House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1045
· 6 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1045”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB61
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB61”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1410
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1410”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1281
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1281 for Representative Patterson? House Bill 1352, I don't beli…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1352
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1281 for Representative Patterson? House Bill 1352, I don't believe Representative Tyler is going to run that…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1449
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1449”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1456
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1456”
|
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
Members, we have Representative Hutchinson back before us today on House Bill 1045 to concur in Senate amendments. We wanted to let her take care of this so she can get to her other committees. Representative Hutchinson, you are recognized to present
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
0:14
your concurrence with House Bill 1045. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you, committee members. You voted on this bill twice. I appreciate both times that you voted yes. When we voted on the floor of the House, there was a sheriff in the gallery.
He came especially for this bill. He had been, a false lien had been filed against him, but it was filed in the Secretary of State's office. And he came down and let me know that could happen and asked me to amend the bill, and I said we'd do research, and if that actually was permitted by the law, I would change it on the Senate side. If someone files these in the Secretary of State's office, the ladies there do not know the person.
They would not know if it was a false lien or not, whereas your local clerk might know that. So he was right. You can file these at the Secretary of State's office. So it's just added that. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you,
Representative Hutchinson. Members, any questions for Representative Hutchinson? in
the audience wants to speak for or against House Bill 1045? Seeing no one, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Rice has made a motion of due pass. Any discussion
or questions? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to pass House Bill 1045 indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Representative Hutchinson. You have concurred in your Senate amendment,
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:45
House Bill 1045. Anyone here to run
House Bill 1281 for Representative Patterson? House Bill 1352, I don't believe Representative Tyler is going to run that today.
Representative Hammer is not available today. We're at Senate Bill 61. Senator Madison, I believe Representative Rogers is going to run that for Senator Madison. Representative Rogers, you're recognized on Senate Bill 61.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in the interest of full
Speaker 10
2:25
disclosure, before we get started, we'll
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
2:28
just tell you that when this was presented in the Senate, there were some that laid their brass knuckles on the
table during committee. This is Senate Bill 61, and what it would do is to actually modify the code to make the criminal use of a prohibited weapon a Class A misdemeanor, and the possession is specifically a brass knuckles is what it is, and it would reduce it from a Class B felony to a Class A misdemeanor. And
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Representative Rogers. But I will note that since this bill is not in effect and there's an emergency clause, those
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
3:19
folks are okay on the Senate side, I guess, maybe? We're hoping. All right. If you
Speaker 17
3:24
run into Senator Whitaker, you may want to take
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
3:27
guard. We have a question. Representative Powers has a question for you. I just want to make sure I understood you, Representative Rogers. The original offense was what
Speaker 22
3:36
type of felony? It indicated it was a Class B felony.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
3:39
Grass Knuckles was a B felony? I don't know. I'm
Speaker 23
3:45
asking. I just kind of surprises me. I don't mean to. Excuse me.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
3:52
Class D. Okay. I was reading something prior. Okay. Class D. It's a D felony, and we're lowering it
to an A misdemeanor. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:08
additional questions? I have no. President Walker. With the inclination of this body at this
time to increase the impact on possible criminals,
can you tell me what caused you all in this case to be a little more considerate and less, I'd call it, hostile to people, I would say more reasonable. MS. I'm not sure I understand. You said the word hostile
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
4:38
and reasonable. MR. Well, let me change the question.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:41
I'm just surprised that this is not another bill to enhance punishment rather than to either keep punishment as it is or diminish it.
So I'm sort of commending you, but asking, you know, what the motivation is since this
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
4:58
is so unusual. MS. I can't answer that question, Representative Walker, other than the fact that we'd like to see Ms. Center Whitaker be ‑‑ I'm kidding. Excuse me. MR. Any additional questions
Speaker 35
5:12
for Representative Rogers? Anyone in the audience
want to speak for or against this bill?
Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? I see a motion do pass by Representative Branscombe. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of passing Senate Bill 61 indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Senate Bill 61 passes. Congratulations, Representative Rogers. Let Senator Madison know her bill passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee.
