House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1532
· 6 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1532”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1232
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1232”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1504
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1504”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1305
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1305”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1438
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1438”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1608
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1608”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB312
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB312”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:00
Good morning, members. Chair sees the quorum. Good morning, guests. If anyone here in the audience who wants to speak for or against a bill or on a bill, please sign up in the sign-up sheet that's next to the coffee pot. Can I get the guests to sit down, quiet their conversations, or take them outside? And let's get started. Without objection, we're going to jump around the calendar again
to accommodate some of our colleagues who come in. Mr. Allen, I see you here. I think I told you you could run your bill. You're here for House Bill 1532. Is that correct? Mr. Allen, you're recognized
Speaker 3
0:54
for House Bill 1532. Mr. Thompson and Ms. Post, we'll get you next. Thank you,
Speaker 8
0:59
Mr. Chairman and members. I just want to explain House Bill 1532 to you, electronic citations.
This bill expands the current law to allow the criminal justice system to move toward electronic exchange of information. It would allow officers to electronically generate traffic and non-traffic citations and warnings. This bill improves the legibility to the public of the citation and court appearance information. This bill allows electronic communication between law enforcement and the court system. This bill also will allow for the ease of capture and determination of information regarding
the person cited for highway safety purposes. The electronic process is only an option for agencies to utilize. This process is not mandatory. A few years ago I was with one of my colleagues and we were in Missouri and somehow another he accidentally ran a red light and no one saw him. And a
few days later when we arrived back in Little Rock, Arkansas he had a ticket in the mail And he said that that possibly couldn't be him. So what they did, they also had a picture of him driving the car and also a picture of the license number and a picture of me in the vehicle with him. And so that's what I knew was pretty serious. And so I told my colleague, I said, hey, you need to probably pay this ticket, man.
So he ended up spending a lot of time on the telephone, but eventually he paid the ticket. So currently in the state of Arkansas, there are two local agencies that use this type of electronic information, the Fayetteville Police Department and North Little Rock. And I will be happy to entertain any questions. Mr. Allen, I was all for you
Speaker 7
3:11
until you started talking about those cameras.
I'm sorry. We don't have that here, so
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
3:17
that's in Missouri. Okay. Is this bill supported by state
Speaker 8
3:22
police? It is. It's supported by law enforcement, state police, the Sheriff's Association, I think DFNA, and many of the municipalities are on board. The Prosecutors Association are all supported, too. Thank you,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
3:34
Mr. Allen. Members, any questions for Mr. Allen? Mr. Deffenbaugh,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
3:41
you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said they're already using these cameras in...
Speaker 8
3:47
No, not cameras. No. Okay. I just gave the cameras as an example. Cameras doesn't have anything to
Speaker 13
3:55
do with this bill. Okay. None whatsoever. Now, what are they doing
Speaker 8
3:59
in Fayetteville? They're using the electronic process already in Fayetteville. And what happens, instead of law enforcement writing the ticket, ticket, they just scan your license and give you your citation on the spot and have everything on there that's on a written ticket. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
4:17
It's like a Wal-Mart procedure. Okay. Like Wal-Mart. Yes. Okay. Thanks. I told you, Mr. Allen,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:31
you're going to have problems with those. You should start talking about those cameras. Mr. Walker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Allen, this provides for electronic citations. Does it also allow for people to pay their fines electronically? I mean, let me preface it by saying, usually on a traffic citation, it's for an offense
that can be determined to be by fine and the amount of fine, and that is on some tickets. Can the person under this bill pay his or her fine electronically? To answer
Speaker 8
5:09
your question, Mr. Walker, this bill will not impact what a person can or can't do. If a person can pay it now, they can pay it under this bill. No way is this bill changing the way a fine should be paid or the way people pay fines.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:28
What's the necessity for this bill? other than people going
to paper, I mean, going to electronics. All right. That is a good question.
Speaker 8
5:40
Years ago, Mr. Walker, when you first started taxing your own law. You weren't here. No,
I wasn't here. But I heard. I heard that you had a typewriter. But since that time, you replaced that typewriter with a computer.
And so it made you more efficient and increased your productivity. And if someone told you today you had to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
6:19
I doubt if you'd do it. What's the present necessity for doing this since the present system seems to be working and it does not seem to be consumer unfriendly
while this may be consumer unfriendly.
Can you explain to me why you perceive it as being consumer unfriendly?
Well, I'm just asking. I mean, I can't give my position right now. Just like, to me, it seems that way, but you
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
6:45
don't think it is. No, sir, I don't. Mr. Allen, it's my conversation with the state police about this bill. isn't
it true that with this bill it will be almost instant from the time you write the ticket it will be downloaded because they have computers to be downloaded instantly to the command post basically. It will be there to cut down
or reduce human error and it will create more efficiency is that not correct? That is correct. Okay. Representative Hammer you recognize That's my question
motion at proper time Members of the day, Mr. Shepard Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions. One, Section 1 and Section 2 of the bill, are these
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
7:34
not – they appear to be identical.
Am I – or am I missing something? Thank you.
Okay, so it is after. The second question I have with regard to this bill, I just want to make sure that I understand completely. As I read it, I thought what we were talking about was basically going from a system where an officer writes a ticket
and gives it to an individual to a system where the officer electronically generates a ticket. By swiping the driver's face. And it immediately prints, and they give a printed copy to the individual. On the spot. On the spot. Yes, sir. And then it's instantaneously transmitted to the court or whoever else. Is that right? That is correct. Okay, and we're not talking about a situation where a driver violates the law and then receives a ticket later.
