where the expungement does not apply.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:23:51
Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Powers has a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And could you just give me the overwhelming, compelling
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:24:01
reason why we need this? I mean, what problem has breached this area that we need a statute to take care of it? I mean, not one or two instances, but I want some compelling evidence to me why we should change this law.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:24:22
I'll let Mr. Isom handle that.
Speaker 250
1:24:25
Mr. Powers. Thank you. And the primary general reason is that when we issue a license, that is like issuing a key to people's homes. And that is why, yes, a judge may expunge a record, but a judge doesn't have the information that this person is going into the real estate business. When a consumer selects a real estate professional to work with,
The real estate profession is unlike some other professions where you select an insurance agent. That's one agent you're going to deal with. Securities. But when you select a real estate agent, you're opening your home up to individuals, any individual who has a real estate license. Now, I'm not familiar with all crimes that can be expunged, But I know that recently I found a Class C felony for sexual assault that had been expunged.
And that concerns me as an individual. I would certainly not want my wife going to an open house that was being hosted by a person who had been convicted
Speaker 256
1:25:39
of a Class C felony for sexual assault. Well, I guess, yeah, and I
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:25:45
heard you say that a little bit earlier, and I guess you can't access them at this point. Is that correct? Yes, sir, we do. You do access to see if they've been expunged?
We request the records from the AG's office.
Speaker 250
1:26:05
The way it happens, no, we don't actually get them from the AG's office. We ask the applicant. What happens, they show up on the federal background check. An example, from January 2010 to January of this year, we had 11 applicants that had FBI background hits that claimed their records had been expunged.
Only nine of them had been expunged. But we asked the applicant for those records. Again, we cannot go to the court and access those records. You have to ask the applicant, and it's considered part of the application. Does it automatically
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:26:47
disqualify them if their record's been expunged? So what's the bar where you make the determination they're not licensed? At my level, at the staff level, the Commission has given me
Speaker 250
1:26:58
the authority. If there are only misdemeanors, I can make the call as to whether or not they get a license.
If I deny their license at my level, they have the right to appeal before the full Commission. If it's a felony, the commission has instructed me to deny the license and give them the right to appeal to appear before the commission. This is a fairly routine process. The commissioners are very fair. They go. It's a very fair hearing process. They want to give any individual any opportunity they can to get in the real estate business. And if they do not approve it, it's for good reason.
because the applicant has not made a case for themself to assure the commissioners that the individual is not a harm to the public, a potential harm to the public. How would a misdemeanor be a harm to the public?
What misdemeanor comes to mind? Well, we, I can't give you a specific instance. It's
Speaker 250
1:27:58
unlikely that a misdemeanor would be something. But you still have the opportunity to make a decision. Okay, I'm fine with that.
Mr. Walker, do you have a question? Okay, you're
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:28:15
recognized. Isn't it true that almost every person with an expunged
record will have some interaction with the public, be he a plumber or she a plumber or a praiser or a yard person? I mean, you're going to, I mean, where do you draw the line in terms of these boards? I mean, you're a private board regulating private individuals, right?
So if we let you have this regulatory authority, why shouldn't we let every other regulatory authority have it too? And therefore, mute the effect of the expungement
Speaker 160
1:28:59
statute. Well, I'll just repeat that a license represents a key to people's homes, and an individual licensee through the business model that exists
Speaker 250
1:29:09
can go to a home when it's occupied or when
it's not occupied any time of day. And I just feel that the consumers, you know, our position, our function at the Real Estate Commission is to protect consumers who utilize the services of the persons we issue licenses to. And I feel that those consumers would want assurance that anyone who has a key to their house has been properly screened by the Real Estate Commission.
Mr. Walker, any further questions? No, sir. All right. You have a question.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:29:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And forgive me if this was covered,
but why does a person's record get sealed or expunged in the first place, and what is the justification of the proper authorities doing that? Well, there could be many reasons
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:30:08
why they do that, but if you get your record sealed and expunged and it's not under the First Offenders Act, you have the right to a hearing.