I'm sorry, Representative Summers, I meant to take you second. I apologize. You should have said
something to me. Come right into House Bill 1410. I told you I would take you, get you out of the way. I apologize. I'm sure Representative Rodgers wouldn't mind you going before that. my mistake. I hope I'm not keeping you from
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
6:20
your committee too long. No, sir, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. And the state police are here with me to testify. They're not escorting me. I want to make that clear. And I'm certainly honored for my first appearance this term
before this distinguished committee. I thank you for your time. And Representative Walker, we're discussing something that I had no idea could occur, fraud when people are taking the driver's license test. I thought everyone was like I was. When I was a kid, you go in there and, boy, you follow the rules. But we didn't have anything electronic or otherwise back then. But the current law only provides a remedy for fraud in the driver's license application but not the testing process.
And this particular law would allow state police to take action against persons who commit fraud. And that action is outlined in the bill itself based on penalties. Currently, if someone commits fraud during the process, the next day they can go to another testing center and basically take the test that day. Thank you,
Mr. Summers. Would your guest like to say anything?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
7:35
I'll leave it up to the committee. He's at the brains. And you're the beauty? Yeah, right. All right. Members, any questions? Representative
Speaker 10
7:45
Rogers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are they currently, the people taking the test, are there current
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
7:51
locations or several locations within a county or within an entity that offer the test on different days or?
Major Les
Unverified
7:59
Yes, ma'am. My name is Major Les Brons of the Arkansas State Police. I'm the highway patrol commander for the western side of the state.
Most troop headquarters across the state, we have 12 firm sites at troop headquarters and they will have various satellite sites, so you could take it at
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
8:17
multiple places. Okay. Is there some type of a computer program that might be initiated so that it would, if they were entered into it, it would show that they had taken it previously and perhaps eliminate them
Major Les
Unverified
8:30
from? The way we would track this is currently we do have a computer system. The testing is computerized. At the end of the day, the driver's license examiner downloads those test results.
process, we put them on file and we can flag that applicant that they did cheat, and we'd know across the
state they've cheated on the process. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 55
8:53
Thank you. Mr. Shepard, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple questions. One, am I correct that if a person does cheat on a driver's exam, this is not technically a criminal offense, but would be dealt with administratively through, I guess, two different
driver control in terms of suspending a license or prohibiting them from
Major Les
Unverified
9:17
does, there's no current procedure about cheating on the test. Now, this is not application of fraud on a driver's test. This would give us a uniform system that we would just bar them administratively through the law from taking the test at a
Speaker 55
9:32
period of time. And as Representative Summers indicated, many people who take driver's tests are young people.
Would this cover a situation where maybe a teenager taking a test has information related to the answers to the test or is carrying information out of the exam as to the questions that are on
Speaker 56
10:00
the test? Yes, that's correct. And so then if that person is found to have, well, how would we implement this?
Would they be charged, cited, a ticket issued? Would they go before a judge? Just a few questions
Major Les
Unverified
10:20
about that. Okay. If our intent is currently we don't have a uniform system, what we do with people cheating on the test. You know, we have left that up to the troop commanders to say, okay, if we catch you cheating, if an examiner walks up and catches you with the questions to the test or you're taking pictures of the test, it could be handled 12 different ways across the state.
So what we envision is if we catch you cheating is we will be asked to leave the testing site. We would flag your application on your permit for the period of time, like 45 days for the first time and you'd be prohibited from taking tests at that point but there is no criminal
Speaker 55
11:03
offense to it and and just so I'm clear on this after they've served this I guess this period
Speaker 56
11:09
in which they cannot take the test is there any further record kept or once they pass the test is it is it erased we are if I'd like
Major Les
Unverified
11:20
Like Monte Pryde, he's our project coordinator and he would administrate on the driver's license permit, we would show that they had been administratively barred from taking the test. Please state your name for the record. I'm Monte Pryde. I'm
Speaker 63
11:42
the driver's license, commercial driver's license coordinator for the state police. You recognize. Can I answer this question?
MR. Okay. Once they're, say they have a, they got caught the first time, 45 days suspension, which means they cannot take the test for 45 days. After that, they pass their test, they're good to go. We're not, you know, going to pursue it past that unless they're caught a second time cheating on the test, and then the penalty would be 90 days. But there's no permanent record. Once they've served their days and they've passed the test, then we're good to go.