Is that right? I mean, I just view this as a difference between a written ticket and a printed ticket and that it wouldn't be a situation where someone comes home and then a month later they get a ticket. Is that right? That is correct. Okay, thank you. Members, any
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:42
additional questions? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against
House Bill 1532? Seeing no one, what's the pleasure of the committee? Mr. Hammer, I'm sorry.
Speaker 54
9:54
Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one quick question before I make my
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
9:59
motion? Go right ahead. By doing this, it's going to remove the handwritten ticket, and it will be an electronically generated ticket, which will make it more legible and easier to read. Is that correct? That is correct. So if an officer has bad penmanship and you can't read his badge number or you can't read the violation, this is going to replace that so it will be cleaner and easier to read? That is correct. I'd like to make a motion due pass. That's a proper motion. Any additional questions or discussion?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
10:26
Members, the motion before the committee is due pass on House Bill 1532. All those in favor, aye.
Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Allen. You have passed our bill. Thank you, Members and Chair. Mr.
Thompson, you are recognized for on House Bill
Speaker 57
10:46
1232. And we have amendment, members. We are passing the amendment out right now.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
11:26
Mr. Thompson, let's see if we can get this amendment on your bill. Members, I make a motion to accept this amendment without objection. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. All right, Mr. Thompson, you're recognized to run House Bill, to explain House Bill 1232 as amended.
Speaker 61
12:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, when I was here earlier in the session, I can just tell you I learned a whole lot that day, a whole lot. And I took the information I learned that day, I went back, and I am bringing this bill back to you today, amended, and hopefully House Bill 1232 has amended. My explanation is basically what we did is went in and amended Arkansas Code 513202,
where the statute is under Section 4. We put or incapacitates, and then where it says he or she knows to be, I'll refer to what that is, knows to be, A, a law enforcement officer, firefighter, an employee, or correctional facility, while the law enforcement officer, firefighter, code enforcement officer, or employee of the correctional facility is acting in the line of duty.
Then we went on into code 517-124, and if you'll go over to the second page, I've got my glasses on, my bifocals, yes sir, 573-124. And under Section C on the second page, we basically deleted the section there that related to pepper spray because it will be covered under this new statute.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:52
questions. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Members, any questions for Mr. Thompson? Mr. Hammer, you recognize? Representative
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:00
Thompson, there's a new prison bill that is coming down the line. Do you know by making, and this is going
to make it a Class D felony, is that
correct? Class D, yes, sir. Okay. Do you know if that harmonizes with the bill that's coming down on the prison reform so it matches in?
Because I know there's a movement to try to reduce prison population and everything. Do you know how this meshes up against
Speaker 61
14:24
that? I would refer that to our chairman. He was helped with that part of the bill. Well, I was not included in that preparation part,
Speaker 57
14:36
but. And the answer to that question is I don't know right now.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
14:42
Okay. All right. Thank you. Members, any additional questions? Seeing no additional questions from the members,
anyone in the audience who wants to speak for against House Bill 1232?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
14:56
right. Seeing no one in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1232, members, which is the pleasure of the committee? Representative Steele, you recognize? Move do pass as amended. Proper motion. Any additional questions or discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of passing House Bill 1232 as amended indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
15:19
Congratulations, Mr. Thompson. Second time's a charm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Ms. Post, you are recognized for House Bill 1504. Thank you, Chairman.
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
15:50
House Bill 1504 was brought to me by my public defender, who actually represents many of the predators that come through the system in the
Alma area where we have a decent sized water park in our city. The
act is to prohibit level 3 and 4 sex offenders from being able to attend water parks under operated by local governments and Level 3 and 4s are found to be the most violent offenders.
4s are often not even released back into society because of the dangers that they are found particularly to our children. Water parks are commonplace that families frequent in the summer months and this law would restrict Level 3s and 4s from being able to attend these parks and this does include swimming pools that are operated by municipalities. This law holds perpetrators accountable who do not follow the law with a Class D felony, which would, in fact, send them back to prison, protecting our families, and it keeps offenders
from these places that are likely to re-offend. And I'll be happy to entertain any
Speaker 83
17:10
questions. Thank you for the explanation, Mrs. Post.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:14
Mr. Walker, you're recognized for a question. Well, I have to apologize because I
asked the questions on this. It seems like people don't want to ask questions about sex offenders. Ms. Post, let me ask several questions. Yes, sir.
Do you think a sex offender should be and could be prohibited from attending church? Not by this bill, but just in general. No, sir. You think a sex offender could be or should be prevented from going to a grocery store? Mr. Walker, I appreciate that line of questioning, but let's keep our
Speaker 21
17:52
questions to this bill. Well, I'm trying to get to the water park, if you will. Well, let's jump to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
17:57
the water park since that's what's in front of us.
I know this is you're used to deposing witnesses on the stand. This is not quite
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:07
that form. All right. So let's talk about this bill, if you don't
mind. Tell me, if a person is a sex offender and has children, does this bill prevent him from
taking his children to a water party? Yes. Now, how can... All
right. Well, if he can't go and his children are minor or small,
then that means that the children
will be deprived of a privilege that they otherwise
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
18:38
have. Is that right? People make choices, with all due respect, Representative Walker, and this law is to protect our
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:47
children, all children. So it means that if a person became a sex offender before he or she became a sex offender, then the choice that he made is going to ban any children that he has for all their lives?