You have to notify prosecutors, sheriffs, and you go before the judge, and the judge will make a determination based on the crime committed, when it was committed, what you've done since then, are you a productive member of society, are you employed, are you raising a family, and the judge will consider all those factors. Under the First Offender Act, which you can also get your record expunged, the judge
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:30:43
wouldn't. So is it fair to conclude then that an individual, if they have their record sealed or expunged,
has gone before the judge and the judge has deemed and weighed out the evidence and feels that that person is no longer a threat to society or a threat to anybody around
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:31:01
them, regardless of whatever they did before that? Not if your record is sealed and expunged under the First Offenders Act. You have the automatic right to have that sealed and expunged. Other crimes that aren't under the First Offenders Act, I would say a lot of times yes, but not all the time.
And that comes from a practical standpoint because I see it sometimes where if there's no opposition from your sheriff, your prosecutor, or anything like that, the
Speaker 250
1:31:37
judge may just sign it without a hearing. Okay. Thank you, sir. If I may just add to that, again, we do get hits on the FBI check from all over the country. And I do not know the consistency from one state to the next on the expunged and sealed
records loss. And I think we can ensure greater consistency in our entry-level applicants applying the same requirements to our applicants
Speaker 256
1:32:09
if we have access to the expunged records. Thank you.
MR. Any further questions? Mr.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:32:22
Nichols. MR. Yes. I appreciate you
being concerned about the people who are, say, have access to a home
because they are a realtor. But when you have an open house and a realtor is running that open house, do you think we ought to extend this to people coming to see your house? No telling who walks through your house during an open house, and most of the time one real estate agent can't monitor the entire house while people are walking through. So I think, you know, your argument about we're letting that
person in the home, well with an open house, there's no telling who you're letting into these homes.
But I think my problem is because you're talking about a real estate license, and you are a a state agency, right? You're not a private organization, are you? Yes, sir. We are a state agency. Okay. But, you know, I could see if we give this to you, then we'll have the plumbing board coming to
us next because a plumber can go into somebody's house to get an electrical license. There could be arguments made that we
are letting these people in these
homes that he may not want to do that. So I think I would hope that the expungement statutes would have their validity and do what they are supposed to do. Wouldn't you
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:33:55
agree except for realtors have access. The distinction for me, Representative Nichols, is that a realtor has access pretty much at all hours if somebody is not there. That would be the distinction for me.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:34:08
But had there been any prosecutions for realtors who have stolen from their clients and that a background check would
have made a difference on that? I don't know the answer to that. So you don't have any anecdotal stories that have happened in Arkansas on this? Or I ask Representative Walker's question, where is your empirical evidence that this is a problem? No empirical data. Well, since
there's no question, I kind of want to follow up on that.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:34:42
And I've kind of, I guess, poorly asked the question. I'm not sure if I've been convinced why we need this. I ask for a compelling reason. And if we don't have, I understand, you know, you're going to be in the home. But I'm wondering if this is such a problem. You know, I'm perfectly willing to undertake that and study it. but do we have anything to show us definitively why this is a problem?
I just don't see that we have anything. My
Speaker 243
1:35:18
response is that I don't have any of that data, but I don't want to have a problem, and I want
this to prevent us from ever having a problem. Well, no, I understand that. I don't want to have any
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:35:31
problems whatsoever, but I'm in the legislature, and that's impossible. and I can say
Speaker 37
1:35:35
that about virtually everything but I also kind of
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:35:37
and I'm making a statement here and I apologize I don't have a question but I'm also a little bit worried
about when people have their records expunged they do that for a reason they want that opportunity I want to ask you if you agree but I just will say that I do have some concerns about this I agree with
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:35:58
you Representative Powers And as a matter of fact, I've been working with Representative Williams and a few others on shoring up our sealing and expunging statutes. I just, again, felt because of the access to somebody's home that this was a situation and dealing with the Real Estate Commission that they do everything they can to give these licenses.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:36:17
That's what made it compelling for me. Okay. Thank you, Representative Wright.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:36:23
Mr. Hammer, you have a question? A short one. Do insurance companies carry liability insurance in the event they employ somebody that goes in and steals property from somebody? Don't they have to carry insurance in the event they employ somebody? Real estate companies? Right. The people that we're talking about here, don't they typically work for companies that carry an insurance policy that in the event somebody comes in and slips under the radar screen and backs up with a U-Haul
and rips off all their stuff, that there's an insurance
policy that's going to be attached to that responsibility to reimburse those people. I know you can't
Speaker 250
1:37:03
replace some things. I understand that. Real estate companies carry errors and omissions insurance, but I really doubt that errors and omissions insurance would cover that. Okay. Thank you. Now, it is not mandatory that they carry errors and omissions insurance. It's optional, but for the larger
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:37:19
companies, it's a necessity. All right. Thank you all.