Speaker 55
12:25
This wouldn't show up on any type of future background check. That's my concern. No, sir. We do have a lot of young kids taking tests, and sometimes kids do things that aren't very smart. And I just want to be clear as to the extent of what that punishment is, and I appreciate y'all's
Mr. Shepard. Mr. Nichols, you recognize? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Matthew was a shepherd, I think, was inquiring about his
age group, and I'm going to inquire about Representative Summers and Representative Walker and my age group on driver's license examinations, and that is I've heard that some folks, we all have to take the eye test, right, when we get our license renewed, is that correct? Yes. Yes, that's correct. And the older we are, some of our eyesight is failing, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Do you have a problem with people within our age group having somebody memorize the eye
exam and then passing it on so that that person can, is that examination covered in this law? And if it is not, should it be? It is
Speaker 75
13:47
currently. No, it would not be covered. And, you know,
Major Les
Unverified
13:50
I've never known anybody that cheated on the eye test. And, no, I
Speaker 79
13:59
don't think it should be covered. I wish I could say that. Thank you.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:12
Mr. Steele, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What would be the process here for a, I guess I won't say defendant, but a test taker who is accused of using a mobile device or otherwise cheating on a driver's test to exonerate himself? Would there be some kind of administrative hearing? What opportunity would this person have to
raise a defense? What we'd like to do is,
Major Les
Unverified
14:42
through the rules of the department, is they could appeal that
to the troop commander and sit down, and he would take a look at the situation, and he would have the authority to overrule that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Summers, I want to follow up on that question. Is that in the bill anywhere? I don't see anywhere in here that talks about that administrative procedures
process. No, and that's something we had discussed internally about if they are cheating. Is there some type of undercurrently?
Major Les
Unverified
15:17
No, there is not. There's no provision for the rules in that.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:31
Something we probably should add. We'll come back. Mr. Walker? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a slight problem with trying to enact a
law for everything that comes to man that could be a possible violation of somebody's value system or even law.
Can you therefore tell me, for my information, of the evidence that presently exists of the number of cheaters that you all have been able to identify in the last six months who would be covered by this bill? No, sir, I
don't have any data. No data at all? So what
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:19
you're dealing with is a possibility of a problem rather than the reality of a problem.
In the past, we do. Is that right? It's the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:38
rather than the reality of a
problem? I can't answer that yes or no. Now, I have several others. With respect to cheating on exams before the era of electronics, do you have any rules
that govern how long people must wait for
before they can take an exam after cheating in the past. Do you have any rules regarding that?
Major Les
Unverified
17:07
The reason for the bill was we were kind of a hodgepodge on that, depending, and we were trying to get uniform that we would say that across the state we'd go first to fence 45, but we can say the next day, 30 days, 90 days, and that's what the intent of this
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:25
bill is for. All right. Well, can you tell me what the information is that the statistics are that demonstrate
the number of people in history who have committed fraud in the taking of exams? No,
and that's a very good question. The only way I can answer it is until we had the capability of electronic testing, there was really no way that we could gather that data in a uniform method. Now we are capable of doing that, which has presented the other problem when
Major Les
Unverified
17:52
people cheat on tests, we can now flag them, and we could track that data at this point. Well, I'm
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:58
trying to understand why you would come before us or anybody and try to address
the issue of cheating on tests when there is no evidence of cheating on tests that constitutes
a problem of any public magnitude. People do.
Speaker 73
18:17
I don't have the data to back that up, but we do encounter that. Well,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:22
people cheat in everything. I mean, they cheat on IRS. They cheat on DFA. They cheat on coming to this body and saying that they're here at a time when they aren't. We sign in for people who aren't here.
I mean, do you want to just make it unlawful for people to cheat? I mean, if we want to do that, maybe I'd have a bill that anybody who
Speaker 47
18:47
cheats should be put in an electronic system. What
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:50
do you think? On anything. I couldn't answer that, sir. Now, my second question, next question, is you have any, I guess an
Speaker 101
18:59
officer makes a determination that somebody has cheated. Is that right? A driver's license examiner, yes, sir.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:05
Is there any notice provision to the people taking the tests that if they do something that offends the particular test giver that they may be deprived of the right to get a driver's license for 45 or maybe 90 days? Is there anything in writing to provide that information to the test taker in this bill? No, sir. Don't you think that a person who's faced with some penalty for an offense, you use the term offense, so to me that means a crime eventually, if not now,
that a person ought to be on notice of what the possibilities are that he or she may be deprived of an essential right to earn a living, perhaps like driving a car or to go to school or to travel? Don't you think they should at least be given some notice in advance if they're going to be facing a penalty? We could provide
Major Les
Unverified
20:02
that information through driver's license testings manuals and post that at the testing site, yes, sir. But you agree
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:08
that this bill doesn't give that notice?