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
19:03
He could get someone else to take them to the water park. Many people... Well, many
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:09
people don't want to have anything to do with sex offenders, so the children are just doomed, aren't they? I didn't
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
19:14
make that statement, Mr. Walker. All right. All right, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Poe.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
19:27
You're welcome. Mr. Vines, you recognize for a question? Representative Post, this bill, as you currently have it drafted, just applies to border parks owned by local government.
It wouldn't have anything to do with private
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
19:40
entities or private businesses, would it? That's correct.
Chair
Unverified
19:50
Thank you. You're welcome. Members, any additional questions? Representative Schlinkert, you recognize? Thank you,
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
19:58
Mr. Chair. Representative Post, how would one know that a sex offender was at the water park of the local government?
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
20:05
How would one know that? This law works just like
all of the other laws that are set up that are already in place for Level 3s and 4s. Level 3s and 4s currently cannot go to public parks. parks. There's laws that are set up where they cannot go within 2,000 feet of public schools, public parks. One doesn't necessarily know. It's up to the offender. They're told
where they cannot go. It's not up to the school. It wouldn't be up to the water park. It's up to the offender. And if the offender breaks that law, then they can be held accountable and they would be punished by a Class D felony. Did I answer your question? It's not up to
the water park or up to us as another citizen to hold them accountable. No one else would be held accountable, would be responsible for holding them accountable. They would be responsible for
not going to those places. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Slinkert.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
21:29
Mr. Hammer, you recognize? Representative Post, do
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:33
you know if Wild River Country and Magic Springs, are they owned by local governments or are they private entities?
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
21:40
They are private entities. So as far as the two
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:43
major water parks that are located in central Arkansas, this law would have no influence or any bearing over them. Is that correct? That is correct. Is there a particular water park, if you feel at liberty to answer this, was there a particular water park in the state that's
owned by local government? And also, what about city-owned swimming pools? Are they excluded
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
22:09
from this? It would apply to city-owned municipalities.
City-owned swimming pools would be affected by this law.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:16
Like the one in Arkadelphia? Do you
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
22:19
know if the one in Arkadelphia is city-owned? I do not know. Like, for instance, the city swimming pool in Ozark. It would help them. I worked with the Arkansas counties, and they liked this bill because it would help their city, their cities to be able, it would help, it would affect their cities.
Okay. All of their cities, basically, that operate city swimming pools, it would affect them. Okay, thank you. So probably so, if it's a city-owned, but I don't know if yours is. I don't know if it is, but Ozark, yes, it would. Alma has a large water park. Okay,
Speaker 55
23:09
do you feel, let me ask you this, do you feel that if we isolate them from
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:16
one segment just because they're city or locally government-owned, that if they are level three or fours with their tendency of being predators,
Do you think that is naturally going to force them to the private industry or the swimming areas that are privately owned because this law is going to have no bearing over them? Are
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
23:35
you asking me do I think they're going to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:38
go to a different water park? I'm asking you, if I understand this right, we're only going to regulate swimming water parks that are owned and operated by local government. So it would be enforceable only against, if I'm not misunderstanding, it would only, we're going to regulate those city water parks that are owned by local governments,
but this would have no bearing over someone who chooses to go to Wild River Country or Magic Springs. And because Level 4 and Level 3 sex offenders are of the mentality that they are and they have, as you stated, a high risk to re-offend, And they're going to go wherever they can access their victims easiest. That's going to push them toward the privately owned water parks and swimming pools if we do this, if we exclude the private sector
from it. I'm just curious if you thought about that in this and what your solution to it might be.
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
24:29
Do I think they're going to drive to those two water parks in
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:33
the state? Is that what you're asking me? I think that by passing this, we're going to create the opportunity that the potential for that to exist is going to be there because it's going to focus or funnel them to go to where they're not going to have to worry about law enforcement using this law against them, and it might place those who go to the public ones at a higher risk because we're just taking care of one part of the problem. And I may be confused on that, but that's just what I'm taking out of this.
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
25:02
I think that's a good point. If we put state in there, we have to also think about state water parks that might be included, could include water parks that, or, excuse me, swimming pools that are at state parks. There are swimming pools that are at state parks where people go to camp, and that is the reason why I excluded it. okay so
because you get into camping you get into issues where people go to camp and so you have a whole other issue are you then going to exclude people from using those facilities okay so you get into a whole other realm okay so could
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:55
this also be interpreted based on what you just said Mr. Chairman, I'm asking more
Speaker 115
26:02
one question. You're right ahead. I'll stop you if you need to stop. I
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
26:06
figure you will. Thank you. You're doing good. Go right ahead.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:10
Those aren't the only two state parks. Those aren't the only two. Right. But based on what you just
said, is the intent of this also to reach out to like Corps of Engineer designated swimming areas at state-owned or government-owned
parks? Or is that that's not in the intent of what what this bill is about? Well,
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
26:31
you're going to get into issues with the Corps of Engineers.
I mean, I didn't want to, I didn't. That's not included in this. I thought it would be a cleaner bill to keep it local. That's why I left it the way I did. But if you would like for me to entertain, if that's what you would prefer, If that's the committee's intent to include all of it, I would
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:02
certainly entertain that. Well, I'll just conclude by making a comment. I think that the bill has great intent.