No further questions. I'll ask if anyone in the audience wishes to speak for or against this bill. Seeing no one, Mr. Wright, are you closed for your bill, or do you want to make a statement? I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. All right. Thank you. What is the will of this committee? Mr. Eubanks. Mr. Eubanks has a motion due pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Roll call.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:37:54
I'm going to. Well, let me make the ruling first. You might have slid in the third and been called safe, and you
may be arguing about it. I think the no's have it. No roll call. All right. Sorry,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:38:13
Mr. Wright, your bill has failed. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 174
1:38:19
Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Steele, you
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:38:21
have a bill. Is that correct?
Very briefly. Just tell me what the bill is where we can. Number 2047. House Bill 2047 by Representative Steele. By Representative Carter. By Representative Carter, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, it's
2047 by Representative Carter? That's correct. He asked me to carry it for him. House Bill 2047, Representative Steele is going to explain Representative Carter's bill. So once,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:38:51
give us just a moment to find that bill, and you will be recognized to proceed.
Thank you. All right, everybody found the bill? Mr. Steele, we're going to let you proceed with House Bill 2047. Thank
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:39:25
you, Mr. Chairman. And as I mentioned, this is a bill by Representative David Carver,
who we know never files bad bills. So I'll do my best to carry his water today. This is just a simple bill that abolishes an old antiquated doctrine and the common law known as the doctrine of necessaries. It provides, in very limited situations, It provides for a spouse, I think exclusively a wife, to request funding from a husband for items in the marriage that are considered necessary.
It's usually only limited to food, clothing, medicine, and shelter. That's about it. I think Mr. Carter had a bad experience with this bill, or he had a constituent that had a bad experience where this was used. And I'm certainly not familiar with this being relevant in modern family law. I think it's just an old antiquated doctrine that we need to repeal. I'll
be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Does anyone on the committee have a question regarding this old antiquated?
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:40:40
All right. Representative Gillum, do you have a motion? Is that correct? All right. Are there any questions? All right, no questions. Does anyone wish to speak for or against the bill? Seeing
none, Representative Gillum, you are recognized for your motion. I move do pass, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations. Your bill is passed, Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Gillum. Is there any
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:41:06
other business to come before the Judiciary Committee today? If not, thank you for your patience and staying.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB2169
SB300
HB1787
HB1833
SB512
SB166
HB2003
HB2118
HB2207
HB1868
HB2047
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 17
Speaker 24
Andy Gill
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 30
Speaker 34
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 41
Speaker 42
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 54
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 86
Speaker 90
Speaker 62
Speaker 25
Speaker 97
Speaker 101
Speaker 113
Speaker 115
Speaker 116
Speaker 118
Speaker 133
Speaker 130
Speaker 134
Speaker 142
Speaker 148
Speaker 109
Representative John Charles Edwards Chair
Unverified
Speaker 169
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 192
Speaker 194
Speaker 197
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 181
Speaker 215
Speaker 154
Speaker 120
Speaker 220
Speaker 219
Speaker 95
Representative David "Bubba" Powers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 105
Speaker 232
Speaker 238
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 245
Speaker 246
Speaker 249
Speaker 160
Speaker 250
Speaker 136
Speaker 253
Speaker 16
Speaker 256
Speaker 243
Speaker 37
Speaker 174