That is correct. I see. You think this is a bill
Major Les
Unverified
20:18
that's ready to be presented, really? I think it is. I
think it allows the state police to, across the board, administrate it fairly. our intent is not to make people criminals. It's to provide some mechanism for us to, in a fair, uniform method, to say if you're caught cheating
Major Les
Unverified
20:36
on a test, this is what's going to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:39
happen. But each officer who gives the test is
in a position to use his own rules
in determining whether a person has been cheating. Isn't that
correct? That would be correct, yes. So that means that you have for each, I guess there are maybe a hundred
or so people who give these tests. I hope so. There's 42. 42. That means you have at least 42 people being able to promulgate their own rules and to apply them as they see fit without any notice to the public of what their personal rules are which reside or repose only in their minds.
Sir, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think this helps us on the rules about what happens if you're
Major Les
Unverified
21:27
testing. Now, I understand the question you're asking me is how do we determine what cheating is. I think that's what
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:34
you're asking me. Well, no, I'm just asking about a lot of things. I mean, the fundamental right of people is to know what they're facing before they are imposed with a penalty. And another fundamental right is to know that there's a process, as I think Representative
Steele mentioned, for determining whether or not a public decision maker has taken action that may be unlawful. And another right is to have an appeal process, especially if a person is deprived of something that the government intends to confer as a benefit. So I think it's a premature bill, but I don't see why it's necessary because you don't have any statistics at all to show that it's necessary
or that there is any reason to tell me with what you have. But having said that, my position is clear, and I don't need to ask any more questions. And I thank
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
22:36
you, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Steele? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, back to my age group, Representative Nichols, I could foresee a situation where Timmy Bopper is taking a test and text messaging his girlfriend and gets accused of cheating on the test. And I guess I have the same concern I had a while ago.
I wonder, I have so much respect for Representative Nichols that I, I mean, I'm sorry,
Speaker 13
23:02
Representative. I don't have any respect for Representative
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
23:07
Nichols. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me. The Senate spoke for Representative Summers that I sure wouldn't want to vote against this bill just on something like that. But would you all consider maybe coming up with some kind of process where someone could defend themselves, maybe consider amending, adding some language where I understand Representative
Walker's concerns that it might be a little bit arbitrary in deciding who's cheating and who's not or who's just texting their girlfriend. So I wonder if y'all would consider maybe just adding some language to give people the opportunity to defend themselves if they're accused of cheating on these
tests before they go into an electronic database and have
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
23:48
to be put off for six months or so. If it's the committee's desire, certainly we can go back and address these. I think we're making a fairly simple process, fairly complex, basically the legal community here.
no one else has spoken against it, and guys, there's consequences when you do the wrong thing. Having said that, we'll be glad to pull it down and rewrite it. Well, to be clear, I can
Speaker 108
24:13
completely understand why this legislation may be necessary. I can understand why we want some uniformity statewide, and
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
24:19
I think it probably is necessary. My only concern is that I'd like an opportunity to defend myself if I was accused of cheating, And I'm just wondering if you might add some language that tells us how someone could do that.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:34
Before you answer it, Representative Summers, have you decided
you're going to pull this bill down and bring it back to us? Is that your decision? No, sir. Let's run it. That's not your decision? Okay, so you're not pulling it down. All right, we'll
Major Les
Unverified
24:50
go right ahead. Do you want to answer his question? Currently, we have signs and a process in place in each testing center that you're not allowed to take your phone in there. So if they're in there and they're on a phone, that could be construed as cheating. So they shouldn't have a phone in there, period.