My only concern is that if we vote as this is currently written, we're going to potentially put those water parks or entities. A water park to one person may not be a water park to another person, depending on, you know, if you put up a water slide, does that make it a water park? Well, there's water slides at various state-owned Corps
of Engineers-run lakes. If you – okay, I see the swimming pool up there.
My biggest concern is if we pass this, that we are going to – we're going to protect one segment that owns water parks, but we're going to leave
the other segment vulnerable. I'm not sure that's a good thing to do. MR. Just observation.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:00
Thank you. MR. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Any additional questions, members? Ms. Post-Chair has a question for you.
I assume you chose local-owned water parks, swimming pools, because you were trying to protect children.
Was children your main focus of protection here? And you recognize that all Level 3 and Level 4 sex offenders are not necessarily pedophiles, correct? Okay. MS. Brad, I hate to draw you into this, but I have a question of just about sex offender registration and notification. You may be able to answer this if you
don't mind. Would you state your name for the record? Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 122
28:39
Chairman. Brad Cazor with the Arkansas Crime Information Center.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:42
Brad, thank you. We pass a lot of laws dealing with sex offenders here, and I just wonder what's the process of giving notice to those that are Level 3, 4, or 2 of the laws that we pass here. Is there a possibility that a Level 3 or 4 sex offender after this bill is passed who has no notice of this would then be subject to a Class D felony? Do we provide them with some type of information when they regularly check
Speaker 126
29:07
in? MR. We do, Mr. Chairman. When a sex offender is first registered and every time they come
Speaker 122
29:12
in to verify and every time they come in to change their address, they are provided with an acknowledgment form that, in fact, we're in the process of expanding that with our new electronic system, but it goes through in detail all of the laws on the books with all the restrictions, and they sign a copy of that acknowledging what their duties are and what the restrictions are. So all sex offenders are regularly provided with that information. MR. That's good. I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
29:39
appreciate that. Mr. Steele, you have a question for Mr. Kozak?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
29:42
MR. At this point, would it be easier to just have them sign a form telling them where they can go? Is that form getting longer after each legislative session? It hasn't
Speaker 122
29:54
gotten – it is – I will say that we've just now made it into a two-page form. It went from a one-page to a two-page form now. That's
Speaker 123
30:04
all, Ms. Steele. Mr. Shepard. Then Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Chairman, do either of you have any information with regard to the exclusion of sex offenders
or level three and four sex offenders from public parks? I think that was mentioned. Is that already the case? I
Speaker 122
30:28
do not believe that is, but I do have all the sex offender laws with me. I've learned at this session not to go around without carrying them with me. I do not believe, I mean, my initial reaction is there is not a prohibition in the current sex offender code for using a park.
There are residency restrictions, but not use restrictions. What I have is
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
30:55
it says level three or four offender to reside within 2,000 of the property of which any public or private elementary school, public park, use center, or daycare facility is located. And, again, I pointed
Speaker 122
31:06
out, there are residency restrictions but not use restrictions in the current code. Ms.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:12
Post, you understand that difference? Yes, I do. Okay. All right.
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
31:15
And that's why I wrote it separate. Okay. That you cannot use the water park.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:22
All right. Mr. Walker, then Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. Thank
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
31:29
you. Representative Post, is there a possibility that since we're talking
about one city, one park, is there a possibility that this could be done by
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
31:41
local ordinance? I'm sorry, Representative Baker, could you please repeat that?
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
31:45
I apologize. Okay, since we're trying to protect your park and your city, is there a possibility that this could be done by local ordinance?
And I will say that you have Mark Hayes there that
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
32:00
could help you with that question. I would prefer to do it on
Speaker 113
32:06
a statewide basis because it's not just, I mean, I think it's a statewide issue. Any additional
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:16
question, members? Seeing none, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against House Bill 1504? I see Mr. Wilson, please state your name for the record and let us know if you're speaking
Speaker 119
32:30
for or against? Go ahead. MR. Speaking for the bill, O.D. Wilson,
Speaker 146
32:34
City of Little Rock, Intergovernmental Relations Manager. The City of Little Rock has three major swimming pool facilities, public swimming pool facilities. Our city attorney's office and our police department feels that this adds to the public safety in those facilities. And I follow the line impersonating in that this may not cover all of the situations, But I think it gives the local governments across the state the authority to address
that in their jurisdictions and those that have those
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
33:08
kind of facilities. MR. Thank you, Mr.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
33:17
Wilson. Any questions from Mr. Wilson, members? MR. Mr. Wilson,
I don't know how you defend a public park, but some people consider the Arkansas River at certain
times of the year in connection with certain activities
like Riverfest to be in the nature of a
public park and people gather there, do you consider that a sex offender would be precluded from going to Riverfest under this bill? Mr. Walker, I'd make note that on line 28 of the
Speaker 119
33:50
first page of the bill, the water park has to have among its features a swimming pool. Right. And since there is
Speaker 148
34:00
no swimming pool at Riverfest, probably would apply to that. Well, people do swim.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:05
I mean, maybe. I mean, they swim several places, and they certainly swim in the Arkansas River. They're not supposed to. I would have to agree with
Speaker 146
34:14
the chairman, though. Those are not public swimming pools. That's a natural tributary that runs through. But the three swimming pools that I'm speaking for is we have a facility in southwest Little Rock, we have the DMJ Fitness Center in Park, and we have East End swimming pool. Those are three public-owned, city-owned operated facilities that I think would be enhanced
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
34:37
by this legislation. Members, any additional questions? Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1504? Seeing
none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Mr. Wright, you recognize? It's a proper motion. Any additional questions? Ms. Post, would you like to close for your bill? I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Ms. Post.
Members, the motion before the committee is due passed, House Bill 1504. All
in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. House Bill 1504 passes.
Congratulations, Ms. Post. Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele, are you ready for House Bill 1492? No?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
35:43
Mr. Chairman, I believe that bill is being incorporated into the Public Safety Act, so I don't believe it's going to be necessary
to run it, but I would like to leave it on the deferred calendar if we could in case
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
35:57
it somehow is not in it. That's correct. I apologize. I forgot our conversation. Thank you. Staff, would you please move 1492 to the deferred
Speaker 156
36:09
list? No, I'm meeting with his votes tomorrow. I'll try to see what you're saying.
Mr. Nichols, you recognize you're on
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:23
House Bill 1608.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
37:05
Chairman and some others know, this past fall and winter, several of us were meeting to try to come up with a bill dealing with our expungement statutes.
We worked real hard. We came up with a real ominous bill, but it was just too much. It was too much to really digest at that time. So basically what I've done, I've taken out the misdemeanor part of it and have tried to at least amend the law to take care of what I think is some injustices that go on. An example might be a college student who gets busted for smoking a joint.
Okay. Is arrested, incarcerated, and appears before the district judge the next day, scared to death. Yeah, I did it. Pleads guilty. And then another, say in another court, the same crime occurs. It could even be in the same court, but they have it written with a certain violation code. And one, now we're talking about the same joint, one person could get it expunged under our law,
but the other person could not get it expunged. same type of crime, but it just kind of depends on how the city attorney or prosecuting attorney writes it up, and a lot of times they are not represented by counsel, and they don't know the nuances of all this, so what I've tried to do then is straighten it up on this end of it to say that it's eligible for expungement, and you don't have to go through various hoops that are questionable whether that's you've done it right.
So hopefully this will take care of that. I've asked Mr. Brad Guzort to be here with me to kind of give you a background on the
problems with our expungement statute. MR. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 122
39:18
Guzort. You're recognized. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's certainly a pleasure to be able to talk about something else ACIC deals with besides sex offenders, so Representative Nichols, as he mentioned,
was involved in a group that was talking about reworking the expungement laws, and I have a presentation that I have been put together and given to judges and prosecutors and defense lawyers and everybody around the state that basically talks about the status and the state of the law of expungements in Arkansas, and I usually open that presentation by saying the nicest thing I can say about the law of expungements is that it's internally inconsistent. Our laws are set up in such a way there's about seven or eight different expungement laws, and they, I think, were probably all written somewhat in a vacuum in what one law
gives in a benefit on one side, another law takes it away
Speaker 136
40:14
somewhere else. There is a great need to sit down and look at all of them in total, which the group that I was with and Representative Nichols was with was starting to do, but not enough time to get it all done. This is a need here that was identified that some non-uniformity in dealing with misdemeanors and the way that they can be expunged.
And I think that's what this bill certainly deals with, and, you know, I'm happy to answer any other questions about that. MR. Thank you, Mr. Cosort.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
40:48
Mr. Steele, you're recognized for a question? MR. Mr. Nichols,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
40:53
just so I'm clear, I think that this some kind of expungement is necessary. We've talked a lot about this, and
I was on the group there to try to look at some of these ideas. But just so I understand this, this bill actually will create a presumption that after this period of time elapses, the misdemeanor would be expunged.
Only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence would it not be expunged. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And could you tell us a little bit about that burden? I mean, do you have, can you think of some kind of example that somebody might be able to show and whose duty would it be to present clear and convincing evidence that it should not be expunged? Would that be at the prosecutor or could the judge do that sua sponte or how would that
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
41:35
come about? That may be covered under the current law.
Speaker 162
41:37
I'm not sure. We state that question one more time.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
41:46
who would be presenting this evidence, clear and convincing evidence? Who would have that burden to present that to the judge to keep this record from being expunged? And would it be necessary that someone present the evidence, or could a judge do this on their own?
Speaker 126
42:01
Well, under current law, if you're seeking an
Speaker 122
42:05
expungement under almost any of the various expungement statutes, you file a petition with the court and give a copy to either the city attorney or the prosecuting attorney,
depending on where you are, and they can object, and you have a hearing in front of the judge, and it's essentially, I would say, the duty of the proponent seeking the expungement to justify to the court that his or her record deserves, or they deserve an expungement on that record. As I read this bill, on these misdemeanors, they would file the petition. The process would be the same because it refers to the process so that a copy would be given to the city attorney. As I read this, the burden would be on the city attorney to put on some proof to the district court that an expungement would not be warranted.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
42:53
Just a couple more questions, if I might, Mr. Chairman. So
the other statutes, expungement statutes you mentioned have the burden on the actual defendant to prove that expungement is necessary or proper, and under this statute the burden would actually, it would be presumed to be proper, only the city attorney could prove otherwise. That's how I read this, yes. Okay. And if one of these misdemeanors is expunged, could it, I'm assuming we're talking about sealing, correct?
That's correct. And law enforcement can still always use records that are sealed.