Speaker 62
25:05
Okay. That satisfies some of my concerns. Thank
Speaker 110
25:12
you. Let's see. I think Representative Deffenbaugh was next. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 111
25:17
Chairman. I hope this is not a redundant question, but you all have caught people cheating, apparently, through the years on a different testing process, I assume. That's correct. I taught school for many years. I had a pretty simple method of catching them cheating.
I saw them. I don't know how else. You don't have to be tricky there. I figure your 42 people that you've assigned to that, I'm sure they're intelligent enough to figure out if they're cheating or not. So I don't have any problem with that. And also, if we don't do this, am I correct in assuming that it's still going to leave the door open for people to just take a shot at cheating a lot more than they would if we enacted that bill?
Speaker 52
26:14
There is currently no consequence for cheating. If you walk in, you could feasibly
Major Les
Unverified
26:19
go down the road and take it two hours later at
another testing site. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Deffenbaugh.
Speaker 111
26:30
Representative Rice, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact that there are rules
Speaker 15
26:35
that were posted was answered. I'll just have a motion at the proper time, I think. Thank you, Representative Rice.
Representative Nichols, you recognize? Yes, I'd like to maybe follow up the line that Representative Walker was going about.
We passed a lot of laws out here, and does this need to be part of our code? Could it not? I would assume that you have rulemaking authority within the state police. You're charged with administering the driver's license exam, and why do you need a legislative penalty structure to give you the authority to deal with this problem?
That's a concern that I have, that I would assume you have enough authority. I mean, if you can keep somebody from coming back from to where they were, quote, caught cheating, It seems to me you also have the authority to keep them from going to another site through your electronic notification system. But you do deal with it, but you just deal with it in, what did you say, 14 different ways or 14 different sites and you're trying to pull it all together.
Why can't you pull it together just your rulemaking process? Why do we need a state law for this?
There are certain things we have authority to do. I'm not aware of any law or statute that gives us the authority to govern the rules on that.
Major Les
Unverified
28:13
I might get our attorney up here to answer that one for me, if that would
Speaker 76
28:20
be okay. Well, I think you did say, though, that
they just drive down the road, so I'd assume you're using some authority not to allow them to continue taking the test at that particular site.
So to me, if you have the authority not to let them continue at that site, you also have the authority to notify all the other testing centers that they may go to that this person should not be allowed to take the test under your rules.
There is no mechanism in place to prevent someone from doing what they're doing. If they take that test and they cheat, there's nothing I can do to stop them from going down the road. And if this has become a problem, not of great magnitude, but it comes up every once in a while,
why are you preventing me from taking this test? And there's nothing I can do to stop them. The intent of
Speaker 75
29:13
the bill was to give us some authority under the law or some rules in
the law that says we can do that. My concern is you can call it whatever you want, but it's still a sanction by the state. and denying somebody a license. And there are certain due process standards, I think, that have to be recognized,
and that would include a hearing. And I don't think your bill covers that. He was saying
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
29:49
something. He wasn't asking the
question. Any response to that? No response? Representative Gilliam, you recognize? Thank
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
29:58
you, Mr. Chairman. I've got about three questions here, one of which I think may kind of ease Representative Steele's concerns, hopefully.
Is this in any way going to be retroactive to where Representative Steele can lose his license since he cheated? Can he lose his license if this bill is passed? No. Okay. Okay. Going back to the cheating aspects, are the officers who were administering the test, are they armed at the time of the
Major Les
Unverified
30:33
test? These are not officers. These are civilian personnel driver's license examiners. Do we think
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
30:38
maybe cheating might be lessened if you went ahead and let armed officers give the test?
Major Les
Unverified
30:44
I have given driver's license tests as a trooper when we did that with Univant. They still cheat. I
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
30:52
was far less likely to cheat when a gun was highly visible and present, but that's just a suggestion. My real question here at the end of this, though, is it true, maybe, or not, driving is a privilege. Is it not a
Speaker 105
31:09
God-given right that you have a driver's license test? These people can live without a driver's license for, you know, 45, 60 days, however you see fit.
Major Les
Unverified
31:21
It's always been my understanding by state law it's a privilege granted to you by the state of Arkansas.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
31:35
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Walker. But I understand also that education is a privilege. It's not a right. You agree with that, don't you? There's nothing in the state of Arkansas law that requires that people be provided education. But some privileges are so fundamental to doing things,
such as being able to travel the highways and get from point to point, that without a license, people may be impeded in their ability to obtain an education, which is a privilege, and to obtain access to health care and other things. And that's the
first thing. And the second thing, you have regulation power. Are you an administrator for the highway
Speaker 92
32:24
department? Sir, I'm a uniform division highway patrol and driver's license.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
32:28
Now, I have seen all kinds of regulations that you all have produced and distributed. And you all do regulations all the time, don't you? On certain things, yes. All right. Well, if you can do them on certain things and land with what Representative Seals said, I mean, why can't, maybe one of the other, Mr. Nichols said, why can't you do a regulation on how people can put themselves during the licensing process?
Speaker 99
33:01
Is there anything that prevents that from happening? Sir, if I could defer this to
Speaker 127
33:14
Lieutenant Gentry. Okay, make sure I get that microphone working. I'm Lieutenant Cora
Speaker 128
33:16
Gentry with the Arkansas State Police. Could you state your question again? As far as travel, the right to travel? No,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
33:23
no, no. All those things, I mean, I was going to the point of this being a privilege rather than a right. And in Arkansas, we don't have too many rights.
Most of the things we have are privileges. It's the right to live. I mean, I guess we have a right to live, but that's a privilege
as well. Now, a point to you is that you have regulation authority, don't you
Speaker 130
33:48
not? Yes, sir, over certain things. You grant us the regulation authority over certain things. It's our understanding we do not have regulation authority over this specific
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
33:57
area. You all do not regulate the time, place, and means of testing people for driver's license?
Speaker 133
34:04
We do not issue that in regulations. That is the operation of
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:08
the agency. Well, it's operation, but by operation, that's like a regulation. You set up the driver's
license exams that are given on certain days at certain places by certain people under certain rules. You do that now by regulation, don't
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:25
of the agency. What's the difference between an operation lieutenant and a regulation? A regulation goes
Speaker 133
34:31
through the administrative review process to where we do a public notice, we have a public hearing.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:36
We have time for comment. Well, why can't you do that if it's a regulation? I'm not
Speaker 133
34:42
talking about complicated. We can do that here, but we don't feel we have the authority to do it. If you give us the authority
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:50
to do it, we can. Well, why don't you just say that we don't have the authority and it's a question and then just ask the Attorney General
to give you an opinion on it other than continuing to put more laws and more penalties. You've got penalties in this
Speaker 130
35:04
bill, haven't you? There are consequences of being caught cheating, yes.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
35:07
Do you not agree that when a penalty is provided that that has a tendency to bring into play due process rights? Yes, and as we stated, that they will be
Speaker 130
35:16
given notice of what their rights are in an appeal and be given notice before they take the test. Well, you're going
Speaker 133
35:21
to do that by regulation, aren't you? No, sir. That will be by operation of the agency. Well, let me understand
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
35:29
this. Since you're going to tell people they have a right to appeal by operation of the agency, why can't you do this by operation of the agency?
Speaker 133
35:36
Because we don't feel that we have the statutory authority to do this by operation of the agency.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
35:42
All right. Representative, if you want to take this forward, this will be an interesting opportunity for debate
on the floor, which I don't think is, I mean, you may even win, but it just does not, It doesn't look like or sound like or even smell like a necessary bill, a fair bill, or a good bill, in my opinion. Lieutenant Ginger, let me follow up while you're
there. Yes. I have a couple of concerns about what's not in the bill.
You think you do not have administrative proceeding authority to do this administratively. That's your testimony, correct? That's our testimony, yes. But you can impose a – or you can do certain things by operation of the law. Yet in your bill, there's nothing in here to give you – you're not even requesting administrative procedures authority. And I'm really more concerned with what Mr. Steele was talking about, an ability to appeal. If someone wants to
appeal that process, you've not asked for – since you don't think you have the authority,
you've not asked for that authority for an appeal process. So if you can't
Speaker 128
36:51
do that by administration – That appeal authority will happen by operation of law. Because we deny the
Speaker 130
36:56
person or because we say we have caught you cheating, the Administrative Procedures Act will automatically
kick in, whether we have it in this law or not. Boy, I'm real confused
now. So you have the Administrative Procedure Authority to give someone an appeal right, but you don't even have
Speaker 130
37:16
the authority to do this unless we give you this. That's our understanding. And where it comes from is that DF&A has the authority to do certain things if people are caught doing fraud in the application process.