Speaker 122
43:30
Is that correct? And that's part of the problem in our law is that the word seal and expunged are used interchangeably, and expungement has a connotation that people think means erased, I mean erased, but the law is very clear that expungement does not mean erased. So records are actually sealed, which means they're sequestered and only available generally to law enforcement or, you know, for certain background checks with permission.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
43:54
So to the extent that the state now can enhance certain charges, in other words, now after a second offense, possession of controlled substance, it can be charged as a felony, at least for the time being.
That may be changed in the Public Safety Act. But would that change, would any enhancement for a previous offense, if it were sealed under this statute, would the state still be able to enhance punishment or enhance the charge based on that previous conviction?
Speaker 122
44:23
This bill does not go to the enhancement statute at all. I mean, the records would still be there, sealed, and under the separate
Speaker 162
44:31
enhancement law would still be available for that purpose.
Speaker 170
44:36
Okay. None further, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
44:39
Thank you, Mr. Steele. Members,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
44:44
any additional questions? Mr. Walker, you recognize? Under the expungement or sealing statutes, as I understand it, one seeking such relief may represent to a prospective employer that he or she does not have that conviction or a conviction on his or her record, and the person may be applying to a law enforcement
facility or state agency, how does this law affect the past opportunity or right of a person to represent that he or she has not been convicted? Representative Walker, this bill doesn't
Speaker 122
45:28
change that, and you're correct. There is a statute in one of the expungement laws, a statute that specifically says a person may represent to an employer that they have not been convicted. However, this is part of the internal inconsistency. Some of the areas of the other expungement laws make those sealed records available for certain employment purposes
so that while on one hand they can say, rightfully say by law, they were not convicted when they do a background check, in fact, a conviction will show up. So that's part of the inconsistencies that exist in the current state of the law. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
46:06
Walker. Members, any additional questions? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1608? Seeing
none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Mr. Nichols has a motion of do pass.
That's a proper motion. Any discussion? Mr. Nichols, are you closed for your bill? Yes, I'm closed. Proper motion. The motion before us is due pass on House Bill 1608. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Thank you, Mr. Nichols, for
helping in this area. Members, Mr. Crosort has pointed out to a number of us the internal inconsistencies in this area of the law, and Mr. Nichols and I and a few others have talked about this, and Mr. Nichols and I worked on this issue for some time over the summer with a number of folks who are involved in it. We were not able to or have not yet been able to find a complete resolution.
We may not have given up, but if we don't, in the spirit of our subcommittees, I would like to ask that our Corrections and Criminal Law Subcommittee think about taking this issue up, and we can talk about it further, to clarify this. This is a big problem, and it is truly internally inconsistent, so I don't think we should let this sleep. So I will probably go to ask if we don't get this fixed this session to have our Corrections and Criminal Law Subcommittee to take this issue up. Do you need to go to the committee? Not yet. I'll
take care of it later. Members, we're now going to go to House Bill 1438, which I'm going to run.
I'm going to ask Mrs. Rogers to take the chair.
Thank you. Representative Williams, you're recognized to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
48:06
present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this is House Bill 1438. This is a bill from the Arkansas Bar Association, the Uniforms Committee. I have with me, available to help if needed, Mr. Davies and Mr. McCullum, who can give you a detailed explanation, but let me just give you a general explanation. This is the Arbitration Act.
Back in 1969, Arkansas passed the Uniform Arbitration Act. We're among about 49 jurisdictions that have such an act. As our courts continue to back up and clog up, more and more litigants are choosing to have their cases arbitrated. We have found the growing number of arbitrations and the popularity of it that our procedural requirements that were put in statutes back in some 40 years ago are not necessarily consistent or providing the proper or needed support given the backlog and given of our judicial system
and how folks are using this. So this bill really is to modernize and to account for the growth in the current practice of law of using arbitration. This is a balanced and reasonable approach to solving disputes among parties. Nothing in this bill requires anybody to go to court. Nothing in here requires anyone to stay in arbitration. You still can have your day in court if you would like to have that. This bill simply just updates the law. Now, one thing that this bill does I think is important, back in 1969 when we adopted the Arbitration Act,
we specifically excluded certain areas of the law that will not be arbitrated, and those exclusions still apply. Those are personal injury and tort matters, employer-employee disputes, and insurance or annuity contract matters. Those will continue to be excluded from arbitration under this bill. This bill really is a very good bill. Simply modernize the Arbitration Act, and I would be happy to entertain any questions. Representative Nichols.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
50:07
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chairman Williams,
how does the Federal Arbitration Act, But does it preempt this area at all? I'm going to ask my guests
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
50:18
to come and help me before I say something that I may be wrong
about, but I do not think it does. I'm not sure who's
Jack Davis
Unverified
50:37
Mr. Davies. My name is Jack Davis, and I'm an arbitrator.
Mr. Davies, I don't believe your mic's on. Oh, okay. My name is Jack Davis, and I'm an arbitrator and one of the hopefully supporters of this bill. The question is the Federal Arbitration Act and its effect on this proposed act. Is that right? Correct. MR. Correct. In the event the dispute involves interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act would
apply and this act would not. And that's well
Speaker 186
51:22
established. MR. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 177
51:29
Madam Chair. MS. Representative Nichols. I mean, excuse
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
51:35
me. Walker. Excuse me. Walker. MR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm a little concerned about two things. One, it seems to be that only people who have conflicts where money is involved who can
afford to pay the cost of arbitration can take advantage of the arbitration provision
Jack Davis
Unverified
52:05
being submitted. Is that correct? Is that mine, Mr.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
52:09
Walker? Yes. My point is that in order
to avail yourself under this bill, the persons submitting to arbitration have to have the ability to at least pay the arbitrator's fee. That
Speaker 189
52:22
is correct, yes. Normally, arbitrators do charge a fee.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
52:26
And this means that this is a bill
Jack Davis
Unverified
52:31
for people with means rather than people without means? Not necessarily, because even though there is a charge for the arbitrator's services, the arbitration procedure itself is generally and almost always less expensive than court action. But when taking everything into consideration, including in court actions, substantial discovery and time delays and so forth.
Generally speaking, arbitration is less expensive than court action. Well, I understand that you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:08
all say it's less expensive, but whether it is depends on whether a judge chooses to assign costs for an arbitrator rather than normal costs. Isn't that correct, such as filing fee or subpoena fees or things like that? Now, I'm not clear on that. One does not ordinarily, when he goes to court, have to pay the cost of the judge.
That's the point I'm making. While in the case of an arbitrator, he or she has to pay the cost of an arbitrator at a
rate not less than $125 an hour. I mean, that's the
Speaker 186
53:50
reality of it, isn't it? Yes, I would agree
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:54
that's the reality. Now, and every arbitration is going to, so the public will know, every arbitration is going to cost at least, each party, at least $1,000.
Jack Davis
Unverified
54:07
Probably, that's not far. It certainly depends on the amount of time involved. Now, the third thing. Mr.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
54:15
Walker, I'd also like to make the point, obviously, that that's a choice. There's nothing that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
54:23
requires anyone to use arbitration. Oh, I
understand. Now, with respect to the immunity provision, it says here that the arbitrator has immunity just as a judge would have immunity.
Is this necessary, especially in view of the fact that an arbitrator is not an elected or appointed official, and while he or she may be ethically required to disclose conflicts and pre-existing relationships he or she fails to do so without any possibility of relief in other words, if I went before you
you could tell me you have no conflict but I wouldn't be able to necessarily find that out and if I later found out that you did and you ruled against me, I would have no relief against you. And that would be a little different if you were an elected official because the elected official has already been pre-cleared, it seems. Why is it necessary to give arbitrators, I'm saying you, to give arbitrators the cloak of governmental immunity in this kind of case?
Jack Davis
Unverified
55:43
Well, I would say for the same reason you give judges immunity Because you can't have people suing Because they don't like the result of their case That would create tremendous chaos It would create a situation It would be hard to find an arbitrator who would be willing to act too Here's my concern, Mr.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:10
Douglas In the case of a judge, that would be a basis for a new trial or for setting aside the judgment,
or it would be also a case for having the person referred for sanctions by the Supreme Court. In this situation, there is no punishment that would come to an arbitrator in this situation. There's no referral. The arbitrator doesn't even have to be a lawyer. There's no referral to the Supreme Court. There's no sanction, no anything.
So an arbitrator could act very unscrupulously to the detriment of one party or the other without any response.
Speaker 119
56:59
Mr. Walker, to the extent that the arbitrator is a lawyer, they're
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:03
still subject to the same ethical requirements that you and I would be subject to as lawyers. And so in this bill, there's a continuing duty to disclose. So if the conflict, for example, was not noticed at the beginning of the proceeding, but a conflict arose throughout the proceeding, the arbitrator has a continuing duty to disclose.
And let's say he didn't, and you find out subsequently that there was a problem, to the extent that he was a lawyer, he still can
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
57:31
be subject to judicial conduct. I'm concerned. I've seen that situation occur, and I've
seen the situation occur where persons have been given awards and the arbitrator or mediator has had an interest in the outcome and there's just no recourse. You can't get the person for damages or whatever. And I just think that that provision is absolutely unfair to give them absolute immunity.
I think that they should have qualified immunity just as prosecutors. Judges have absolute immunity. Prosecutors have qualified immunity. You would acknowledge that, Mr. Williams? All right. So instead of giving them absolute immunity, don't you think it would be more appropriate to give them qualified immunity so that if you can show
that they act what we call ultra-virus, outside their authority or representations that
Jack Davis
Unverified
58:30
they should be subject to some sanctions? Well, certainly, should that occur, the party who's offended by that conduct can, if that
party happened to be the losing party, could certainly take the matter to a court and get
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
58:50
the award set aside. Well, but the question is damages. I
Jack Davis
Unverified
58:56
mean, in this situation, you will have, well, all right. I just don't think you can have decision makers subject to lawsuits because the, and I realize
that there might be circumstances under which a claim like that might be justified, but But by the same token, you cannot have decision-makers put under that kind of constraints. Here's the question.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
59:28
The prosecutors have qualified immunity. Why do you need more immunity than prosecutors have?
Jack Davis
Unverified
59:40
I'm not really aware of what is qualified immunity.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
59:44
I'm not sure I could. Well, Mr. Williams can answer that. No, I understand, and you're correct, and you make a valid point with regard to the immunity section. I really hadn't thought about that until you raised that question in reading through the bill, because I really counted the arbitrator more like a judge. And in the most egregious situation, you may be correct, I would suggest. Well,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:00:13
I mean, whenever the time comes, I'll at least talk to my peers about this.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:00:18
Let me invite Mr. McCullough, who may have some additional insight that he can share
Speaker 207
1:00:29
on this. Mr. McCullough, please. Sid McCullough, years ago I was a judge. I didn't understand that I had unqualified immunity if I started deciding cases totally against somebody because I didn't like them or didn't have some law behind it and so forth. I was subject to removal and all kinds of other things that we have a committee to do.