Speaker 133
37:29
By virtue of they have to have the law to do that in the application process, we would
Speaker 130
37:37
also have the parallel authority to do that in the testing process. That was the reasoning behind having this bill.
And under the APA, certain notices are required under the APA. That's correct. If you
Speaker 130
37:48
do certain things with licenses, then certain notices are required. So
it's your testimony that you can handle an appeal right by operational law, which does not require any notice at all?
Speaker 130
38:01
We can give a notice of appeal by operation of law whenever we deny the license, And that
Speaker 133
38:09
does not require that to be in the bill. That will happen by, like I said, operation of law. Is anyone here from
Speaker 149
38:18
the AG's office? Having been the chief deputy in the
AG's office and run the office, I don't see anyone here. I would beg to differ with your interpretation of that. I'm not really looking for an opinion, but they have
a whole division of lawyers who represent civil agencies
who work under the Administrative Procedures Act, and it's not me, and I didn't do that, but this just does not appear to be what I remember or to be correct. And I hate to challenge you, but I
Speaker 142
38:44
just don't think that's correct. We can add a section that gives us the authority to
also do rules and regulations in this area. I think that would give me a whole lot more comfort because in that process, that you would spell out exactly what your procedures are going to
Speaker 133
38:58
be, and we'd have notice of that and people would know that. And one of the reasons why we were so detailed in this, but that we wanted to be transparent as to what state police's intent was if you were caught in fraud with a driver's license test.
Would you rather we do this in rules? Well, I don't think the rules-making process is necessarily any less transparent because they have
to come before a legislative body. They have to be voted on. They actually have to be out in the public for a certain period of time. So I think that's also a transparent process. I'm just concerned that you're not getting yourself the authority to promulgate those rules, which I think will be allowed to implement this law that you are asking us to create. That's my concern. Okay, I understand. And I thought, and with all due respect to you, Mr. Summers, you were leaning toward pulling it down, and I was going to talk to you privately about fixing that
because I think that you've got a little concern here, and I would suggest the AG's office get involved here and help with some, because they're going to be the ones who are giving you advice
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
39:53
also on some of these issues. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it's the wish of the state police then to pull it down, and we've been to Benville, we've been to Memphis, we've been all over the state on a simple question and obviously the committee has asked good questions on it. We'll bring it back and take another run at it. Mr. Summers
I appreciate that. I think we can fix that decision. I appreciate you pulling it down for more consideration. Thank you. Next on our list is is House Bill 1449. Ms. Slinkert, are you prepared to run that bill? You are recognized. We're going to skip over the other two.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
40:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This is a little old bill to amend the Arkansas Code having to do with certified copies of the affidavit for collection of a small estate. This bill will make the fee for a certified copy of the affidavit to be consistent with The other schedule of fees that's set out in another section of the code, it's actually
21-6-14, which sets out a $5 filing fee, excuse me, certified fee for all certified copies of various documents in the county and probate clerk's office. This will just the county and probate court clerks have the power to take acknowledgments, administer oaths, issues, notices, and process, and certify copies of instruments, documents,
and records of the court. This bill would simply make this fee consistent with the other schedule of fees in the other section of the law. I
Speaker 148
42:10
would appreciate a favorable vote. Thank you. I'll take questions. Thank you, Representative Slinkert. Members, any questions? Seeing none. to speak
for or against this bill? Seeing no one, Committee, what's the – Representative Rogers? A motion by Representative Rogers if it do pass. Any questions or discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of House Bill 1449 indicate by saying
aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Ms. Slinkert. You passed your
bill. Thank you. Thank you, Committee. Representative Powers, would you like to run 1456 House bill 1456 members
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
43:13
More like Representative Schlinkert than Representative Summers. This is a tough crowd. Let me just say this is a simple bill that I believe we are going to strengthen part of the juvenile code. And at this point in time, any time a juvenile is detained, there's a 72-hour period that we have to,
or I as an intake officer have 24 hours if I want to release that young man that's been arrested. And past that, we have to have a juvenile hearing within 72 hours. Now, if, in fact, we have a juvenile hearing and the judge detains that juvenile, There's a 24-hour period after that that the prosecuting attorney's office has to file a delinquency petition. And a lot of times we run into time frames that are unavoidable with the courthouse being open
and other problems that we run into. This has always been understood, but what this does is just spell it out in the code that if that 96 hours falls on a weekend or a holiday that the work will be done by the next business day or that juvenile will be released because of an administrative failure on the part of the prosecuting attorney's office or the intake office. So it's doing nothing more than spelling out and putting into strict language what those of us in the juvenile world already know.
And that is the gist of this bill. I don't think the only ones that could possibly talk against it would be the juveniles in jail that wanted to get out that weekend. So I don't think there's anything difficult or
I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you,
Speaker 76
45:12
Mr. Powers. Members, any questions? Representative Walker. Mr. Walker, before you start asking questions, remember how many times I've pressed
Speaker 131
45:19
that yellow button for you. Well, you do good for me.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
45:26
I just have a concern, though. In Tinker v. Des
Moines, the Supreme Court took pain to say that, I believe, children should not be given greater hardships than adults. and in this it seems to allow incarceration of children for longer periods than adults would be incarcerated for simple things such as maybe taking a pencil from another student in school
or maybe using profanity or something like that a child has to spend five days in jail without bail while an adult would be given automatic bail right away and I'm concerned about there being a no bail provision in that it gives it punishes a child without, in fact gives more punishment for some offenses than the law would allow five days punishment some of these offenses they only have
fans or short penalties so how do you address that I'm just concerned about children not being treated more harshly than adults for the same offenses
that they may be accused of before they are found guilty of a crime. Well, I
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
46:50
simply would address it that I don't necessarily disagree with you that that may, and I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about. But I would tell you that this is the current code,
and what we've tried to do is just to clarify, as an example, That youth that we might arrest and keep in jail until a detention hearing, the judge has three days, or we have three days to set that detention hearing up. So at that time, the judge is going to make a decision whether to release that child or to keep him detained for various reasons, and it could be just like any other proceeding.
In my understanding of the juvenile code, we don't use bail. We use the judge's discretion to determine. Now, I will tell you that the vast majority of the time, my anecdotal evidence to you is simply the vast majority of the time, as long as things can be worked out and the parents will take responsibility, that child is released where I come from. But the issue you bring up is probably something that I could discuss with you at a later date,
but I don't think anything we're doing here is addressing that. We're not trying to address it. We are just simply trying to make sure, and there are some cases I would say this, and I'll give you this example. if we were to arrest a child or police were to arrest a child on Wednesday and we couldn't get a judge to hear this case until Friday afternoon. Then the law states that we have to have a petition filed within 24 hours
and, of course, you can't file a petition if the courthouse isn't open. So this simply clarifies that we will have that petition filed on the next business day. So philosophically, I may agree with what you're saying, but I certainly can't address it in its clarification language. Thank you. Mr. Powers,
does this bill just comport with current practice? That's correct, yes. All right. Representative Gillum.
Speaker 77
49:13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion at the
appropriate time. Any additional questions? Any one of the audience want to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Gilliam, you recognize? I move, do pass. That's a proper motion. Any questions or discussions? All those in favor
of Representative Gilliam's motion of do pass on House Bill 1456, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Gilliam. You look more like Ms. Slinkert.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
49:43
Thank you, members. I would like to put a side note in there, and I'm offended by Representative Nichols not including me and Mr. Walker and Mr. Summers' group as the old ones. I would also say if you can't read an eye chart, the odds of
Speaker 36
50:05
good. Anyone else here have a bill's run in additional business before our committee? I think everyone else is being deferred. Seeing no additional business for this committee, we are adjourned until Tuesday.
Agenda
HB1045
SB61
HB1410
HB1449
HB1456
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 23
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 35
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Major Les
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 52
Speaker 56
Speaker 63
Speaker 68
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 79
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 73
Speaker 47
Speaker 101
Speaker 13
Speaker 108
Speaker 62
Speaker 110
Speaker 111
Speaker 15
Speaker 76
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 105
Speaker 99
Speaker 127
Speaker 128
Speaker 130
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Speaker 149
Speaker 142
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 131
Speaker 77
Speaker 159
Speaker 36