I don't see that it's any different for an arbitrator. It can be brought before the court if there's four or five reasons that an arbitrator's award can be set aside or an arbitrator can be removed. It's not like they just have unqualified power to do anything. But there are, I mean, some people worry about arbitration because they are not necessarily required to follow the specific law like a judge is. But they cannot do scurrilous things like you were mentioning before
and be held unaccountable for. If I may, Madam
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:01:32
Chairman. Well, Mr. McCullum, I've been before you both. Both of you all have mediated cases for me, and your firms have over the years. And I'm not making any accusation against you all or any particular person. But do you see any reason for having
Speaker 207
1:01:49
anything greater than qualified immunity? The way I read
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:01:53
the law, it is qualified. Well, it says absolute. It's the same as a judge. Well, judges have absolute immunity, while prosecutors have qualified immunity.
Speaker 207
1:02:03
Judges can be removed from office, be sanctioned, all kinds of things if they step outside
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:02:12
their guidelines. But you can't sue judges for damages. That's right. And you can sue prosecutors for damages when they abuse their authority and act outside the authority, when they act personally, for instance. That's right. So if a prosecutor prosecutes Representative Hammer and it's a personal thing, I'm using Representative Hammer as an example, and it's a personal thing and it's later disclosed
that that's the case, then you may be able to
sue the prosecutor for acting outside the scope of his authority and taking some action personally in the name of the
state which she's not authorized or should not be authorized to do. I hope the point is
Speaker 207
1:02:54
made. Well, there's two things that come to mind. Number one, that Mr. Williams has been pointing out, you come to arbitration by choice. You're not required to go like you are before a judge by the law.
And if you come and choose that form of alternative dispute resolution, then you're saying, I I agree to abide by the rules that are set out on how this runs. And you know on the front end that that is not available to you for an arbitrator. And you've made that choice yourself. It's not like they're being forced to be there and then they get stuck and can't sue somebody. They make that decision on the front end.
Just like they can make the decision on what kind of issues we're going to put there, how it's going to run, when it's going
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:03:47
to be, and that's the reason. Most people choose arbitration. It's just like with mediation. There's no absolute immunity for a mediator. No, except they can't be sued. Well, do you have any objection to just qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity? Basically, I
Speaker 207
1:04:06
don't have any objection because I feel like that they do have qualified,
but I don't understand what your definition of qualified. Do you mean change the law so that they could be sued if people didn't want to? I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:04:18
don't know. No, Mr. McCullum, I don't mean to go through this because you all are lawyers, and I don't want to show how the differences in lawyers are, but the term qualified immunity has definition and effect in the law that we... But the law has to set out what that definition is. The law
Speaker 207
1:04:35
has set it out, and that... Okay. All right.
Speaker 204
1:04:41
Excuse me. Mr. Walker, I think that I can relieve you of your discomfort here. We
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:04:49
believe that under the ADR statutes that there is proper qualified immunity, as you would suggest. What I'm going to do is pull this down, make sure that's correct, and then we'll bring it back. We'll get you comfortable with this. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you don't mind, I'd like to pull it down for us to make sure that we have addressed
Do we need
Speaker 214
1:05:37
objection? Without objection, we will allow Representative Williams to
recognized to explain the Senate amendment on House Bill House Bill 1305.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:07:09
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is House Bill 1305, which we passed out of here previously, and it flew off the House floor and got up to the Senate, and some wise heads thought we should make a small amendment to it over there. We completely agree with the amendments. We have no objection to them, and I'd like to ask you all to concur in
Speaker 38
1:07:33
the Senate amendments. Are there any questions from the committee?
What's the pleasure of the committee? Motion do pass. There's a motion do pass. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:08:19
Mr. Powers, you are recognized to run Senate
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:08:49
Bill 312. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
L312 is just simply what we're asking is that the 8th Judicial District North is basically making a switch with the 9th Judicial District West. a judicial district is moving up to a full-time prosecutorial position and the other is backing off to a part-time prosecutor's position.
Speaker 83
1:09:25
And that's just a switch that we're asking to make. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Members, any questions for Mr. Powers? Seeing no questions,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:09:35
anyone in the audience wants to speak for it against Senate Bill 312? Seeing no one, what's the pleasure of the committee? Mr. Wright has a motion of do pass. Proper motion. Any question or discussion? Mr. Powers, are you closed for your bill? I am closed, sir. All those in favor of passing Senate Bill 312 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Congratulations, Mr. Powers. You passed Senate Bill 312. Thank you, committee. Anyone else here to run a bill for someone or anyone has something before this committee? Seeing no business before this committee, we stand adjourned until Tuesday. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1532
HB1232
HB1504
HB1608
HB1438
HB1305
SB312
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 8
Speaker 7
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 27
Representative Matthew Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 57
Speaker 61
Speaker 66
Speaker 74
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 21
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 115
Speaker 122
Speaker 126
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 123
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 119
Speaker 146
Speaker 148
Speaker 156
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 162
Speaker 132
Speaker 170
Representative Tiffany Rogers Chair
Unverified
Jack Davis
Unverified
Speaker 186
Speaker 177
Speaker 189
Speaker 207
Speaker 204
Speaker 175
Speaker 214
Speaker 215
Speaker 38
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified